The Works of the Rev. John Wesley




  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                                                                │
  │                      Transcriber’s Notes                       │
  │                                                                │
  │                                                                │
  │  Punctuation has been standardized.                            │
  │                                                                │
  │  Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in    │
  │  printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for   │
  │  easier reading.                                               │
  │                                                                │
  │  The author has used an asterisk (*) to indicate passages he   │
  │  considers most worthy of attention.                           │
  │                                                                │
  │  The text may show quotations within quotations, all set       │
  │  off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been    │
  │  changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.      │
  │                                                                │
  │  Non-printable characteristics have been given the following   │
  │      Italic text:             --> _text_                       │
  │        emphasized text within                                  │
  │           italics             --> |text|                       │
  │                                                                │
  │  This book was written in a period when many words had         │
  │  not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have     │
  │  multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in   │
  │  the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated     │
  │  with a Transcriber’s Note.                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has   │
  │  been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there    │
  │  is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image   │
  │  adequately.                                                   │
  │                                                                │
  │  Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript       │
  │  number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
  │  they appear.                                                  │
  │                                                                │
  │  Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the   │
  │  text or to provide additional information for the modern      │
  │  reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the     │
  │  text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which   │
  │  they appear.                                                  │
  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘




                                  THE

                                 WORKS

                                OF THE

                        Rev. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.

               Late Fellow of _Lincoln-College_, OXFORD.


                              VOLUME VI.


                               BRISTOL:

              Printed by WILLIAM PINE, in _Wine-Street_.

                              MDCCLXXII.




                                  THE
                               CONTENTS
                         Of the SIXTH VOLUME.


      An extract from Mr. LAW’s _Serious Call_ to a _Holy Life_.


                            CHAPTER XVIII.

  _Recommending devotion at three o’clock, called in scripture the
    |ninth hour| of the day. The subject of prayer at this hour
    may be |resignation| to the divine pleasure. The nature and
    duty of conformity to the will of God in all our actions and
    designs._


                             CHAPTER XIX.

  _Of the excellency and greatness of a devout spirit._


                An Extract from Mr. LAW’s Later Works.

  An extract from the case of reason, or natural religion, fairly
    and fully stated. In answer to a book, entitled _Christianity
    as Old as the Creation_.


  _The introduction, shewing the state of the controversy._


                              CHAPTER I.

  _Enquiring, whether there be any thing in the |nature| and
    |condition| of man, to |oblige| him to think, that he is not
    to admit of any doctrines or institutions, as revealed from
    God, but such as his own reason can prove to be necessary from
    the nature of things._


                              CHAPTER II.

  _Shewing from the |relation between God and man, that human
    reason cannot be a competent judge of the |fitness| and
    |reasonableness| of God’s proceedings with mankind, either
    as to the |time|, or |matter|, or |manner| of an external
    revelation_.


                             CHAPTER III.

  _Shewing how far human reason is able to judge of the
    reasonableness, truth, and certainty of divine revelation._


                              CHAPTER IV.

  _Of the state and nature of reason, as it is in man; and how its
    perfection in matters of religion is to be known._


                              CHAPTER V.

  _Shewing that all the |mutability| of our tempers, the
    |disorders| of our passions, the |corruption| of our
    hearts, all the |reveries| of the imagination, all the
    |contradictions| and |absurdities| that are to be found in
    human life, and human opinions, are in effect the mutability,
    disorders, corruption, and absurdities of |human reason|._


  An extract from Mr. LAW’s Serious Answer to Dr. ♦Trapp’s four
    sermons, on the sin, folly, and danger of being Righteous
    overmuch.


  Some animadversions upon Dr. ♦Trapp’s late reply.

    ♦ “Trap’s” replaced with “Trapp’s”


  A short but sufficient confutation of Bishop Warburton’s
    projected defence (as he calls it) of Christianity, in his
    divine legation of Moses in a letter to the Right Reverend the
    Lord Bishop of London.


  Illustration: (‡ decoration)




                       An Extract from Mr. LAW’s
                             SERIOUS CALL
                            TO A HOLY LIFE.


                            CHAPTER XVIII.

  _Recommending devotion at three o’clock, called in scripture the
    |ninth hour| of the day. The subject of prayer at this hour
    may be |resignation| to the divine pleasure. The nature and
    duty of conformity to the will of God in all our actions and
    designs._

1. * THERE is nothing _wise_, or _holy_, or _just_, but the _great
will_ of God. This is as strictly true as that nothing is infinite and
eternal but God.

* No beings therefore, whether in heaven or on earth, can be wise, or
holy, or just, but so far as they conform to _this will_ of God. It
is conformity to this will, that gives virtue and perfection to the
highest services of angels in heaven; and it is conformity to the
same will, that makes the ordinary actions of men on earth become an
acceptable service to God.

* The whole nature of virtue consists in conforming, and the whole
nature of vice in declining from the will of God. All God’s creatures
are created to fulfil his will; the _sun_ and _moon_ obey his will,
by the necessity of their nature; _angels_ conform to his will, by the
perfection of their nature: if therefore you would shew yourself not
to be a _rebel_ and _apostate_ from the order of the creation, you must
act like beings both above and below you; it must be the great desire
of your soul, that God’s will may be done by you on earth, as it is
done in heaven. It must be the settled purpose of your heart, to _will_
nothing, _design_ nothing, _do_ nothing, but so far as you have reason
to believe, it is the will of God.

2. ’Tis as necessary to think thus of God and yourself, as to think
that you have any dependance upon him. And it is as great a rebellion
against God, to think that your will may ever differ from his, as to
think that you have not received the power of _willing_ from him.

You are therefore to consider yourself as a being, that has no other
business in the world, but to be that which God requires you to be;
to have no tempers, no rules, no designs of your own, but to fill
some _place_, and act some _part_ in strict conformity, and thankful
resignation to the divine pleasure.

To think that you are your own, or at your own disposal, is as absurd
as to think that you created yourself. It is as plain that you are thus
God’s, that you thus belong to him, and are to act and suffer all in
thankful resignation to his pleasure, as that in him you _live, and
move, and have your being_.

3. * _Resignation_ to the divine will, signifies a chearful approbation,
and thankful acceptance of every thing that comes from God. It is not
enough patiently to submit, but we must thankfully receive, and fully
approve of every thing, that by the order of God’s providence, happens
to us.

* For there is no reason why we should be patient, but what is as
strong a reason why we should be thankful. If we were under the hands
of a wise and good _physician_ that could not mistake, or do any thing
to us, but what tended to our benefit; it would not be enough to be
patient, and abstain from murmuring against such a physician; it would
be as much a breach of gratitude, not to be thankful for what he did,
as it would be to murmur at him.

* Now this is our true state with relation to God; we cannot be said so
much as to _believe_ in him, unless we believe him to be of _infinite
wisdom_. Every argument therefore for patience under his disposal of
us, is as strong an argument for thankfulness. And there needs no more
to dispose us to this gratitude towards God, than a full belief in him,
that he is this being of infinite wisdom, love and goodness.

Do but fully assent to this truth, and then you will cheerfully approve
of every thing that God has already approved for you.

When you are satisfied that God does not only do that which is wise,
and good, but which is the effect of infinite wisdom, and love in the
care of you; it will be as necessary to be pleased with every thing
which God chuses for you, as to wish your own happiness.

4. Whenever therefore you find yourself disposed to _murmuring_, at
any thing that is the effect of God’s providence over you, you must
look upon yourself as _denying_ either the wisdom or goodness of God.
For every complaint supposes this. You would never complain of your
_neighbour_, but that you suppose you can shew either his _unwise_,
_unjust_, or _unkind_ behaviour towards you.

Now every impatient reflection under the providence of God, is the same
accusation of God. A complaint always supposes _ill usage_.

Hence you may see the great necessity of this thankful state of heart,
because the want of it implies an accusation of God’s want either of
wisdom, or goodness in his disposal of us. It is not therefore any high
degree of perfection, founded in any uncommon _nicety_ of thinking, but
a plain principle founded in this plain belief, that God is a being of
infinite wisdom and goodness.

5. This resignation to the divine will, may be considered in two
respects: _first_, As it signifies a thankful approbation of God’s
_general_ providence over the world: _secondly_, As it signifies a
thankful acceptance of his _particular_ providence over us.

* _First_, Every man is, by the first article of his creed, obliged to
acknowledge the wisdom and goodness of God, in his _general providence_
over the world. He is to believe that it is the effect of God’s
great wisdom and goodness, that the world itself was formed at such a
particular time, and in such a manner: that the general order of nature,
the whole frame of things, is contrived and formed in the best manner.
He is to believe that God’s providence over states and kingdoms, times
and seasons, is all for the best: that the revolutions of state, and
changes of empire, the rise and fall of monarchies, persecutions,
wars, famines and plagues, are all permitted, and conducted by God’s
providence, to the general good of man in this state of trial.

A good man is to believe all this, with the same fullness of assent, as
he believes that God is in every place, tho’ he neither sees, nor can
comprehend the manner of his presence.

* This is a noble magnificence of thought, a true greatness of mind, to
be thus affected with God’s general providence, admiring and magnifying
his wisdom in all things; never murmuring at the course of the world,
or the state of things, but looking upon all around, at heaven and
earth, as a pleased spectator; and adoring that invisible hand, which
gives laws to all motions, and over-rules all events to ends suitable
to the highest wisdom and goodness.

6. It is very common for people to allow themselves great liberty in
finding fault with such things, as have only God for their cause.

* Every one thinks he may justly say, what a _wretched, abominable
climate_ he lives in. This man is frequently telling you, what a
_dismal, cursed_ day it is, and what intolerable _seasons_ we have.
Another thinks it is hardly worth his while to live in a world so full
of changes and revolutions. But these are tempers of great impiety, and
shew that religion has not yet its seat in the heart.

It sounds indeed much better to murmur at the course of the world, than
to murmur at providence; to complain of the seasons and weather, than
to complain of God; but if these have no other cause but God, it is a
poor excuse to say, that you are only angry at the things, but not at
the cause and director of them.

How _sacred_ the whole frame of the world is, how all things are to
be considered as God’s, and referred to him, is fully taught by our
blessed Lord in the case of _oaths_: _But I say unto you, swear not at
all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for
it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the
great king; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst
not make one hair white or black_, Matthew v. 37. That is, because the
whiteness or blackness of thy hair is not thine, but God’s.

* Here you see all things in the whole order of nature, from the
highest heavens to the smallest hair, are to be considered, not
separately as they are in themselves, but as in some relation to God.
And if this be good reasoning, thou shalt not swear by the _earth_, a
_city_, or thy _hair_, because these things are God’s, and in a certain
manner belong to him; is it not the same reasoning to say, Thou shalt
not murmur at the _seasons_ of the earth, the _states_ of cities, and
the change of _times_, because all these things are in the hands of God,
have him for their author, are directed and governed by him to such
ends as are most suitable to his wise providence?

* For whoso murmurs at the course of the world, murmurs at God that
governs the course of the world. Whoso repines at _seasons_ and
_weather_, and speaketh impatiently of times and events, repines and
speaks impatiently of God, who is the sole Lord and Governor of _times_,
_seasons_, and _events_.

7. * As therefore when we think of God himself, we are to have no
sentiments but of praise and thanksgiving; so when we look at those
things which are under the direction of God, we are to receive them
with the same tempers.

* And tho’ we are not to think all things right, and just, and lawful,
which the providence of God permits; for then nothing could be unjust,
because nothing is without his permission; yet we must adore God in the
greatest public calamities, the most grievous persecutions, as things
that are suffered by God, like _plagues_ and _famines_, for ends
suitable to his wisdom and glory in the government of the world.

* There is nothing more suitable to the piety of a reasonable creature,
or the spirit of a Christian, than thus to approve, admire, and glorify
God in all the acts of his general providence; considering the whole
world as his particular family, and all events as directed by his
wisdom.

* Every one seems to consent to this, as an undeniable truth, _That
all things must be as God pleases_. And is not this enough to make
every man pleased with them himself? And how can a man be a peevish
complainer of any thing that is the effect of providence, but by
shewing that his own _will_ and _wisdom_ are of more weight with him,
than the will and wisdom of God? And what can religion be said to have
done for a man, whose heart is in this state?

For if he cannot thank and praise God as well in calamities and
sufferings, as in prosperity and happiness, he is as far from the piety
of a Christian, as he that only loves them that love him, is from the
charity of a Christian. For to thank God only for such things as you
like, is no more a proper act of piety, than to believe only what you
see, is an act of faith.

8. Thus much concerning resignation to the divine will, as it signifies
a thankful approbation of God’s _general providence_: it is now
to be considered, as it signifies a _thankful_ acceptance of God’s
_particular providence_ over us.

* Every man is to consider himself as a particular object of God’s
providence, under the same care and protection of God, as if the
world had been made for him alone. It is not by chance that any man
is born at such a _time_, of such _parents_, and in such _place_ and
_condition_. It is as certain, that every _soul_ comes into the body at
such a time, and in such circumstances, by the express _designment_ of
God, according to _some purposes_ of his will, and for some _particular
ends_; this is as certain, as that it is by the express designment of
God, that some beings are _angels_, and others are _men_.

9. The scriptures assure us, it was by divine appointment, that our
blessed Saviour was born at _Bethlehem_, and at such a time. Now altho’
it was owing to the dignity of his person, and the great importance
of his birth, that thus much of the divine counsel was declared to the
world concerning the time and manner of it; yet we are as sure from
the same scriptures, that the _time_ and _manner_ of every man’s coming
into the world, is according to the _direction_ of divine providence,
and in _such time_, and _place_, and _circumstances_, as are directed
and governed by God for _particular ends_ of his wisdom and goodness.

This we are as certain of from plain revelation, as we can be of any
thing. * For if we are told, that not a _sparrow falleth to the ground
without our heavenly Father_, Can any thing more strongly teach us,
that much greater beings, such as human souls, come not into the world
without the care and direction of our heavenly Father? If it is said,
_The very hairs of your head are all numbered_, Is it not to teach us,
that nothing, not the _smallest_ things imaginable, happen to us by
_chance_? But if the smallest things we can conceive, are declared
to be under the divine direction, need we, or can we be more plainly
taught, that the greatest things of life, such as the _manner_ of
our coming into the world, our _parents_, the _time_, and other
_circumstances_ of our birth, and condition, are all according to
the _direction_, and _appointment_ of divine providence.

10. When the disciples put this question to our blessed Lord concerning
the blind man, _Master, Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he
was born blind?_ He made this answer, _Neither hath this man sinned,
nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest
in him_, John ix. 2, 3. plainly declaring, that the particular
circumstances of every man’s birth, the body that he receives, and
the state of life into which he is born, are appointed by a secret
providence, which directs all things to their particular _times_, and
_seasons_, and _manner_ of existence, that the wisdom and works of God
may be made manifest in them all.

As therefore it is certain, that all that is particular in our state,
is the effect of God’s particular providence over us, and intended for
some particular ends, both of his glory and our own happiness, we are,
by the greatest obligations, called upon to resign our will to the will
of God in all these respects; thankfully approving and accepting every
thing that is particular in our state; praising and glorifying his name
for our birth of such _parents_, and in such _circumstances_; being
fully assured, that it was for some reasons of infinite wisdom and
goodness, that we were so born into such particular states of life.

11. If the man above-mentioned was born blind, that the _works of God
might be manifested in him_, had he not great reason to praise God, for
appointing him in such a particular manner to be the instrument of his
glory? And if one person is born _here_, and another _there_; if one
falls amongst _riches_, and another into _poverty_; if one receives
his flesh and blood from these _parents_, and another from those, for
as particular ends as the man was born blind; have not all people the
greatest reason to bless God, and to be thankful for their particular
state and condition, because all that is particular in it, is as
directly intended for the glory of God, and their own good, as the
_particular blindness_ of that man, who was so born, that the _works
of God might be manifested in him_?

* How noble an idea does this give us of the divine omniscience,
presiding over the whole world, and governing such a long chain
and combination of seeming accidents, to the common and particular
advantage of all beings? So that all persons, in such a wonderful
variety of causes and events, should fall into such particular states,
as were foreseen and fore-ordained to their best advantage, and so
as to be most serviceable to the wise and glorious ends of God’s
government of all the world!

12. * Had you been any thing else than what you are, you had, all
things considered, been less wisely provided for than you are now; you
had wanted some circumstances that are best fitted to make you happy
yourself, and serviceable to the glory of God.

* Could you see all that which God sees, all that happy chain of causes
and motives which are to move and invite you to a right course of life,
you would see something to make you like that state you are in, as
fitter for you than any other.

* But as you cannot see this, so it is here that your _trust_ in God
is to exercise itself, and render you as thankful for the happiness of
your state, as if you saw every thing that contributes to it with your
own eyes.

* But now, if this is the case of every man in the world, thus blessed
with some particular state that is most convenient for him, how
reasonable is it for every man to will that which God has already
willed for him? And by a trust in the divine goodness, thankfully adore
that wise providence, which he is sure has made the best choice for him
of those things which he could not chuse for himself.

13. Every uneasiness at our own state, is founded upon comparing it
with that of other people; which is full as unreasonable, as if a man
in a _dropsy_ should be angry at those that prescribe different things
to him, from those which are prescribed to people in _health_. For
all the different states of _life_ are like the different states of
_diseases_; and what is a remedy to one man, may be poison to another.

* So that to murmur because you are not as some others are, is as if a
man in one disease should murmur that he is not treated like him that
is in another; whereas, if he was to have his will, he would be killed
by that which will prove the cure of another.

* It is just thus in the various conditions of life; if you complain at
any thing in your state, you may, for ought you know, be so ungrateful
to God, as to murmur at that very thing which is to prove the cause of
your salvation.

Had you it in your power to get that which you think it so grievous to
want, it might perhaps be that very thing which would expose you to
eternal damnation.

* So that, whether we consider the infinite goodness of God, that
cannot chuse amiss for us, or our own great ignorance of what is most
♦advantageous to us, there can be nothing so reasonable, as to have
no will but that of God’s, and desire nothing for ourselves, in our
_persons_, our _state_, and _condition_, but that which the good
providence of God appoints us.

    ♦ “adtageous” replaced with “advantageous”

14. * Farther, as the good providence of God introduces us into the
world, into such states and conditions as are most convenient for us;
so the same unerring wisdom orders all events and changes in the whole
course of our lives, in such a manner, as to render them the fittest
means to exercise and improve our virtue.

Nothing hurts us, nothing destroys us, but the ill use of that liberty
with which God has entrusted us.

* We are as sure that nothing happens to us by chance, as that the
world itself was not made by chance; we are as certain that all things
happen, and work together for our good, as that God is goodness itself.
So that a man has as much reason to _will_ every thing that happens to
him, because God wills it, as to think that is wisest which is directed
by infinite wisdom.

The providence of God is not more concerned in the government of
_night_ and _day_, and the variety of _seasons_, than in the common
course of events, that seem most to depend upon the meer wills of men.
So that it is as strictly right, to look upon all worldly changes,
all the various turns in your own life, to be the effects of divine
providence, as the rising and setting of the sun, or the alterations
of the seasons of the year. As you are therefore always to adore the
wisdom of God in the direction of these things; so it is the same
reasonable duty, always to magnify God, as an equal director of every
thing that happens to you in the course of your own life.

15. There is nothing that so powerfully governs the heart, as a true
sense of God’s _presence_; and nothing so constantly keeps us under a
lively sense of the presence of God, as this holy resignation, which
attributes every thing to him, and receives every thing as from him.

Could we see a _miracle_ from God, how would our thoughts be affected
with an holy awe and veneration of his presence! But if we consider
every thing as God’s doing, either by order or permission, we shall
then be affected with _common things_, as they would be who saw a
_miracle_.

For as there is nothing to affect you in a miracle, but as it is the
_action_ of God, and bespeaks his presence; so when you consider God,
as _acting_ in all things, and all events, then all things will become
venerable to you, like _miracles_, and fill you with the same awful
sentiments of the divine presence.

16. Now you must not reserve the exercise of this pious temper to any
particular times or occasions, or fancy how _resigned_ you will be to
God, if such or such trials should happen: for this is amusing yourself
with the _notion_ of resignation instead of the virtue itself.

Don’t therefore please yourself with thinking, how piously you would
act and submit to God in a _plague_, a _famine_, or _persecution_; but
be intent upon the perfection of the present day; and be assured, that
the best way of shewing a _true zeal_, is to make _little things_ the
occasions of _great piety_.

* Begin therefore in the smallest matters, and most ordinary occasions,
and accustom your mind to the daily exercise of this pious temper, in
the lowest occurrences of life. And when a _contempt_, an _affront_,
a little _injury_, _loss_, or _disappointment_, or the smallest events
of every day, continually raise your mind to God in proper acts of
resignation, then you may justly hope, that you shall be numbered
amongst those that are resigned, and thankful to God in the greatest
trials and afflictions.




                             CHAPTER XIX.

         _Of the excellency and greatness of a devout spirit._


1. I HAVE now finished what I intended in this treatise. I have
explained the nature of devotion, both as it signifies a life devoted
to God, and as it signifies a regular method of prayer. I have now
only to add a word or two in recommendation of a life governed by this
Spirit.

And because in this _polite_ age, we have so _lived away_ the spirit
of devotion, that many seem afraid even to be suspected of it,
imagining _great devotion_ to be great _bigotry_; that it is founded
in _ignorance_ and _poorness_ of spirit; and that _little_, _weak_, and
_dejected_ minds, are generally the greatest proficients in it.

It shall here be shewn, that great devotion is the _noblest_ temper of
the _greatest_ and _noblest_ souls; and that they who think it receives
any advantage from _ignorance_, are themselves entirely ignorant of the
nature of devotion, the nature of God, and the nature of themselves.

People of _fine parts_ and _learning_, or of great knowledge in
_worldly matters_, may perhaps think it hard to have their _want_ of
devotion charged upon their _ignorance_. But if they will be content
to be tried by reason and scripture, it may soon be made appear,
that a _want_ of devotion, wherever it is, either amongst the learned
or unlearned, is founded in _gross ignorance_, and the _greatest
blindness_ and _insensibility_ that can happen to a rational creature.

And that devotion is so far from being the effect of a _little_ and
_dejected_ mind, that it must and will be always _highest_ in the most
_perfect_ natures.

2. And _first_, Who reckons it a sign of a _poor, little_ mind, for a
man to be full of _reverence_ and _duty_ to his parents, to have the
truest _love_ and _honour_ for his _friend_, or to excel in the
_highest instances_ of gratitude to his benefactor?

Are not these tempers, in the _highest_ degree, in the most exalted and
perfect minds?

And yet what is _high devotion_, but the highest exercise of these
tempers, of _duty_, _reverence_, _love_, _honour_, and _gratitude_
to the amiable, glorious _parent_, _friend_, and _benefactor_ of all
mankind?

Is it a true greatness of mind, to reverence the authority of
your parents, to fear the displeasure of your friend, to dread the
reproaches of your benefactor; and must not this _fear_, and _dread_,
and _reverence_, be much more just, and reasonable, and honourable,
when they are in the _highest degree_ towards God?

So that as long as _duty_ to parents, _love_ to friends, and
_gratitude_ to benefactors, are thought great and honourable tempers,
devotion, which is nothing else but duty, love, and gratitude to God,
must have the highest place amongst our highest virtues.

If a _prince_, out of his _mere goodness_, should send you a pardon by
one of his _slaves_, would you think it a part of your duty to receive
the _slave_ with marks of _love_, _esteem_, and _gratitude_, for his
kindness of bringing you so great a gift, and at the same time think
it a _meanness_ and _poorness_ of spirit, to shew _love_, _esteem_, and
_gratitude_ to the prince, who of his own goodness freely sent you the
pardon?

And yet this would be as reasonable, as to suppose that love, esteem,
honour, and gratitude, are _noble tempers_, and instances of a _great
soul_, when they are paid to our fellow-creatures; but the effects of
a poor, ignorant mind, when they are paid to God.

3. Even that part of devotion which expresses itself in _sorrowful_
confessions, and _penitential_ tears of a broken and contrite heart,
is very far from being any sign of a _little_ and _ignorant_ mind.

For who does not acknowledge it an instance of an _ingenuous_,
_generous_, and _brave_ mind, to acknowledge a fault, and ask pardon
for any offence? And are not the _finest_ and _most improved_ minds,
the most remarkable for this excellent temper?

Is it not also allowed, that the _ingenuousness_ and _excellence_ of a
man’s spirit is much shewn, when his sorrow and indignation at himself
rises in proportion to the folly of his crime, and the _goodness_ and
_greatness_ of the person he has offended?

Now if things are thus, then the _greater_ any man’s mind is, the
more he _knows_ of God and himself, the more will he be disposed to
prostrate himself before God in all the _humblest acts_ and expressions
of repentance.

And the greater the _generosity_ and _penetration_ of his mind is,
the more will he indulge a _passionate, tender_ sense of God’s just
displeasure; and the more he knows of the greatness, the goodness, and
perfection of the divine nature, the fuller of shame and confusion will
he be at his own sins and ingratitude.

And on the other hand, the more _dull_ and _ignorant_ any soul is,
the more _base_ and _ungenerous_, the more _senseless_ it is of
the goodness of God, the more averse to _humble confession_ and
_repentance_.

Devotion therefore is so far from being best suited to _little,
ignorant_ minds, that a _true elevation_ of soul, a _lively sense_ of
honour, and _great knowledge_ of God and ourselves, are the greatest
helps that our devotion hath.

4. On the other hand, it shall be made appear, that _indevotion_ is
founded in the most excessive ignorance.

And, _first_, Our blessed Lord and his apostles were eminent instances
of great devotion. Now if we will grant, (as all Christians must grant)
that their great devotion was founded in a true knowledge of the nature
of devotion, the nature of God, and the nature of man, then it is plain,
that all those that are insensible of devotion, are in this excessive
state of ignorance; they neither know God, nor themselves, nor devotion.

Again, how comes it that most people have recourse to devotion, when
they are in sickness, distress, or fear of death? Is it not because
this state shews them _more_ of the want of God, and their own weakness,
than they perceive at other times? Is it not because their approaching
end, _convinces_ them of something which they did not _half perceive_
before?

Now if devotion, at these seasons, is the effect of a _better
knowledge_ of God and ourselves, then the neglect of devotion at other
times is owing to ignorance of God and ourselves.

5. Farther, as indevotion is ignorance, so it is the most _shameful_
ignorance, and such as is to be charged with the _greatest folly_.

This will fully appear to any one that considers by what rules we are
to judge of the excellency of any knowledge, or the shamefulness of any
ignorance.

Now _knowledge_ itself would be no _excellence_, nor ignorance any
_reproach_ to us, but that we are _rational_ creatures.

It follows plainly, that knowledge which is most _suitable_ to our
rational nature, and which most concerns us, as such, to know, is our
_highest, finest_ knowledge; and that ignorance which relates to things
that are most _essential_ to us, as rational creatures, and which we
are most concerned to know, is, of all others, the most _gross_ and
_shameful_ ignorance.

6. If a _gentleman_ should fancy that the _moon_ is no bigger than it
appears to the _eye_, that it shines with its _own light_, that all
the _stars_ are only so many spots of light; if after reading books of
_astronomy_, he should still continue in the same opinion, most people
would think he had but a poor apprehension.

But if the same person should think it better to provide for a _short
life_ here, than to prepare for a _glorious eternity_ hereafter;
that it was better to be _rich_, than to be _eminent_ in piety, his
_ignorance_ and _dulness_ would be too great to be compared to any
thing else.

That is the most clear and improved understanding, which _judges_ best
of the _value_ and _worth_ of things; all the rest is but the capacity
of an _animal_; it is but meer _seeing_ and _hearing_.

If a man had _eyes_ that could see beyond the _stars_, or pierce into
the heart of the earth, but could not see the things that were before
him, or discern any thing that was serviceable to him, we should reckon
that he had but a very _bad sight_.

If another had _ears_ that received sounds from the world in the _moon_,
but could hear nothing that was said or done upon earth, we should look
upon him to be as _bad_ as _deaf_.

In like manner, if a man has a _memory_ that can retain a great many
things, if he has a _wit_ that is _sharp_ and _acute_ in arts and
sciences, but has a _dull, poor_ apprehension of his _duty_ and
_relation_ to God, of the _value_ of piety, or the _worth_ of moral
virtue, he may very justly be reckoned to have a _bad understanding_.
He is but like the man that can only _see_ and _hear_ such things as
are of no benefit to him.

7. To proceed: We know how our blessed Lord acted in an human body;
it was _his meat and drink to do the will of his Father which is in
heaven_.

And if any number of heavenly spirits were to leave their habitations
in the light of God, and be for awhile united to human bodies, they
would certainly tend towards God in all their actions, and be as
heavenly as they could, in a state of flesh and blood.

They would certainly act in this manner, because they would know that
God was the _only good_ of all spirits; and that whether they were _in_
the body, or _out_ of the body, in _heaven_ or on _earth_, they must
have every degree of their greatness and happiness from God alone.

All human spirits therefore, the _more exalted_ they are, the more
they _know_ their divine original, the _nearer_ they come to heavenly
spirits, the more will they live to God in all their actions, making
their whole life a _state of devotion_.

Devotion therefore is the greatest sign of a great and noble _genius_;
it supposes a soul in its _highest state_ of knowledge; and none
but _little_ and _blinded_ minds, that are sunk into _ignorance_ and
_vanity_, are destitute of it.

8. If a human spirit should imagine some _mighty prince_ to be greater
than God, we should take it for a poor ignorant creature; all people
would acknowledge such an imagination to be the height of stupidity.

But if this same _human spirit_ should think it better to be devoted to
some mighty _prince_, than to be devoted to God, would not this still
be a greater proof of a poor, ignorant, and blinded nature?

Yet this is what all people do, who think any thing _better_, _greater_,
or _wiser_ than a devout life.

So that which way soever we consider this matter, it plainly appears,
that devotion is an instance of _great judgment_, of an _elevated
nature_; and the want of _devotion_ is a certain proof of the want of
_understanding_.

The greatest spirits of the Heathen world, such as _Pythagoras_,
_Socrates_, _Plato_, _Epictetus_, _Marcus Antoninus_, owed all their
greatness to the spirit of devotion.

They were full of God; their wisdom and deep contemplations tended
only to deliver men from the vanity of the world, the slavery of bodily
passions, that they might act as _spirits_ that came from God, and were
soon to return to him.

9. Let _libertines_ but grant that there is a God, and a providence,
and then they have granted enough to justify the wisdom, and support
the honour of devotion.

For if there is an infinitely wise and good Creator, in whom we live,
move, and have our being, whose providence governs all things in all
places, surely it must be the highest act of our _understanding_ to
conceive rightly of him; it must be the noblest instance of _judgment_,
the most exalted temper of our nature, to worship and adore this
universal providence, to conform to its laws, to study its wisdom, and
to live and act every where, as in the presence of this infinitely good
and wise Creator.

Now he that lives thus, lives in the spirit of devotion.

And what can shew such great parts, and so fine an understanding, as to
live in this temper?

For if God is _wisdom_, surely he must be the wisest man in the
world, who _most_ conforms to the wisdom of God, who _best_ obeys his
providence, who enters _farthest_ into his designs, and does all he
can, that God’s will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven.

A devout man makes a true use of his reason; he sees through the
_vanity_ of the world, discovers the _corruption_ of his nature, and
the _blindness_ of his passions. He lives by a _law_ which is not
visible to _vulgar eyes_; he enters into the world of _spirits_; he
compares the greatest things, sets _eternity_ against time; and chuses
rather to be for ever great in the presence of God when he dies, than
to have the greatest share of worldly pleasures whilst he lives.

11. _Lastly, Courage_ and _bravery_ are words of a great sound, and
seem to signify an _heroic_ spirit; but yet _humility_, which seems to
be the _lowest, meanest_ part of devotion, is a more certain argument
of a _noble_ mind.

For humility contends with greater enemies, is more constantly engaged,
more violently assaulted, suffers more, and requires greater courage to
support itself, than any instances of worldly bravery.

A man that dares be poor and contemptible in the eyes of the world, to
approve himself to God; that resists and rejects all human glory; that
opposes the clamour of his passions, that meekly puts up all injuries,
and dares stay for his reward till the invisible hand of God gives
to every one their proper places, endures a much _greater trial_, and
exerts a _nobler fortitude_, than he that is bold and daring in the
fire of battle.

For the boldness of a soldier, if he is a stranger to the spirit of
devotion, is rather _weakness_ than fortitude; it is at best but _mad
passion_, and heated spirits, and has no more true valour in it than
the fury of a _tyger_.

Reason is our _universal law_, that obliges us in all places, and all
times; and no actions have any honour, but so far as they are instances
of our obedience to reason.

And it is as _base_ to be bold and daring against the principle of
reason and justice, as to be bold and daring in _lying_ and _perjury_.

Would we therefore exercise a _true fortitude_, we must do all in the
spirit of _devotion_, be valiant against the corruptions of the _world_,
and the lusts of the _flesh_, and the temptations of the _devil_:
for to be daring and courageous against these enemies, is the noblest
bravery that an human mind is capable of.

I have made this digression for the sake of those, who think great
devotion to be _bigotry_ and _poorness_ of _spirit_; that by these
considerations they may see, how _poor_ and _mean_ all other _tempers_
are, if compared to it: that they may see all worldly attainments,
whether of greatness, wisdom, or bravery, are but _empty sounds_; and
there is nothing _wise_, or _great_, or _noble_, in an _human spirit_,
but rightly to _know_, and heartily _worship_ and _adore_ the great God,
that is the _support_ and _life_ of all spirits, whether in _heaven_,
or on _earth_.




                  An extract from the Rev. Mr. LAW’s
                             LATER WORKS.

  An extract from the Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, fairly
    and fully stated. In answer to a book, entitled _Christianity
    as Old as the Creation_.


       _The Introduction, shewing the state of the Controversy._

THE infidelity which is now openly declared for, pretends to support
itself upon the _sufficiency_, _excellency_, and _absolute perfection_
of reason, or natural religion.

The author with whom I am engaged, makes no attempt to invalidate
the _historical evidence_ on which Christianity is founded; but by
arguments drawn from the nature of God, and natural religion, pretends
to prove that no religion can come from God, which teaches any thing
more than that, which is fully manifest to all mankind by the _mere
light_ of nature.

His chief principles may be reduced to these following propositions.

1. That human reason, or natural light, is the _only means_ of knowing
all that God requires of us.

2. That reason, or natural light, is so full, sufficient, plain,
and certain a rule in all religious duties, that no external divine
revelation can add any thing to it, or require us to believe or
practise any thing, that was not as fully known before. A revelation,
if ever made, can only declare those very _same_ things _externally_,
which were before equally declared by the _internal_ light of nature.

3. That this must be the case of natural and revealed religion, unless
God be an arbitrary being. For if God be not an arbitrary being, but
acts according to the reason and nature of things; then he can require
nothing of us by revelation, but what is already required by the nature
and reason of things. And therefore, as he expresses it, _reason and
revelation must exactly answer one another like two tallies_¹.

    ¹ Page 60.

4. That whatever is at any time admitted as matter of religion, that is
not manifest from the reason of the thing, and plainly required by the
light of nature, is gross superstition.

5. That it is inconsistent with the divine perfections, to suppose,
that God can by an external revelation give any religious knowledge, at
_any time_, to _any people_, which was not equally given at _all_ times,
and to _all_ people.

This is the state of the controversy. As to the railing accusations,
which this author pours out, at all adventures, upon the clergy, I
shall wholly pass them over; my intention being only to appeal to the
reason of the reader, and to add nothing to it, but the safe, unerring
light of divine revelation.




                              CHAPTER I.

  _Enquiring, whether there be any thing in the |nature| and
    |condition| of man, to |oblige| him to think, that he is not
    to admit of any doctrines or institutions, as revealed from
    God, but such as his own reason can prove to be necessary from
    the nature of things._


I BEGIN with enquiring what there is to _oblige_ a man to hold this
opinion, because if there is not some strong and plain proof arising
from the _nature_ and _condition_ of man, to _oblige_ him thus to abide
by the sole light of his own reason; it may be so far from being a duty,
which he owes to God, that it may be reckoned amongst his most criminal
presumptions. And the pleading for this authority of his own reason;
may have the guilt of pleading for his greatest vanity. And if, as
this writer observes, _spiritual pride be the worst sort of pride_,¹ a
confident reliance upon our own reason, as having a right to determine
all matters between God and man, if it should prove to be a _groundless
pretension_, bids fair to be reckoned the highest instance of the
_worst_ kind of the worst of sins.

    ¹ Page 150.

Every other instance of vanity, every degree of personal pride, and
self-esteem, may be a pardonable weakness in comparison of this. For
how small is that pride which only makes us prefer our own personal
beauty or merit to that of our fellow-creatures, when compared with a
self-confiding reason, which is too haughty to adore any thing in the
divine counsels, which it cannot fully comprehend; or to submit to any
directions from God, but such as its own wisdom could prescribe? Thus
much is certain, that there can be no _medium_ in this matter. The
claiming this authority to our own reason, must either be a very great
duty, or among the greatest of sins.

If it be a _sin_ to admit of any _secrets_ in divine providence, if it
be a _crime_ to ascribe wisdom and goodness to God in things we cannot
comprehend: if it be a _baseness_ and _meanness_ of spirit to believe
that God can teach us _better_ or _more_ than we can teach ourselves:
if it be a _shameful apostacy_ from the dignity of our nature, to
submit to any _mysterious providence_ over us, to comply with any other
methods of _homage_ and _adoration_, than such as we could of ourselves
contrive and justify; then it is certainly a great duty to assert and
maintain this authority of our own reason.

On the other hand; if the profoundest humility towards God, be the
highest instance of piety: if every thing within us and without us, if
every thing we know of God, every thing we know of ourselves preaches
up humility to us, as the foundation of every virtue, as the life
and soul of all holiness: if _sin_ had its beginning from _pride_,
and _hell_ be the effect of it, if _devils_ are what they are through
spiritual pride and self-conceit, then we have great reason to believe,
that the claiming this authority to our reason, in opposition to the
revealed wisdom of God, is not a frailty of _flesh_ and _blood_, but
that same spiritual pride which turned _angels_ into _apostate_ spirits.

Since therefore this appealing to our own reason, as the absolutely
_perfect rule_ of all that ought to pass between God and man, has an
_appearance_ of a pride of the _worst_ kind, and such as unites us
both in temper and conduct with the fallen spirits of darkness, it
highly concerns every pleader on that side, to consider what grounds
he proceeds upon, and to ask himself, what there is in the _state_ and
_condition_ of human nature, to oblige him to think, that nothing can
be _divine_ or _holy_, or _necessary_, in religion, but what _human_
reason dictates?

I hope the reader will think this a fair state of the case, and that
all the light we can have in this matter, must arise from a thorough
consideration of the _state_ and _condition_ of man in this world.
If without revelation he is free from mysteries as a _moral_ and
_religious_ agent, then he has some plea from his state and condition
to reject _revealed_ mysteries.

But if in a state of natural religion, he can’t acknowledge a divine
providence or worship God, without _as much_ implicit faith, and
submission of his reason, as any revealed mysteries require; then
his _state_ and _condition_ in the world, condemns his refusal of
any revelation sufficiently attested to come from God. This enquiry
therefore into the state and condition of man, being so plainly the
true point of the controversy, I hope to obtain the reader’s impartial
attention to it.

Had mankind continued in a state of _perfect innocence_, without ever
failing in their duty either to God or man, yet even in such a state,
they could never have known what God would or would not reveal to them,
but by some express revelation from him. And as God might intend to
raise them to some higher, and unknown state of perfection; so he might
raise them to it by the revelation of such things as their own reason,
though uncorrupt, yet could not have discovered.

But if man, in a state of _innocence_, could have no pretence to set
himself against divine revelation, and make his own reason the _final
judge_ of what God could, or could not reveal to him; much less has he
any pretence for so doing in his present state of _sin_, _ignorance_,
and _misery_. His _nature_ and _condition_ is so far from furnishing
him with reasons against revelation, against any _supernatural_ help
from God; that it seems to be inconsolable without it; and every
circumstance of his life prepares him to hope for terms of _mercy_
and deliverance from his present guilt and misery, not according to
_schemes_ of his _own_ contrivance, not from his _own knowledge_ of
the _nature_, and _reason_, and _fitness_ of things, but from some
_incomprehensible depth_ of divine goodness.

For if sin, and misery, and ignorance, cannot convince us of our own
weakness, cannot prepare us to accept of any _methods_ of _atoning_ for
our guilt, but such as our own disordered reason can suggest, we are
not far from the hardened state of those miserable spirits, that make
war against God.

For to insist upon the _prerogative_ of our own nature, as qualifying
us to make our own peace with God, and to reject the _atonement_ which
he has provided for us, because we esteem it more fit and reasonable,
that our _own repentance_ should be sufficient without it, is the same
height of _pride_ and _impiety_, as to affirm, that we have no need of
any repentance at all.

For as mankind, if they had continued in a state of _innocence_, could
not have known how their innocence was to be rewarded, or what changes
of state God intended them for, but as revelation had discovered these
things unto them: so after they were _fallen_ into a state of guilt and
sin, they could never know what _misery_ it would expose them to, or
_when_, or _how_, or whether they were ever to be delivered from it,
and made as happy as if they had _never_ sinned; these are things that
nothing but a revelation from God could teach them.

So that for a sinner to pretend to appoint the _atonement_ for his own
sins, or to think himself able to tell what it _ought_ to be, is as
foolish and vain a presumption, as if man in _innocence_ should have
pretended to appoint his own method of being changed into a _cherub_.

The writers against revelation appeal to the _reason_ and _nature_ of
things, as _infallibly_ discovering every thing that a revelation from
God can teach us.

Thus our author; _If the relations between things, and the fitness
resulting from thence, be not the sole rule of God’s actions, must not
God be an arbitrary being? But if God only commands what the nature of
things shew to be fit, it is scarce possible that men should mistake
their duty; since a mind that is attentive can as easily distinguish
fit from unfit, as the eye can beauty from deformity_¹.

    ¹ Page 30.

It is granted, that there is a fitness and unfitness of actions
founded in the nature of things, and resulting from the relations that
persons and things bear to one another. It is also granted, that the
reasonableness of most of the duties of children to their parents, of
parents to their children, and of men to men, is very apparent, from
the relations they bear to one another; and that several of the duties
which we owe to God, plainly appear to us, as soon as we acknowledge
the relation that is between God and us.

But then, this _whole argument_ proves directly the contrary to that
which this author intended to prove by it.

I here therefore join with this author; I readily grant, that the
nature, reason and relations of things and persons, and the fitness
of actions resulting from thence, is the _sole rule_ of God’s actions.
And I appeal to this one common principle, as a sufficient proof that
a man cannot thus abide by the _sole light_ of his own reason, without
contradicting the nature and reason of things, and denying this to be
the _sole rule_ of God’s actions.

* For if the _fitness_ of actions is founded in the _nature_ of things
and persons, and this fitness be the _sole rule_ of God’s actions, it
is certain that the rule by which he acts, must in many instances be
_entirely_ inconceivable by us, so as not to be known _at all_, and in
no instances _fully_ known, or _perfectly_ comprehended.

* For if God is to act according to a _fitness founded_ in the _nature_
of things, and nothing can be fit for him to do, but what has its
fitness founded in his own _incomprehensible_ nature, must he not
necessarily act by a rule _above_ all human comprehension? If he must
govern his actions by his own nature, he must act by a _rule_ that is
just as _incomprehensible_ to us as his own nature.

* And we can be no farther _competent judges_ of the _fitness_ of the
conduct of God, than we are competent judges of the divine nature; and
can no more tell what is, or is not _infinitely wise_ in God, than we
can raise ourselves to a _state_ of infinite wisdom.

So that if the _fitness_ of actions is founded in the _particular
nature_ of things and persons, and the fitness of God’s actions must
arise from that which is _particular_ to his nature, then we have from
this argument, the _utmost certainty_ that the _rule_ or _reasons_ of
God’s actions must in many cases be entirely inconceivable by us, and
in no cases perfectly apprehended; and for this very reason, because he
is not an _arbitrary being_, that acts by _mere will_, but is governed
in every thing he does, by the reason and nature of things.

How mistaken therefore is this author, when he argues after this manner.
_If God requires things of us, whose fitness our reason can’t prove
from the nature of things, must he not be an arbitrary being?_ For how
can that prove God to be an arbitrary agent, which is the necessary
consequence of his not being arbitrary?

Supposing God not to be an _arbitrary being_, but to act constantly,
as the perfections of his own nature make it _fit_ and _reasonable_ for
him to act, then there is an utter impossibility of our comprehending
the reasonableness and fitness of many of his actions.

* For instance; look at the _reason_ of things, and the _fitness_ of
actions, and tell me how they moved God to create mankind in the state
and condition they are in. Nothing is more above the reason of men,
than to explain the reasonableness of God’s providence in creating
man of such a _form_ and _condition_, to go through _such_ a state
of things as human life is. No revealed mysteries can more exceed the
comprehension of man, than the state of human life itself.

Shew me according to what _fitness_, founded in the _nature_ of things,
God’s infinite wisdom was determined to form you in such a manner,
bring you into such a world, and suffer and preserve _such a state_
of things, as human life is, and then you may have some pretence to
believe no revealed doctrines, but such as your own reason can deduce
from the nature of things.

But whilst your own _form_, whilst _creation_ and _providence_ are
depths which you cannot thus look into, ’tis strangely absurd to
pretend, that God cannot reveal any thing to you as a matter of
religion, except your own reason can shew its foundation in the nature
and reason of things.

_Revelation_, you say, is on your account, and therefore you ought to
see the _reasonableness_ and _fitness_ of it. And don’t you also say,
that God has made you for your _own sake_; ought you not therefore to
know the reasonableness and fitness of God’s forming you as you are?
Don’t you say, that providence is for the _sake_ of man? Is it not
therefore fit and reasonable, in the nature of things, that there
should be no _mysteries_, or _secrets_, in providence, but that man
should so see its methods, as to be able to prove all its steps to be
constantly fit and reasonable?

Don’t you say, that the _world_ is for the _sake_ of man; is it not
therefore fit and reasonable that man should see, that the _past_ and
_present_ state of the world has been such as the reason and fitness of
things required it should be?

* Now if the _imperfect_ state of human nature, the _calamities_ of
this life, the _diseases_ and mortality of human bodies, the _methods_
of God’s continual providence in governing human affairs, are things
that as much concern us, as any methods of revealed religion; and if
these are things that we cannot explain, according to any _fitness_ or
_unfitness_ founded in the _nature_ of things, but must believe a great
deal more of the infinite wisdom of God, than we can so explain; have
we any reason to think, that God cannot, or ought not to raise us out
of this unhappy state of things, help us to an higher order of life,
and exalt us to a nearer enjoyment of himself, by any means, but such
as our own poor reason can grope out of the nature and fitness of
things?

Now what is the reason, that all is thus mysterious and unmeasurable
by human reason, in these matters so nearly concerning human nature?
’Tis because God is not an _arbitrary being_, but does that which the
_incomprehensible perfections_ of his own nature, make it _fit_ and
_reasonable_ for him to do. Do but grant that nothing can be _fit_ for
God to do, but what is _according_ to his own _infinite perfections_:
let but this be the _rule_ of his actions, and then you have the
_fullest_ proof, that the fitness of his actions must be above our
comprehension, who can only judge of a _fitness_ according to our _own
perfections_; and then we must be surrounded with mystery for this very
reason, because God acts according to a _certain rule_, his own nature.

_Again_: What is the nature of a human soul, upon what _terms_, and
in what manner it is _united_ to the body, how far it is _different_
from it, how far it is _subject_ to it, what powers and faculties
it _derives_ from it; are things wherein the _wisdom_ and _goodness_
of God, and the _happiness_ of man are deeply concerned. Is it not
necessary that these things should have their foundation in the
_reason_ and _fitness_ of things? And yet what natural reason,
uninspired from above, can shew that this _state_ of soul and body is
founded therein?

* _Again_: The origin of _sin_ and _evil_, or how it entered into the
world consistently with the infinite wisdom of God, is a mystery of
_natural religion_, which reason cannot unfold. For can we shew from
the _reason_ and _nature_ of things, that it was _fit_ and _reasonable_,
for the providence of God to suffer sin to enter, and continue in the
world? Here therefore the man of natural religion must drop his method
of reasoning from the fitness of things, and that in an article of the
highest concern to the moral world, and be as mere a believer, as he
that believes the most incomprehensible mystery of revealed religion.

Now as there have been in the several ages of the world, some
_impatient_, _restless_ and _presuming_ spirits, who, because they
could not in these points explain the justice of God’s providence, have
taken refuge in horrid _atheism_, so they made just the same _sober
use_ of their reason, as our _modern unbelievers_, who because they
can’t comprehend the _fitness_ and _necessity_ of certain Christian
doctrines, resign themselves up to an hardened _infidelity_. For it
is just as reasonable to allow of no mysteries in _revelation_, as to
allow of no mysteries in _creation_ and _providence_.

And whenever this writer shall think it proper to attack _natural_
religion with as much freedom as he has _revealed_, he need not enter
upon any _new_ hypothesis, or _different_ way of reasoning. For the
same turn of thought, may soon find materials in the natural state
of man, for as large a bill of complaints against natural religion,
and the mysteries of providence, as is here brought against revealed
doctrines.

To proceed: If the _fitness of actions is founded in the nature and
relation of beings_, then nothing can be fit for God to do, but so far
as it is fit for the _Governor of all created beings_, whether on earth,
or in any other part of the universe; and he cannot act fitly towards
mankind, but by acting as is fit for the Governor of all beings.

* Now what is fit for the _Governor of all created_ nature to do in
this or that particular part of his creation, is as much above our
reason to _tell_, as it is above our power to _govern_ all beings. And
how mankind ought to be governed, with relation to the whole creation,
of which they are so small a part, is a matter equally above our
knowledge; because we know not how they are a part of the whole, or
what relation they bear to any other part, or how their state affects
the whole, or any other part, than we know what beings the whole
consists of.

Now there is nothing that we know with more certainty than that God is
governor of the _whole_, and that mankind are a _part_ of the whole;
and that the uniformity and harmony of divine providence, must arise
from his infinite wise government of the _whole_; and therefore we have
the utmost certainty, that we are _vastly incompetent_ judges of the
fitness or unfitness of any methods that God uses in the government of
so small a part of the universe, as mankind are.

_Again_: If the _fitness of actions is founded in the relations of
beings to one another_, then the fitness of the actions of God’s
providence over mankind, must be in many instances altogether
incomprehensible to us.

For the relation which God bears to mankind, as their _all-perfect
Creator_ and continual _Preserver_, is a relation that our reason
conceives as imperfectly, and knows as little of, as it does of any
of the divine attributes. When it compares it to that of a _father_
and his children, a _prince_ and his subjects, a _proprietor_ and his
property, it has explained it in the best manner it can, but still has
left it as much a _secret_, as we do the divine nature when we only say,
it is _infinitely_ superior to every thing that is _finite_.

By the natural light of our reason we may know with certainty, several
_effects_ of this relation, as that it puts us under the care and
protection of a wise, and just, and merciful providence, and demands
from us the highest instances of humility, adoration and thanksgiving.
But what it is in its own nature, what kind of state, it is to
exist in and by God, what it is to see by a _light_ that is his, to
act by a power from him, to live by a _life_ in him; are things as
incomprehensible to reason, _left to itself_, as what it is to be in
the _third heavens_, or to hear words that cannot be uttered.

But if this relation consists in these _inconceivable_ things, in a
communication of _life_, _light_ and _power_, if these are enjoyed in
God, and in ourselves, in a manner not to be explained by any thing
that we ever heard, or saw; then we must necessarily be poor judges of
what is fit for God to require of us, because of this _relation_. It
teaches us nothing but the superficialness of our own knowledge, and
the unfathomable depths of the divine perfections.

How little this writer has considered the nature of this _relation_
between God and man, may be seen by the following paragraphs. _The Holy
Ghost_, says he, _cannot deal with men as rational creatures, but by
proposing arguments to convince their understandings; and influence
their wills, in the same manner as if proposed by other agents_. As
absurd, as to say, God cannot _create_ us as rational beings, unless
he creates us in the same _manner_, as if we were created by other
agents. For to suppose that other agents can possibly act upon our
understanding, and will, in the _same manner_ that God does; is as
gross an absurdity, as to suppose that other agents can create us in
the same manner that God creates us.

And to _confine_ the manner of the Holy Ghost’s acting upon us, to the
manner of our acting upon one another by _arguments_ and _syllogisms_,
is as great a weakness, as to _confine_ the manner of God’s creating us,
to the manner of our making a _statue_ with _tools_ and _instruments_.

But he proceeds and says, _For to go beyond this, would be making
impressions on men, as a seal does on wax; to the confounding of their
reason, and their liberty in chusing; and the man would then be mearly
passive, and the action would be the action of another being acting
upon him, for which he could be no way accountable_¹.

    ¹ Page 199.

Here you see the Holy Spirit has but these two possible ways of acting
upon men, it must either only propose an argument, just as a man may
propose one, or it must act like a _seal upon wax_.

I only ask this writer, whether God communicates _life_, and _strength_,
and _understanding_, and _liberty of will_ to us, only as men may
communicate any thing to one another? or as a seal acts upon wax? If so,
it may be granted, that the Holy Ghost cannot act upon us any other way.

But it must be affirmed, that we do, by a continual influx from God,
enjoy all these powers, and receive the continuance of all these
faculties from him, not as men receive things from one another, nor
as _wax_ receives the _impression_ of the _seal_, but in a way as much
above our conception, as creation is above our power; if we have all
our _power_ of acting, by a _continual communication_ from him, and yet
as free agents, have all our _light_ from him, and yet are _accountable
intelligent_ beings; then it must be great weakness to affirm, that
the Holy Ghost cannot act upon us in the same manner: for it would be
saying, God cannot act upon us as he does act upon us.

The short of the matter is this. Either this _writer_ must affirm, that
our _rational nature_, our _understanding faculties_, our _power_ of
action, our _liberty_ of will, must _necessarily_ subsist without the
_continual action_ of God upon them, or else he must grant, that God
can _act_ upon our _understandings_ and _wills_ without making us as
_merely passive_ as the wax under the seal.

This writer says, _Though the relation we stand in to God, is not
artificial, as most are amongst men――yet this does not hinder, but
that we may know the end he had in being related to us as Creator and
Governor, and what he requires of his creatures and subjects_. But
how are we to know this? _This_, says he, _the divine nature_, which
_contains in it all perfection and happiness, plainly points out to
us_¹.

    ¹ Page 29.

If he had said, since God must act over us as Creator and Governor,
according to his own infinite _perfection and happiness_, therefore
his conduct over us may be _very mysterious_, he had drawn a _plain_
conclusion. But he proves all to be plain, because God is to govern
us according to something that is not plain, according to his own
_incomprehensible nature_.

His argument therefore proceeds thus. God must govern us according to
his own _infinite perfection and happiness_; but we _do not know_ what
his infinite perfections and happiness are:

Therefore we _plainly know_ how he is to govern us.

Now if this writer is capable of taking such an argument as this to be
demonstrative, it is no wonder that all his principles of religion are
founded upon demonstration.

But if he knows no more of what arises from the _relation_ between God
and his creatures, than he has here demonstrated, he might be very well
content with some farther knowledge from divine revelation.

It is because of this incomprehensible relation between God and his
creatures, that we are unavoidably ignorant of what God may justly
require of us either in a state of _innocence_ or _sin_. For as the
fitness of actions between beings _related_, must result from their
respective natures, so the incomprehensibility of the divine nature,
on which the relation between God and man is founded, makes it utterly
impossible for mere natural reason to say, what _kind_ of _homage_, or
_worship_, he may _fitly_ require of man in a state of _innocence_; or
what _different_ worship and homage he may, or must require of men, as
_sinners_.

And to appeal to the infinite perfections of God, as _plainly
pointing this out_, is the same extravagance, as to appeal to the
_incomprehensibility_ of God as a plain proof of our comprehending what
God is.

As to the obligations of moral or social duties, which have their
foundation in the several relations we bear to one another, these are
the same in the state of _innocence_ or _sin_, and we know that we
truly act according to the divine will, when we act according to what
these relations require of us.

But the question is, What distinct kind of _homage_, or _service_, or
_worship_, God may require us to render to him, either in a state of
_innocence_ or _sin_, on account of that relation he bears to us as an
all-perfect Creator and Governor?

But this is a question that God alone can resolve.

Human reason cannot enter into it, it has no principle to proceed upon
in it. For as the _necessity_ of divine worship, so the _particular
manner_ of it, must have its reason in the divine nature.

_Sacrifice_, if considered only as an _human invention_, could not
be proved to be a reasonable service. Yet considered as a _divine
institution_, it would be the greatest folly not to receive it as a
reasonable service. For as we could see no reason for it, if it was
of human invention, so we should have the greatest reason to comply
with it because it was of divine appointment. Not as if the divine
appointment altered the _nature_ and _fitness_ of things; but because
nothing has the _nature_ and _fitness_ of divine worship, but as it is
of divine appointment.

Man therefore, had he continued in a state of innocence, and without
revelation, might have lived in an awful fear, and pious regard of God,
and observed every duty both of moral and civil life, as an act of
obedience to him. But he could have no foundation either to invent any
particular _manner_ of divine worship himself, or to reject any that
was appointed by God, as _unnecessary_. It would have been ridiculous
to have pleaded his innocence, as having no need of a divine worship.
For who can have greater reason, or be fitter to worship God, than
innocent beings? It would have been more absurd, to have objected the
sufficiency of their reason; for why should men reject a _revealed
manner_ of divine worship, because God had given them reason of their
own, sufficient for the duties of social and civil life?

And as reason in a state of innocence and perfection, could not have
any pretence to appoint the manner of divine worship, so when the state
of innocence was changed for that of sin, it became more difficult for
bare reason to know what kind of worship could be acceptable to God
from sinners.

For what the _relation_ betwixt God and sinners makes it fit for God to
require or accept of them, cannot be determined by human reason.

This is a _new state_, and the foundation of a _new relation_, and
nothing can be fit for God to do in it, but what has its _fitness
resulting_ from it. We have nothing to help our conceptions of the
fore-mentioned _relative characters_ of God, as our _Governor_ and
_Preserver_, but what we derive from our idea of human _fathers_
and _governors_: which idea only helps us to comprehend these
_relations_, just as our idea of human power helps us to comprehend the
_omnipotence_ of God. For a father or governor, no more represents the
_state_ of God as our _Governor_ and _Preserver_, than our living in
our father’s _family_, represents the _manner_ of our living in God.

These relations are both very plain, and very mysterious; they are very
plain, as to the _reality_ of their existence; and highly mysterious
and inconceivable, as to the _manner_ of their existence.

That which is _plain_, in these relative characters of God, plainly
shews our obligations to every instance of _duty_, _homage_, _love_,
and _gratitude_.

And that which is _inconceivable_ in them, is a solid foundation of
that _profound humility_, _awful reverence_, _internal piety_ and
_tremendous sense_ of the divine Majesty, with which devout persons
think of God, and assist at the _offices_ of religion. Which excites in
them a higher zeal for doctrines and institutions of divine revelation,
than for all things human; that fills them with reverence for all
_things_, places, and offices, that are either by divine or human
authority, appointed to assist their desired intercourse with God.

And if some people, by a _long_ and _strict_ attention to _reason_,
and the _fitness_ and _unfitness_ of things, have at last arrived
at a demonstrative certainty, that all these sentiments of piety and
devotion, are mere _bigotry_, _superstition_, and _enthusiasm_; I
shall only now observe, that _youthful extravagance_, _passion_, and
_debauchery_, by their own _natural tendency_, without the assistance
of any other guide, seldom fail of making the same discovery. And
though it is not reckoned any reflection upon _great wits_, when they
hit upon the same thought, yet it may seem some disparagement of that
_reason_ and _philosophy_, which teaches _old men_ to think the same of
religion, that _passion_ and _extravagance_ teach the young.

To return: As there is no state in human life, that can give us a true
idea of any of the fore-mentioned relative characters of God, so this
relative state of God towards sinners is still less capable of being
comprehended by any thing observable in the relations, betwixt a judge
and criminals, a _creditor_ and his debtors, a _physician_ and his
patients, a father or prince, and their disobedient children and
subjects.

For none of these states separately, nor all of them jointly considered,
give us any full idea, either of the _nature_ and _guilt_ of sin or how
God is to deal with sinners, on the account of the relation he bears to
them.

To ask, whether _sin_ hath solely the _nature_ of an offence, against
a prince or a father, and so is pardonable by mere goodness; whether it
is like an _error_ in a _road_ or _path_, and so is entirely at an end,
when the right path is taken; whether its guilt hath the nature of a
debt, and so is capable of being discharged, just as a debt is; whether
it affects the soul, as a _wound_ or _disease_ affects the body, and so
ought only to move God to act as a good physician? All these questions
are as vain, as to ask, whether knowledge in God is really _thinking_,
or his nature a real _substance_. For as his knowledge and nature
cannot be strictly defined, but are capable of being signified by the
terms _thinking_ and _substance_, so the nature of sin is not _strictly
represented_ under any of these characters, but is capable of receiving
_some representation_ from every one of them.

When sin is said to be an offence against God, it is to teach us, that
we have infinitely more reason to dread it on _God’s account_, than to
dread any offence against our parents, or governors.

When it is compared to a _debt_, it is to signify, that our sins make
us accountable to God, not in the _same manner_, but with the same
certainty, as a debtor is answerable to his creditor; and because it
has some likeness to a debt, that of ourselves we are not able to pay.

When it is compared to a _wound_, or disease, it is not to teach us,
that it may as justly and easily be healed as bodily wounds, but to
help us to conceive the greatness of its evil; that, as diseases bring
death to the body, so sin brings a worse kind of death upon the soul.

Since therefore the _nature_ and _guilt_ of sin can only so far be
known, as to make it highly to be _dreaded_, but not so known as to be
_fully_ understood, by any thing we can compare to it:

Since the _relation_ which God bears to _sinners_, can only be so known,
as to make it highly reasonable to prostrate ourselves before him, in
every instance of humility and penitence; but not so fully known as to
teach us, in what manner, God must deal with us: it plainly follows,
that if God is not an _arbitrary_ being, but acts according to a
_fitness resulting_ from this relation, he must, in this respect, act
by a _rule_ known only to himself, and such as we cannot _possibly_
state from the _reason_ and _nature_ of things.

For if the nature of things, and the fitness of actions resulting from
their relations, is to be the rule of our reason, then _reason_ must be
here at a full stop, and can have no more knowledge to proceed upon, in
stating the _nature_, the _guilt_, or proper _atonement_ of sin in men,
than of sin in _angels_.

For _reason_ can no more tell us what the _guilt_ of sin is, what
_hurt_ it does us, how far it _enters_ into, and _alters_ our
very nature, what _contrariety to_, and _separation_ from God, it
necessarily brings upon us, or what _supernatural_ means are, or are
not, necessary to abolish it; our _reason_ can no more tell this,
than our _senses_ can tell us, what is the _inward_, and what is the
_outward_ light of angels.

Ask reason what _effect_ sin has upon the soul, and it can tell you no
more, than if you had asked, what effect the _omnipresence_ of God has
upon the soul.

Ask reason, and the nature of things, what is, or ought to be, the
_true nature_ of an atonement for sin, how far it is like _paying_ a
_debt_, or _healing_ a _wound_, or how far it is different from them?
And it can tell you no more, than if you had asked, what is the _true
degree_ of power that _preserves_ us in existence, how far it is _like_
that which at first created us, and how far it is _different_ from it.

All these enquiries are, by the nature of things, made impossible to
us, so long as we have no light but from our own natural capacities,
and we cannot take upon us to be _philosophers_ in these matters,
but by deserting our reason, and giving ourselves up to _vision_ and
_imagination_.

And we have as much authority from the nature of things, to appeal to
_hunger_ and _thirst_, and _sensual pleasure_, to tell us _how_ our
souls shall live in the beatific presence of God, as to appeal to our
_reason_ and _logic_, to demonstrate how sin is to be _atoned_, or the
soul _prepared_, and _purified_, for future happiness.

For God has no more given us our reason to _settle_ the nature of an
atonement for sin; or to find out what can, or cannot, take away its
guilt, than he has given us _senses_ and _appetites_ to state the
nature, or discover the ingredients of future happiness.

And he who rejects the _atonement_ for sins made by the Son of God,
as _needless_, because he cannot prove it to be _necessary_, is as
extravagant, as he that should deny that God created him by his _only
Son_, because he did not remember it. For our memory is as proper a
faculty to tell us, whether God at first created us, by his only Son,
as our _reason_ is to tell us, whether we ought to be restored to God,
with, or without the mediation of Jesus Christ.

When therefore this writer says, _Can any thing be more evident, than
that if doing evil be the only cause of God’s displeasure, the ceasing
to do evil, must take away that displeasure?_¹

    ¹ Page 4.

* Just as if he had said, if conversing with a _leper_ has been the
only cause of a man’s getting a _leprosy_, must not departing from
him, be the removal of the _leprosy_? For if any one, guessing at the
_guilt_ of sin, and its _effects_ on the soul, should compare it to
a _leprosy_ in the body, he can no more say, that he has reached its
_real, internal_ evil, than he, that comparing the happiness of heaven
to a crown of glory, can be said to have described its real happiness.

This _writer_ has no occasion to appeal to the nature of things, if
he can be thus certain about things, whose nature is not only obscure,
but _impossible_ to be known. For it is as impossible for him to know
the _guilt_ and _effects_ of sin, as to know the shape of an angel.
It is as impossible to know by the mere light of reason, what God’s
_displeasure_ at sin is, what _separation_ from sinners it implies, or
how it _obliges_ God to deal with them; as to know what the internal
essence of God is. Our author therefore has here found the utmost
degree of evidence, where it was _impossible_ for him to have the
_smallest degree_ of knowledge.

If a man, having _murdered_ twenty of his fellow-creatures, should
afterward be sorry for it, and wish that he had a power to bring them
to life again, or to create others in their stead, would his ceasing to
kill, and wishing he had a power to create others in their stead, put
him just in the _same state_ with God, as if he had never murdered a
man in his life? But unless this can be said, it cannot be said that
repentance is sufficient to put a man in the _same state_, as if he
never had sinned.

The writer has two more objections against the atonement for sin, made
by Jesus Christ. _First_, as it is an _human sacrifice, which nature
itself abhors_: and which was looked upon as the great abomination of
idolatrous _Pagan_ worship.

The _cruelty_, _injustice_, and _impiety_, of shedding human blood in
the sacrifices of the _Pagans_ is fully granted; but _reason_ cannot
thence bring the smallest objections against the sacrifice of Christ.

For how can reason be more disregarded, than in such an argument as
this? The _Pagans_ were unjust, cruel, and impious, in offering human
blood to their false gods; therefore the true God cannot receive any
_human_ sacrifice, or allow any persons to die, as a punishment for sin.

For, if no human sacrifice can be fit for God to receive, because
human sacrifices, as parts of _Pagan_ worship, were unjust and impious;
then it would follow, that the _mortality_, to which all mankind are
appointed by God, must have the _same cruelty_ and _injustice_ in it.
Now that _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are
by death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of
revealed religion, but the plain dictate of reason. But if reason must
acknowledge the death of all mankind, as a sacrifice for sin, then it
can have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ, _because_
it was _human_.

I need not take upon me to prove the _reasonableness_ of God’s
procedure in the _mortality_ of mankind; revelation is not under any
necessity of proving this; because it is no difficulty that arises from
revelation, but equally belongs to natural religion; and both of them
must acknowledge it to be reasonable; not because it can be proved to
be so from the nature of things, but is to be believed to be so, by
faith and piety.

But if natural religion, will not suffer us to think it _inconsistent_
with the justice and goodness of God, to appoint all mankind victims
to death on the account of sin, then _natural_ religion, can have
no objection against the sacrifice of Christ, as it is an _human
sacrifice_.

And all that _revelation_ adds to _natural_ religion, on the point of
_human_ sacrifice, is only this; the knowledge of _one_, that gives
_merit and effect_, to all the rest.

_Secondly_, It is objected, that the atonement made by Jesus Christ,
represents God as punishing the _innocent_ and acquitting the _guilty_;
or, as punishing the innocent _instead_ of the guilty.

But this proceeds all upon mistake: for the atonement made by Jesus
Christ, though it procures pardon for the guilty, yet it does not
acquit them, or excuse them from any punishment, or suffering for sin,
which _reason could impose upon them_. Natural religion calls men to
repentance for their sins: the atonement made by Jesus Christ does not
acquit them from it, or pardon them without it; but calls them to a
_severer_ repentance, than natural religion alone prescribes.

God therefore does not by this proceeding, shew his _dislike_ of the
_innocent_ and his _approbation_ of the _wicked_.

For how can God be thought to punish our blessed Saviour out of
_dislike_, if his sufferings are represented of such infinite merit
with him? Or how can he shew thereby his _approbation_ of the guilty,
whose repentance is not _acceptable_ to him, till recommended by the
infinite merits of Jesus Christ?

As to the fitness of our Lord’s sufferings, as God and man; and the
_nature_ and _degree_ of their worth; reason can no more enter into
this matter, or _prove_ or _disprove_ any thing about it, than it can
enter into the state of the whole creation, and shew, how it could, or
could not, be in the whole, better than it is.

For you may as well ask any of your _senses_, as ask your _reason_ this
principal question, _Whether any supernatural means be necessary for
the atonement of the sins of mankind?_ Or, supposing it necessary,
whether the _mediation_, _death_, and _intercession_ of Jesus Christ,
as God and man, be that true supernatural means?

For as the fitness or unfitness of any _supernatural_ means, for the
atonement of sin, must result from the _incomprehensible relation_
God bears to sinners, as it must have such _necessity_, and _dignity_,
as this relation _requires_, it necessarily follows, that if God acts
according to _this relation_, the _fitness_ of his actions cannot be
according to our comprehension.

Again: Supposing some _supernatural means_ to be necessary, for
destroying the guilt and power of sin; or that the _sufferings_, and
_intercession_, of the Son of God incarnate, is that true supernatural
means, it necessarily follows, that a revelation of such, or any other
_supernatural_ means, cannot possibly be made obvious to our reason and
senses, as the things of human life, or the transactions amongst men
are; but can only be so revealed, as to become just occasions of our
_faith_, _humility_, and _pious resignation_, to the divine wisdom and
goodness.

For, to say that such a thing is _supernatural_, is only saying, that
it is something, which, by the _necessary state_ of our own nature, we
are as incapable of knowing, as we are incapable of seeing _spirits_.

If therefore supernatural things are by the letter of scripture ever
revealed to us, they cannot be revealed to us as they are in their _own
nature_: for if they could, such things would not be _supernatural_.

If an _angel_ could appear to us, as it is in its own nature, then we
should be _naturally_ capable of seeing angels; but, because our nature
is not _capable_ of such a sight; therefore, when _angels_ appear
to men, they must appear, not as they are in themselves, but in some
_human_ or _corporeal_ form.

It is just thus, when any _divine_ matter is revealed by God; it can
no more possibly be revealed to us, as it is in its _own nature_,
than an _angel_ can appear to us, as it is in its own nature; but such
supernatural matter can only be revealed to us, by being represented to
us, by its likeness to something, that we already _naturally_ know.

Thus revelation teaches us this _supernatural_ matter; that Jesus
Christ is making _perpetual intercession for us in heaven_: for
Christ’s _real state_, or _manner_ of existence with God in heaven,
in regard to his church, cannot, as it is in its _own nature_, be
described to us; it is in this respect ineffable, and incomprehensible.
And therefore, this high and inconceivable manner of Christ’s existence
with God in heaven, in regard to his church, is revealed to us under an
idea, that gives us the truest representation of it, we are capable of.

But if any one should thence infer, that the Son of God must therefore
either be always upon his knees, or _prostrate_ in some humble form of
a supplicant, he would make a very weak inference.

Because this revealed idea of Christ, as a perpetual Intercessor in
heaven, is only a comparative representation of something, that cannot
be _directly_ and _plainly_ known as it is in its own nature; and only
teaches us, how to believe something, though imperfectly, yet _truly_
of an incomprehensible nature.

Again: When it is by the letter of scripture revealed to us, that the
blessed Jesus is the one _Mediator_ between God and man; that he is
the _Atonement_, the _Propitiation_, and _Satisfaction_ for our sins:
these expressions only teach us _as much_ outward knowledge of so great
a mystery, as human language can represent. But they do not teach us
the perfect nature of Christ’s state between God and sinners. For that
being a _supernatural_ matter, cannot by any outward words be revealed
to us as it is in its _own nature_, any more than the _essence_ of God
can be made _visible_ to our eyes of flesh.

But these expressions teach us thus much with certainty, that there is
in the _state_ of Christ between God and sinners, something infinitely
and inconceivably beneficial to us; and _truly answerable_ to all that
we mean by _mediation_, _atonement_, _propitiation_, and _satisfaction_.

And though the _real, internal manner_, of this mediation and atonement,
as it is in its own nature, is _incomprehensible_, yet this does not
lessen our knowledge of the truth and certainty of it, any more than
the _incomprehensibility_ of the divine nature, lessens our certainty
of its real existence.

And as our idea of God, though consisting of incomprehensible
perfections, helps us to a real and certain knowledge of the divine
nature; and though all mysterious, is yet the solid foundation of all
piety; so our idea of Jesus Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_,
though it be incomprehensible as to its real nature, yet helps us to a
_certain_ knowledge of Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_; and,
though full of mystery, is yet full of motives to the highest piety,
love, and gratitude unto God.

All objections therefore, raised from any difficulties about the nature
of _atonements_, _propitiations_, and _satisfactions_, as these words
are used in common language, are vain, and entirely groundless.

For all these objections proceed upon this supposition, that
_atonement_, or _satisfaction_, when attributed to Jesus Christ,
signify neither more nor less, than when they are used as terms in
_human laws_ or in _civil_ life; take away this supposition, and all
objections are entirely removed with it.

To return: I have granted this writer his great principle, _That the
relations of things and persons, and the fitness resulting from thence,
is the sole rule of God’s actions_: and I have granted it upon this
supposition, that it thence follows, that God must act according to
his _own nature_; and therefore nothing could be fit for God to do, but
what had the reason of its fitness in his own nature: and if so, then
the _rule_ of his actions could not fall within our comprehension. And
consequently, _reason alone_, could not be a competent judge of God’s
proceedings; or say, what God might, or might not, require of us: and
therefore I have, plainly turned his main argument against himself, and
made it fully confute that doctrine, which he intended to found upon it.

But though I have thus far, granted the _nature_ and _relations_
of things and beings, to be the rule of God’s actions, because that
plainly supposes, that his _own nature_ must be the rule of his actions;
yet since our _author_, and other modern opposers of revealed doctrines
of religion, hold it in another sense, and mean by it, I know not what
_eternal, immutable_ reasons and relations of things, _independent_
of any being, and which are a _common rule and law of God and man_, I
entirely declare against it, as an erroneous and groundless opinion.

Thus, when this writer says, _If the relations between things, and the
fitness resulting from thence, be not the sole rule of God’s actions,
must he not be an arbitrary being?_ As he here means some _eternal,
immutable relations, independent_ of God; so, to suppose, that God
cannot be a _wise_ and _good_ being, unless such eternal, independent
relations, be the _sole rule_ of his actions, is as erroneous, as
to affirm, that God cannot be _omniscient_, unless _mathematical
demonstrations_ be his _sole manner_ of knowing all things. And it
is just as reasonable to fix God’s knowledge _solely_ in mathematical
demonstrations, that we may thence be assured of his _infallible
knowledge_, as to make I know not what independent relations of things,
the _sole rule_ of his actions, that we may thence be assured, he is
not _arbitrary_, but a wise and good being.

And we have as strong reasons to believe God to be, in the highest
degree, _wise_ and _good_, without knowing on what, his wisdom and
goodness is _founded_; as we have to believe him to be _omniscient_,
and _eternal_, without knowing on _what_ his _omniscience_ is founded;
or to _what_, his eternity is owing. And we have the same reason to
hold it a vain enquiry, to ask what obliges God to be _wise_ and _good_,
as to ask what obliges him to be _omniscient_, or _eternal_.

And as it would be absurd to ascribe the _existence_ of God to _any
cause_, or found it upon any _independent relations_ of things, so it
is the same absurdity, to ascribe the infinite wisdom and goodness of
God to _any cause_, or found them upon any independent relations of
things.

Nor do we any more _lose_ the notion, or _lessen_ the certainty of the
divine wisdom and goodness, because we cannot say on _what_ they are
founded, than we _lose_ the notion of God, or render his existence
_uncertain_, because it cannot be founded on any thing.

And as in our account of the existence of things, we are obliged to
have recourse to a being, whose existence must not be ascribed to _any
cause_ because every thing cannot have a cause, no more than every
thing can be created, so in our account of _wisdom_ and _goodness_,
there is the same necessity of having recourse to an infinite wisdom
and goodness, that never _began_ to be, and that is as different as
to its _manner_ of existence, from all other wisdom and goodness, that
have a beginning, as the _existence_ of God is _different_ from the
existence of the creatures.

* But if it be necessary to hold, that there is an infinite wisdom and
goodness that _never began_ to be, then it is as necessary to affirm,
that such wisdom and goodness can no more be _founded_ upon the
_relations_ of things, than the _unbeginning existence_ of God can be
_founded_ upon the existence of things. And to seek for any _reasons_
of a wisdom and goodness that was always in the _same infinite_ state,
is like seeking the cause of that which can have no cause, or asking
_what_ it is that _contains_ infinity.

* When therefore this writer saith, _Infinite wisdom can have no
commands, but what are founded on the unalterable reason of things_;¹
he might as justly have said, an _infinite Creator_ can have no
power of creating, but what is founded on the _unalterable nature_
of creatures.

    ¹ Page 247.

* For the _reason_ of things, is just as unalterable, as the _nature_
of creatures. And if the reasons and relations of things are nothing
else but their _manner_ of existence, or the _state_ of their nature,
certainly the relations of things must have the same _beginning_, and
the same _alterable_ or unalterable nature, as the things from whence
they flow. Unless it can be said, that a thing may exist in _such a
manner_, though it does not exist at all.

When therefore he says again, _That the will of God is always
determined by the nature and reason of things_;¹ It is the same as
if he had said, the _omnipotence_ of God is always determined by the
_nature_ of _causes_ and _effects_. For as all causes and effects are
what they are, and _owe_ their _nature_ to the omnipotence of God, so
the relations of things are what they are, and owe their nature to the
wisdom and will of God.

    ¹ Page 65.

Nor does this dependance of the relations of things on the will of God,
destroy the nature of relations, or make them doubtful, any more than
the existence of things depending on the _power_ of God, destroys the
certainty of their existence, or renders it doubtful. For as God cannot
make things to exist, and not to exist at the same time, though their
existence depends upon his power, so neither can he make things to have
such relations, and yet not to have such relations at the same time,
though their relations depend upon his will.

So that the ascribing the relations of things to the will of God,
brings no uncertainty to those duties of life, which flow from such
relations, but leaves the state of nature with all its relations, and
the duties which flow from them, in the greatest certainty, so long as
nature itself is continued; and when that either _ceases entirely_, or
is only _altered_, it is not to be wondered at, if all its relations
cease, or are altered with it.

Our author says, _Dare any one say, that God’s laws are not founded on
the eternal reason of things?_¹

    ¹ Page 425.

* I dare say it with the same assurance, as that his _existence_ is
not founded on the _eternal existence_ of things. And that it is the
same extravagance to say, that God’s laws are founded on the _eternal
reasons_ of things, as to say, that his _power_ is founded on the
_eternal capacities_ of things. For the _capacities_ of things have
just the same _solidity_ and _eternity_, as the relations of things
have, and are just such _independent realities_ as they are: and are
just the same _proper materials_ to found the omnipotence of God upon,
as the relations of things are, to found his infinite wisdom upon.

And as we can say, that the _omnipotence_ of God in preserving and
supporting the creation, will certainly act _suitably_ to itself, and
_consistent_ with that omnipotence which first made things be what
they are, and put nature into such a state as it is in; so we can say,
that the _infinite wisdom_ of God in giving laws to the world, will act
_suitably_ to itself, and _consistent_ with that wisdom which at first
made the nature and relations of the rational world be what they are.

But then as the _omnipotence_ of God, though it acts suitably to the
state of the creation, and the nature of causes and effects, which
it first ordained, yet cannot be said to be founded upon the nature
of causes and effects, because neither causes nor effects have _any
nature_, but what they _owe_ to omnipotence; so the infinite wisdom
of God, though in giving laws to the world, it acts _suitably_ to the
natures and relations of rational beings, yet cannot be said to be
_founded_ upon such relations, because such relations are the _effects_
of the divine wisdom, and owe their existence to it.

And the _reason_ or _relations_ of things shew God’s _antecedent_
wisdom, and are effects of it, just as the nature of _causes_ and
_effects_ shew his _antecedent_ power, and are the effects of it.
And as he is infinitely powerful, but not from the nature of causes
and effects; so he is infinitely wise, but not from the _reason_ and
_nature_ of things.

Again; if God is _infinite_ wisdom, then his wisdom cannot be founded
on the relations of things, unless things _finite_, and relations that
began to be, can be the foundation of that wisdom which is infinite,
and could not begin to be.

Therefore to ask, _what_ it is founded upon, when it can have no
foundation upon _any thing_, is asking, what an _independent_ being is
dependent upon, or _how_ that began, which could have no beginning?

And to ask the reason or foundation of _any one_ of the divine
attributes, is the same as asking the reason or foundation of them all.
And to seek for the reason or foundation of all the divine attributes,
is seeking for the cause of God’s existence.

And as we do not come to God’s existence, till we come to the _end_ of
_causes_, so nothing that is divine, can be attributed to any cause.

Nor is it any more a contradiction to say, there is something whose
nature is without any cause or foundation of its existence, than to say,
something exists without ever _beginning_ to exist. For as nothing can
have a beginning, but as it proceeds from some cause; so that which can
have no beginning, can have no cause. If therefore the divine wisdom
ever _began_ to be _infinite_, and we could know when that beginning
was, we should have some pretence to search for that, upon which its
infinity was _founded_; but if it never could begin to be, then to seek
for its reason, or foundation, is seeking for its beginning.

This writer affirms, that God’s wisdom and goodness must be founded on
the nature and reason of things, otherwise it could not be proved, that
God was not an _arbitrary being_.

* Now to seek for reasons to prove that God is not an arbitrary being,
that is, a being of the _highest freedom_ and _independency_, that does
every thing according to his _own will_ and _pleasure_, is as vain, as
to seek for reasons to prove, that _all things_ are not the effect of
his _will_. For if every thing besides God, received its existence from
him; if every thing that exists, is the effect of his will, and he can
do nothing, but because he wills the doing it, must he not be free and
arbitrary in as _high a manner_, as he is powerful?

This _writer_ says, _It is not in our power to love the deity, whilst
we consider him to be an arbitrary being, acting out of humour and
caprice._¹

    ¹ Page 31.

But if God’s _will_ is as _essentially_ opposite to _humour_ and
_caprice_, as his _omnipotence_ is to _weakness and inability_; then
it is as absurd to suppose, that God must act according to humour and
caprice, because he acts according to his own will, as to suppose that
he must act with inability, because he acts by his omnipotence.

And if the will of God, _as such_, is in the highest state of
perfection, then we have the _highest reason_ to love and adore God,
because he is arbitrary, and acts according to his _own all-perfect
will_. And if it be asked, what it is that makes the will of God
_all-perfect_, it may as well be asked, what it is that makes him
omnipotent, or makes him to exist. For, as we have not found out a God,
till we have found a being that has no _cause_; so we have not found
the _will_ of God, till we have found a _will_, that has no _mover_, or
_director_, or _cause_ of its perfection. For that _will_ which never
began to be, can no more be any thing, but what it is in itself, than
it can begin to be.

That which makes people imagine, that _will alone_ is not so adorable,
is because they consider it as a blind imperfect faculty that wants to
be directed. But what has such a will as this to do with the _will_ of
God?

For if the will of God is as _perfect_ a _will_, as his omniscience
is a _perfect knowledge_, then we are as sure, that the will of God
cannot want any direction, or _will_ any thing amiss, as we are, that
his omniscience cannot need any information, or fall into any mistake.
And if the _will_ of God wanted any direction or government, it is
impossible it should have it; for having no superior, it could only be
so governed, because it _willed_ it, and therefore must be always under
its own government.

All the perfection therefore that can be ascribed to God, must be
ascribed to his _will_, not as if it was the production of his will,
(for nothing in God is produced) but as eternally inherent in it.

And as God’s will has thus all the perfection of the divine nature, and
has no rule, or reason, or motive to any goodness, that comes from it,
but its own _nature_ and _state_ in God: so this great will is the only
law of all creatures, and they are all to obey and conform to it, for
this reason, because it is the will of God.

* Nothing has a _moral_ reason, or fitness to be done, but because it
is the will of God that it should be done.

* It may be asked, Is there then no _reason_ or _nature_ of things?
Yes; as certainly as there are things. But the nature and reason of
things, considered _independently_ of the divine will, have no more
_obligation_ in them, than a _divine worship_ considered independently
of, and without any regard to the _existence_ of God. For the _will_
of God is as absolutely necessary to found all _moral obligation_ upon,
as the existence of God is necessary to be the foundation of religious
worship. And the fitness of moral obligations, without the _will_
of God, is only like the fitness of _religious_ worship without the
_existence_ of God.

And it is as just to say, that he destroys the _reason_ of religion,
who founds it upon the nature and existence of God, as to say, he saps
the foundation of moral obligations, who founds them upon the will of
God. And as religion cannot be solidly defended, but by shewing its
connexion with, and dependence upon God’s existence; so neither can
moral obligations be asserted with reason, but by shewing them to be
the will of God.

It may again be asked, Can God make that fit in itself, which is in
_itself absolutely_ unfit to be done?

This question consists of improper terms. For God’s will no more makes
actions to be fit _in themselves_, than it makes _things_ to exist
_in, or of themselves_. No things, nor any actions have any _absolute_
fitness, of and in _themselves_.

A _gift_, a _blow_, the making a _wound_, or _shedding_ of _blood_,
considered in themselves, have no _absolute_ fitness, but are fit or
unfit according to a variety of accidental circumstances.

When therefore God by his will makes any thing fit to be done, he does
not make the thing fit in _itself_, which is just in the _same state_
considered in _itself_, that it was before, but it becomes fit for the
person to do it, because he can only be happy, or do that which is fit
for him to do, by doing the will of God.

For instance, the _bare eating_ a fruit, considered in _itself_, is
neither fit nor unfit. If a fruit is appointed by God for our food,
then it is as fit to eat it, as to preserve our lives. If a fruit is
poisonous, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to commit self-murder. If
eating of a fruit is prohibited by God, then it is as unfit as to eat
our own damnation.

But in none of these instances is the eating or not eating, considered
in _itself fit_ or _unfit_: but has all its fitness, or unfitness, from
such circumstances, as are entirely owing to the will of God.

Supposing therefore God to require a person to do something, which
according to his present circumstances, _without_ that command, he
ought not to do, God does not make that which is _absolutely_ unfit
in _itself_, fit to be done: but only adds _new circumstances_ to an
action, that is neither fit, nor unfit, moral, nor immoral in _itself_,
but because of its circumstances.

Again, it is objected, _If there is nothing right or wrong, good or bad,
antecedently and independently of the will of God, there can then be no
reason, why God should will, or command one thing, rather than another._

It is answered, _first_, That all goodness, and all possible perfection,
is as _eternal_ as God, and as essential to him as his existence. And
to say, that they are either _antecedent_ or _consequent_, _dependent_
or _independent_ of his will, would be equally absurd. To ask therefore,
whether there is not something right and wrong, antecedent to the
will of God, is as absurd, as to ask for some antecedent cause of his
existence. And to ask, how God can be good if there is not something
good independently of him, is asking how he can be infinite, if there
be not something infinite independently of him. And to seek for any
other _source_ or _reason_ of the divine goodness, besides the divine
nature, is like seeking for some external cause and help of the divine
omnipotence.

The goodness and wisdom, therefore, by which God is wise and good, and
to which all his works of wisdom and goodness are owing, are neither
_antecedent_, nor _consequent_ to his will.

_Secondly_, Nothing is more certain, than that all _moral obligations_
and _duties_ of creatures towards one another, _began_ with the
existence of moral creatures. This is as certain, as that all corporeal
qualities and effects, _began_ with the existence of bodies.

As therefore nothing has the nature of a cause or effect, nothing has
any quality of any kind in bodies, but what is entirely owing to matter
so created and constituted by the _will_ of God; so no actions have any
_moral qualities_, but what are wholly owing to that state and nature
in which they are created by the will of God.

* Moral obligations therefore of creatures have the same _origin_,
and the _same reason_, that natural qualities and effects have in the
corporeal world, _viz._ the sole will of God. And as in a different
state of matter, bodies would have had different qualities and
effects; so in a different state of rational beings, there would be
different moral obligations, and nothing could be right or good in
their behaviour, but what began then to be right and good, because
they then began to exist in such a state and condition of life. And as
their state and condition could have no other cause or reason of its
existence, but the sole will of God, so the cause and reason of right
and wrong in such a state, must be equally owing to the will of God.

The pretended _absolute independent fitnesses_, or _unfitnesses_
of actions therefore _in themselves_, are vain _abstractions_, and
philosophical _jargon_, serving no ends of morality, but only helping
people to wrangle and dispute away that sincere obedience to God,
which is their only happiness. But to make these imaginary _absolute
fitnesses_ the _common law_ both of God and man, is still more
extravagant. For if the _circumstances_ of actions give them their
_moral nature_, surely God must first be in our circumstances, before
that which is a law to us, can be the same law to him.

And if a father may require that of a son, which his son, because of
his _different state_, cannot require of his brother; surely that which
God may require of us, may be as different from that which a father may
require of a son, as God is different from a father.

Again, if God is as much under a law as we are, then he is as much
under authority; for law can no more be without authority, than without
a law-giver. And if God and we are under the _same law_, we must be
under the _same authority_.

* But as God cannot be under any law in common with us his creatures,
any more than he can be of the same rank or order with any ♦of us; so
neither can he be under any law at all, any more than he can be under
any authority at all.

    ♦ word omitted in text “of”

And though God is not to be looked upon as an _arbitrary being_, in the
sense of this author, who will not distinguish arbitrary from _humour_
and _caprice_; yet in a true sense of the word, when applied to God, he
must be affirmed to be an arbitrary being, that acts only from himself,
from his _own will_, and according to his _own pleasure_.

And we have no more reason to be afraid to be left to a God without
a law, or to be left to his will and pleasure, than to be left under
the protection and care of a being, that is all love, and mercy, and
goodness. For as the existence of God, as such, necessarily implies the
existence of all perfection; so the will of God, as such, necessarily
implies the _willing_ every thing, that _all perfection_ can will.

And as the existence of God, because it contains all perfection, cannot
for that reason have any external cause; so the will of God, because it
is _all perfection_, cannot, for that reason, have any external _rule_
or _direction_. But his own will is wisdom, and his wisdom is his will.
His goodness is arbitrary, and his arbitrariness is goodness.

But this writer does not only thus bring God into this state of law
and obligation with us, but makes farther advances in the same kind
of errors.

_Hence_, says he, _we may contemplate the great dignity of our rational
nature, since our reason for |kind|, tho’ not for degree, is of the
|same nature| with |that of| God’s._¹

    ¹ Page 24.

Here you see _our reason_, that is, our _faculty_ of reasoning, (for
reason cannot be called _ours_ in any other respect,) has no other
difference from reason as it is in God, but that of degree. But what
greater absurdity can a man fall into, than to suppose, that a being
whose existence had a beginning but a few years ago, differs only in a
degree from that which could not possibly have a beginning; or that a
_dependent_ and _independent_ being, should not be different in _kind_,
but _only_ in degree?

For to say, that the faculties of a dependent and independent being,
may be of the same kind, is as flat a contradiction, as to say, the
same kind of thing may be dependent, and independent.

Reason belongs to God and man, just as _power_, _existence_, _life_,
and _happiness_, belong to God and man; and he that can, from happiness
being common to God and man, prove our happiness to be of the _same
kind_ and nature with God’s, may also prove reason in God and man to be
of the same kind.

This writer indeed says, _Our happiness is limited, |because| our
reason is so; |and that God has| unlimited happiness, |because| he
alone has unlimited reason._¹

    ¹ Page 24.

But if that which is _necessarily limited_, is different from that
which is _necessarily unlimited_, then we have proof enough from this
very argument, that a reason _necessarily_ limited cannot be of the
_same kind_ with that reason, which is _necessarily_ unlimited. Unless
it can be said, that limited and unlimited, finite and infinite,
beginning and unbeginning, have no contrariety in _kind_, but only
differ, as a _short_ line differs from a _long_ one.

* The truth of the matter is this; reason is in God and man, as
power is in God and man. And as the divine power has some degree of
likeness to human power, yet with an _infinite_ difference from it:
so that perfection which we call _reason_ in God, has some degree of
likeness to reason as it is in man, yet is _infinitely_ and beyond all
conception different from it.

* And as our enjoyment of power is so limited, so imperfect, so
superficial, as to be scarce sufficient to tell us, what power is, much
less what omnipotence is; so our share of reason is so small, and we
enjoy it in so imperfect a manner, that we can scarce think or talk
intelligibly of it, or so much as define our own faculties of reasoning.




                              CHAPTER II.

  _Shewing from the |relation| between God and man, that human
    reason cannot be a competent judge of the |fitness| and
    |reasonableness| of God’s proceedings with mankind, either
    as to the |time|, or |matter|, or |manner| of an external
    revelation._


AS our author has laid it down for an undeniable rule of God’s actions,
that he must, if he be a wise and good being, act according to the
relation he stands in towards his creatures; I proceed upon this
principle to prove the incapacity of _human reason_, to judge _truly_
of God’s proceedings in regard to divine revelation.

For if the fitness of actions _results from the nature and relations_
of beings, then the _fitness_ of God’s actions, as he is an _omniscient
Creator_ and _Governor_, to whom every thing is _eternally foreknown_,
over beings endued with _our freedom of will_, must be to us
incomprehensible.

* We are not so much as capable of comprehending by our reason, the
_possibility_ of this relation, or how the fore-knowledge of God can
consist with the free agency of creatures. We know that God fore-knows
all things, with the same certainty as we know there is a God. And
if _self-consciousness_ is an infallible proof of our own existence,
it proves with the same certainty the freedom of our will. And hence
it is, that we have a full assurance of the consistency of God’s
fore-knowledge with freedom of will.

* Now this _incomprehensible_ relation between an _eternally
fore-knowing Creator and Governor_, and his free creatures, is the
_relation_ from whence arises the fitness of God’s providence over us.
But if the _relation_ itself is incomprehensible, then those actions
that have their fitness from it, must surely be incomprehensible.
Nothing can be fit for God to do, either in _creation_ or _providence_,
but what has its fitness founded in his _fore-knowledge_ of every thing
that would follow, from _every kind_ of creation, and _every manner_ of
providence: but if nothing can be fit, but because it is according to
_this fore-knowledge_ of _every thing_ that would follow from _every
kind_ of creation, and _every manner_ of providence; then we have the
utmost certainty, that the fitness of God’s actions as a _fore-knowing
Creator_, and _Governor_ of free agents, must be founded upon _reasons_
that we cannot possibly know any thing of.

* And a child that has but just learned to speak, is as well qualified
to state the fitness of the laws of matter and motion by which
the whole vegetable world is preserved, as the wisest of men is
qualified to comprehend, or state the fitness of the methods, which a
_fore-knowing Providence_ observes over free agents. For every reason
on which the fitness of such a providence is founded, is not only
_unknown_ to us, but by a necessity of nature _impossible_ to be known
by us.

For if the _fitness_ of God’s acting in this, or that manner, is
founded in his fore-knowledge of every thing that would _happen_, from
every _possible way_ of acting, then it is impossible for us to know
the reasons, on which the fitness of his actions is founded, as it is
impossible for us to be omniscient.

Who can tell what _different kinds_ of rational creatures,
distinguished by variety of natures, and faculties, it is fit and
reasonable for God to create, because he eternally foresaw what would
be the _effect_ of such different creations? Who can explain the
_fitness_ of that vast _variety_ there is amongst rational creatures
of the _same species_, or shew that all their different faculties ought
to be as they are? And yet the _fitness_ of this providence has its
_certain reason_ in the divine fore-knowledge, and it could not be fit,
but because of it.

Who can tell what _degree_ of reason rational creatures ought to
enjoy, or what degrees of _new_ and _revealed_ knowledge it is fit and
reasonable for God to give, or not give them, because they seem, or
seem not to themselves to want it, are disposed, or not disposed to
receive it? For as mankind cannot tell why it was fit and reasonable
for God to create them of such a _kind_, and _degree_, as they are of;
so neither can they tell how God ought, or ought not to add to their
natural knowledge, and make them as _differently accountable_ for
the use of revealed rules of life, as for the use of their natural
faculties.

And as the reason why God created them of _such_ a _kind_, and
with _such faculties_, was because of his own fore-knowledge of the
_effects_ of such a creation; so if ever he does reveal to them any
_supernatural_ knowledge, both the doing it, the _time_, the _matter_,
and _manner_ of it, must have their fitness in his own _eternal
fore-knowledge_ of the effects of such a revelation.

The reasons therefore on which the fitness of this or that revelation
depends, _why_ or _when_, of _what matter_, in _what manner_, and to
whom it is to be made, must, from the nature and reason of things, be
as unsearchable by us, as the reasons of _this_ or _that_ creation of
rational beings, at such a _time_, of such a _kind_, in such a _manner_,
in such a _state_.

This may help us to an easy solution of the unreasonable questions,
which this writer puts in this manner.

“If the design of God in communicating any thing of himself to men
was their happiness, would not that design have obliged him, who
at all times alike desires their happiness, to have at all times
alike communicated it to them? If God always acts for the good of his
creatures, what reason can be assigned, why he should not from the
beginning have discovered such things as make for their good, but defer
the doing it till the time of _Tiberius_; since the sooner this was
done, the greater would his goodness appear?”¹

    ¹ Page 393.

And again “How is it consistent with the notion of God’s being
universally benevolent, not to have revealed it to all his children,
when all had equal need of it? Was it not as easy for him to have
communicated it to all nations, as to any one nation or person? Or in
all languages, as in one?”¹

    ¹ Page 196.

Now all this is fully answered, by our author’s own great and
fundamental principle.

“For if the relations between things and persons, and the things
resulting from thence, be the sole rule of God’s actions,”¹ as he
expressly affirms; then the _sole rule_ or reason of God’s revealing
any thing to any men, at any time, must have its _fitness resulting_
from the divine fore-knowledge of the effects of _such_ a revelation,
at _such_ a time, and to _such_ persons. If God does not act thus,
he does not act according to the relation betwixt a _fore-knowing
Creator_, and his free creatures. But if he does act according to a
_fitness resulting_ from this _relation_, and makes, or does not make
revelations, according to his own fore-knowledge of the fitness of
times and persons for them; then to ask how a God, always equally good,
can make a revelation at any time, and not make the _same_ at _all_
times, is as absurd as to ask, how a God, always equally good, can
reveal that at one time, because it is a _proper_ time for it, and not
reveal it at every other time, tho’ improper for it.

    ¹ Page 28.

* God’s goodness, directed by his own fore-knowledge of the _fitness_
of times, and of the _state_ and _actions_ of free agents, deferred
a certain revelation to the time of _Tiberius_, because he _fore-saw_
it would then be an act of the _greatest_ goodness, and have its
_best effects_ upon the world: to ask therefore, _what reason can be
assigned_, why so good a revelation was not _sooner_, or even from the
_beginning_ made to the world, is asking, why God should act, according
to his _own fore-knowledge_ of the _state_ and _actions_ of _free
agents_, and order all things, according to a fitness resulting from
such a fore-knowledge?

These questions suppose, that if God shewed his _goodness_ to mankind
by a revelation at such time, he must be _wanting_ in goodness
before that time, because he did not make it _sooner_; whereas if his
deferring it till _such_ a time, was owing to his _fore-knowledge_ of
the actions and state of free agents, and because it would then have
its _best effects_, then God is proved to be equally good before he
made it, for this very reason, because he did not make it before its
_proper_ time: and he had been wanting in goodness, if he had not
_deferred_ it till that time.

Now this appealing to God’s fore-knowledge of the state and actions
of _free agents_, as the cause of all that is particular in the _time_
and _manner_ of any revelation, and deducing its fitness from thence,
cannot be said to be _begging the question_, but is resolving it
directly according to the _rule_, which this writer lays down for God
to act by: that “the relations between things and persons, _and_ the
fitness resulting from thence, must be the sole rule of God’s actions.”

But if this is the _sole rule_, then God in giving any revelation, must
act as the _relation_ betwixt a _fore-knowing_ Creator and his _free_
creatures requires; and his actions must have their _fitness resulting_
from his fore-knowledge of the _state_ and _actions_ of free agents.
And if this is God’s sole rule, then to ask why _this_ or _that_
revelation _only_ at _such_ a time, is to ask why God _only_ does that
which is _fit_ for him to do? And to ask, why not the same revelation
at any other time, is asking why God does not do that, which it is _not
fit_ for him to do?

This writer asks, “How it is consistent with the notion of God’s being
universally benevolent, not to have revealed it to all his children,
who had equal need of it?” But if they had _equal need_ of it, yet if
they were not _equally fit_ for it, but prepared only to have their
_guilt_ increased by it, and so be exposed to a greater damnation; then
God’s goodness to them is manifest, by withholding such information
from them, and reserving it for those that would be made happier by it.

_Judas_, _Pontius Pilate_, and the _Jews_ that called for our Saviour’s
crucifixion, had _equal need_ of a Saviour with those that believed in
him. _Chorazin_ and _Bethsaida_ wanted the light of the gospel as much
as those that received it. And if the rest of the world had been, at
that time, as much indisposed for the light of the gospel, as they were,
God’s goodness had been, greater to that age, if he had reserved the
light of the gospel till a better age had succeeded.

So that this argument, founded on the _equal need_ of all, or former
ages, has no force, unless it could be shewn, that the same revelation
made to any of these former ages, would have produced all those good
effects, which God foresaw would follow, from its being reserved for
such a _particular time_ and _state_ of things and persons.

He asks again, “Was it not as easy for God to have communicated it to
all nations, as to any one nation or person? Or in all languages, as in
any one?” This argument is built upon this supposition, that God does
things because they are _easy_, or forbears things because they are
_difficult_ to be performed. For it can be no argument, that God ought
to have revealed such things to _all_ nations or persons, because it
was as _easy_ to him, as to do it to _any one_ nation or person; unless
it be supposed, that the _easiness_ of a thing is a reason why God does
it, and the difficulty of a thing a reason why he does not do it. But
if this supposition be very absurd, then the argument founded upon it
must be liable to the same charge.

But if God does things, not because they are easy, but because they
are infinitely good and fit to be done, then the reason why God has
afforded different revelations, to different ages and persons, is this,
that his _manner_ of revealing every thing, might be worthy of his
own _fore-knowledge_ of the effects of it, and that every thing that
is particular in the _time_ or _manner_ of any revelation, might have
its _fitness resulting_ from the _relation_ betwixt a good God and his
creatures, whose _changing_ state, _different_ conduct, tempers and
actions, are all eternally fore-known by him.

Again, it is objected, that a divine revelation must either be the
effect of _justice_, or else of _mercy_ and _free goodness_; but in
either of these cases it ought to be _universal_; for justice must be
done to all. But if it is the effect of _mercy_ and _free goodness_,
this writer asks, “How a being can be denominated merciful and good,
who is so only to a few, but cruel and unmerciful to the rest?”¹

    ¹ Page 401.

It is answered, That there is neither _justice_ in God without mercy,
nor _mercy_ without justice; and to ascribe a _revelation_ to either
of them separately, in _contradistinction_ to the other, has no more
reason in it, than to ascribe the _creation_ separately either to the
_wisdom_ or _power_ of God, in contradistinction to the other.

_Secondly_, A divine revelation is not owing barely to the _justice_
or _free goodness_ of God, but to the goodness, mercy, and justice of
God, _governed_ and _directed_ by his eternal fore-knowledge of all the
effects of every revelation, at any, or all times.

* God ordains a revelation in this, or that manner, time, and place;
not because it is a _justice_ that he cannot refuse, not because it
is a matter of _favour_ or _free goodness_, and therefore may be given
in any manner at pleasure; but because he has the whole _duration_
of human things, the whole _race_ of mankind, the whole _order_ of
human changes and events, the whole _combination_ of all causes and
effects of human tempers, all the actions of free agents, and all the
consequences of every revelation, plainly in his sight; and according
to this eternal fore-knowledge, every revelation receives every thing
that is _particular_ in it, either as to _time_, _matter_, _manner_, or
_place_.

* All complaints therefore about that which is _particular_, or
_seemingly_ partial in the time and manner of any revelation, are very
unjustifiable; and shew, that we are discontent at God’s proceedings,
because he acts like himself, does what is best and fittest to be done,
and governs the world, not according to our weak imaginations, but
according to his own infinite perfections.

* We will not allow a providence to be _right_, unless we can
comprehend the reasonableness of all its steps; and yet it could not
possibly be right, unless its proceedings were as much _above_ our
comprehension, as our wisdom is _below_ that which is infinite.

For if the _relations_ of _things_, and _persons_, and the fitness
resulting from thence, be the _rule_ of God’s actions; then all the
revelations that come from God, must have their fitness resulting
from the relation his fore-knowledge bears to the _various states_,
_conditions_, _tempers_, and _actions_ of free agents, and the various
effects of every manner of revelation.

But if God cannot act worthy of himself in any revelation, unless
he acts according to a fitness resulting from this relation; then he
must act by a _rule_ that lies out of our sight, and his providence in
this particular must be incomprehensible to us; for this very reason,
because it has that very fitness, wisdom and goodness in it, that it
ought to have.




                             CHAPTER III.

  _Shewing how far human reason is able to judge of the
    reasonableness, truth, and certainty of divine revelation._


THE former chapter has plainly shewn, from the state and relation
between God and man, that we must be strangers to the true reasons on
which a divine revelation is founded, both as to its _time_, _matter_,
and _manner_.

But it is here objected, “If God by reason of his own perfections
must be thus mysterious and incomprehensible, both in the matter and
manner of divine revelation; how can we know what revelations we are
to receive as divine? How can we be blamed for rejecting this, or
receiving that, if we cannot comprehend the reasons on which every
revelation is founded, both as to its matter and manner?”

If a man may be blameable, or commendable, for his right or wrong
belief of a God; then a man may be accountable for a right or wrong
belief of such matters, as are in their own nature too mysterious
for his comprehension. And tho’ a man knows the reasons of a divine
revelation, either as to its _matter_ or _manner_, as imperfectly as
he knows the divine nature; yet he may be as liable to account for
believing _false revelations_, as for _idolatry_; and as full of guilt
for rejecting a _true revelation_, as for denying the only _true God_.

_Secondly_, Tho’ we are insufficient for comprehending the _reasons_,
on which the particular _matter_ or _manner_ of any divine revelation
is founded; yet we may be so far sufficient judges, of the reasons for
_receiving_ or not _receiving_ a revelation as divine, as to make our
conduct therein justly accountable to God.

For if God can shew a revelation to proceed from him, by the _same
undeniable_ evidence, as he shews the _creation_ to be his work; if he
can make himself as visible in a _particular extraordinary_ manner, as
he is by his _general_ and _ordinary_ providence; then, tho’ we are as
unqualified to judge of the mysteries of a _revelation_, as we are to
judge of the mysteries in _creation_ and _providence_; yet we may be as
fully obliged to receive a revelation, as to acknowledge the creation
to be the work of God; and as highly criminal for disbelieving it, as
for denying a general providence.

_Adam_, _Noah_, _Abraham_, and _Moses_, were very incompetent judges,
of the reasons on which the particular revelations made to them were
founded; but this did not hinder their sufficient assurance, that such
revelations came from God, because they were proved to come from God in
the same manner, as the creation is proved to be the work of God.

And as _Adam_ and _Noah_ must see every thing wonderful, mysterious,
and above their comprehensions, in those new worlds into which they
were introduced by God; so they could no more expect, that he should
require nothing of them, but what they would enjoin themselves, than
that their own _frame_, the _nature_ of the creation, the _providence_
of God, or the _state_ of human life, should be exactly as they would
have it.

And if their posterity will let no _messages_ from heaven, no
_prophesies_ and _miracles_ persuade them, that God can call them to
any duties, but such as they must enjoin themselves; or to the belief
of any doctrines, but such as their own minds can suggest; nor to any
methods of changing their present state of weakness and disorder for
a happy immortality, but such as suit their own _taste_, _temper_,
and way of reasoning; it is because they are grown senseless of the
mysteries of creation and providence with which they are surrounded,
and forget the awful prerogative of infinite wisdom, over the weakest,
lowest rank of intelligent beings.

* And as we can only know what is worthy of God in creation, by knowing
what he has created; so we can no other way know what is worthy of God
to be revealed, but by a revelation. And he that pretends independently
of any relation, to shew _how_, and in what manner God ought to make
a revelation worthy of himself, is as great a _visionary_, as he that
should pretend independently of the creation, or without learning any
thing from it, to shew how God ought to have proceeded in it, to make
it worthy of himself. For as God alone, knows how to create worthy of
himself, and nothing can possibly be proved to be worthy to be created
by him, but because he has already created it; so God alone knows
what is worthy of himself in a revelation, and nothing can possibly
be proved worthy to be revealed by him, but because he has already
revealed it.

Hence we may see how little this _writer_ is governed by the _reason_
and _nature_ of things, who proceeds upon this as an undeniable
principle, that we could not know a revelation to be divine, unless we
knew, antecedently to revelation, what God could teach or require of
us by it. Thus, says he, “Were we not capable by our own reason of
knowing what the divine goodness could command, or forbid his creatures,
antecedently to any external revelation, we could not distinguish the
true instituted religion, from the _many_ false ones.”¹

    ¹ Page 66.

Just as wild and visionary, as if it was said, Were we not capable
by our reason of knowing what kind or orders of beings God _ought_
to create _independently_ of any thing we learn from the creation, we
could never prove this or that creation to proceed from him. Did we
not, antecedently to facts and experience, know by our own reason what
ought to be the method and manner of divine providence, we could never
prove that the providence which governs nations and persons is a divine
providence.

Again, He proceeds to shew, that a revelation from God cannot contain
any thing, but what human reason can prove from the nature of things;
because if God could require any thing more of us, than what our own
reason could thus prove, he must require _without_ reason, and then
there is an end of all religion.

Now this argument proceeds thus; If God does not act according to
the _measure_ of _human_ reason, he cannot act according to _reason
itself_. If he requires any more of us, than what we _think_ the nature
of things requires of us, then he cannot act according to the nature
of things. If his wisdom is in any matters of revelation _greater_ than
ours; if it is not in every thing he reveals _measurable_ by ours, it
cannot be wisdom at all, much less can it be infinite wisdom.

That is, if he is _more powerful_ than we are, he cannot be
_omnipotent_; if he is _more perfect_ than we are, he cannot be
_all perfection_; if he acts upon _greater_, or _higher_, or _more_
reasonable motives than we do, he cannot be a _reasonable_ being.

Now if these absurdities are not plain and manifest to every common
understanding, it is in vain to dispute about any thing; but if
they are, then it is as plain, this writer’s great argument against
Christianity, and first principle of his _rational religion_, is in
the same state of undeniable absurdity.

Thus says he, “Natural religion takes in all those duties which flow
from the reason and the nature of things.”¹ That is, natural religion
takes in all those things that bare human reason can discover from
the nature of things. This is granted; but what follows? Why, says
he, “Consequently, was there an instituted religion which differs from
that of nature, its precepts must be arbitrary, as not founded on the
nature and reason of things, but depending on mere will and pleasure,
otherwise it would be the same with natural religion.”²

    ¹ Page 114.

    ² Page 16.

Here you see all the absurdities just mentioned, are ♦expressly
contained in this argument, God is all _humour_ and _caprice_, if
his revelation is not strictly, in every respect, the same with human
reason. That is, he is _without_ wisdom, _without_ reason, if his
wisdom and reason exceed ours. He has _no reason_, nor _wisdom_, if
his reason and wisdom are _infinite_.

    ♦ “expresly” replaced with “expressly” for consistency

_Secondly_, This argument, if it were allowed, leads directly to
_atheism_. For if a revelation cannot be divine, if it contains any
thing mysterious, whose fitness and necessity cannot be explained by
human reason, then neither _creation_ nor _providence_ can be proved to
be divine, for they are both of them more mysterious than the Christian
revelation.

And if every thing is _arbitrary_, whose _fitness and experience_
human reason cannot _prove_ and _explain_, then surely an _invisible
over-ruling providence_ that orders all things in a manner, and for
reasons, known only to itself; that subjects human life, and human
affairs, to what changes it pleases; that confounds the best-laid
designs, and makes great effects arise from folly and imprudence;
that gives not the race to the swift, nor the battle to the strong;
that brings good men into affliction, and makes the wicked prosperous;
surely such a providence must be highly arbitrary.

And therefore if this argument is to be admitted, it leads directly
to _atheism_, and brings us under a greater necessity of rejecting
divine providence, on the account of its mysteries, than of rejecting
a revelation that is mysterious in any of its doctrines. And if, God
cannot be said to deal with us as rational agents, if he requires any
thing of us, that our reason cannot prove to be necessary; surely he
cannot be said to deal with us as rational agents, if he over-rules
our persons and affairs, and disappoints our counsels, makes weakness
prosperous, and wisdom unsuccessful, in a _secret_ and _invisible_
manner, and for reasons and ends that we have no means of knowing.

* There is nothing therefore half so mysterious in the Christian
revelation, as there is in that _invisible_ providence, which all must
hold that believe a God. And tho’ there is enough plain in providence,
to excite the adoration of humble and pious minds, yet it has often
been a rock of _atheism_ to those, who make their own reason the
measure of wisdom.

Again, Tho’ the _creation_ plainly declares the glory, and wisdom, and
goodness of God; yet it has more mysteries in it, more things whose
fitness, expedience, and reasonableness, human reason cannot comprehend,
than are to be found in scripture.

If therefore he reasons right, who says, “If there may be some things
in a true religion, whose fitness and expedience we cannot see, why not
others: nay, why not the whole; since that would make God’s laws all of
a piece? And if the having of these things is no proof of its falshood,
how can any things fit and expedient (which no religion is without)
be a proof of the truth of any one religion?”¹ _If, I say, this is
the right reasoning, then it may be said_, “If there are things in the
creation whose fitness we cannot see, why not others: nay, why not the
whole; since that would make God’s works of a piece? And if the being
of such things as these in the creation, is not a proof of its not
being divine, how can the fitness and expedience of any creation prove
that it is the work of God?”

    ¹ First address to the inhabitants of London, Page 57.

Thus does this argument tend wholly to _atheism_, and concludes with
the same force against _creation_ and _providence_, as it does against
revelation.

Either therefore there is nothing in the work of the creation,
whose fitness and expedience cannot be proved; nothing in God’s
providence over whole nations, and particular persons, whose fitness
and expedience cannot be explained and justified by human reason, or
else neither creation nor providence can be ascribed to God.

The credibility of an external divine revelation with regard to human
reason, rests wholly upon _such external_ evidence, as is a sufficient
proof of the divine interposition. If there be no such external
evidence possible; if God has no ways of acting so _peculiar_ to
himself, as to be a _sufficient_ proof to human reason of his action;
then no revelation can be sufficiently proved to be a divine, external
revelation from God.

I appeal therefore to the miracles and prophecies on which Christianity
is founded, as a sufficient proof, that it is a divine revelation. And
shall here consider, what is objected against the sufficiency of this
kind of proof.

1. It is objected, That miracles cannot prove a _false_, or _bad_
doctrine, to be _true_ and _good_; therefore miracles, _as such_,
cannot prove the truth of any revelation.

But though miracles cannot prove false to be true, or bad to be good;
yet they may prove, that we ought to receive such doctrines, both as
true and good, which we could not know to be true and good without such
miracles. Not because the miracles have any influence upon the things
revealed, but because they are God’s testimony to the truth of that
which he reveals.

But our author brings a farther objection against this use of miracles.

“If, _says he_, evil beings can impress notions in mens minds as
strongly as good beings, and cause miracles to be done in confirmation
of them; is there any way to know to which of the two, notions thus
impressed are owing, but from their internal marks of wisdom and
goodness?”

This objection supposes, that no miracles, can be a sufficient proof of
the divinity of a revelation; because we do not know the extent of that
power, which evil spirits have, of doing miracles. But this objection
is groundless. For, granting that we do not know the extent of that
power which evil spirits may have; yet if we know _enough_ of it to
affirm, that the _creation_ is not the work of evil spirits; if we
can securely appeal to the creation, as _a sufficient proof_ of God’s
action and ♦operation; then we are secure in appealing to miracles, as
a sufficient proof of a divine revelation.

    ♦ “opperation” replaced with “operation”

For, if the creation must be allowed to be the work of God,
notwithstanding any _unknown degree_ of power in evil spirits; if we
can as certainly ascribe it to God, as if there were no _such_ spirits;
then miracles may be as full a proof of the interposition of God, as if
there were no such spirits in being.

I do not ask, Whether the _same divine_ perfection is necessary
to foretel such things as are foretold in scripture, and work such
miracles as are there related, as is necessary to _create_? I do not
ask, Whether any power less than divine can do such things? I only ask,
Whether there is any certainty, that the creation is the work of God?
Whether we can be sure of the divine operation, from the existence of
that creation? Or, Whether we are in _doubt_ or _uncertainty_ about it,
because we do not know the _degree_ of power, that may belong to evil
spirits.

For if it can be affirmed, that the creation is the work of God,
notwithstanding our uncertainty about the degree of power that may
belong to evil spirits; then we have the same certainty, that the
_prophecies_ and _miracles_ recorded in scripture, are to be ascribed
to God, notwithstanding our uncertainty of the power of evil spirits.

For every reason for ascribing the creation to God, is the same reason
for ascribing such miracles and prophecies to God; and every argument
against the certainty of those miracles and prophecies coming from God,
is the same argument against the certainty of the creation’s being the
work of God; for there cannot be more or less certainty in one case
than in the other.

For, if evil spirits have so the creation in their hands, that by
reason of their power over it, no _miracles_ can prove the operation
of God, then the operation of God cannot be proved from the creation
itself.

For the creation cannot be proved to be the operation of God, unless it
can be proved that God _still presides_ over it.

And if _all that_ which is extraordinary and miraculous may be
accounted for, without the interposition of God; then nothing that is
ordinary and common according to the course of nature, can be a proof
of the action of God. For there can be no reason assigned, why that
which is _ordinary_ shall be ascribed to God, if all that is, or has
been, or can be miraculous, may be ascribed to evil spirits.

Either therefore it must be said, that there are, or may be miracles,
which cannot be the effects of evil spirits; or else nothing that is
ordinary and common can be a proof of the operation of God. For if
nothing miraculous can be an undeniable proof of God’s action, nothing
created can be a proof of it.

The matter therefore stands thus: There are, and may be miracles, that
cannot be ascribed to evil spirits, without ascribing the creation to
them; and which can no more be doubted to come from God, than we can
doubt of his being the Creator of the world. There may be miracles
therefore, which, are as full a proof of the _truth_ of that which they
attest, as the creation is of the _fitness_ of that which is created.

And though the _matter_ of a revelation is to be attended to, that
we may fully understand it, and be rightly affected with it; yet the
reason of our receiving it, must rest upon that _external authority_,
which shews it to be of God.

And the authority of miracles, sufficiently plain and apparent, are of
themselves a full reason for receiving a revelation, which both as to
its _matter_ and _manner_, would not be approved by us without them.

The history of magical wonders, and extraordinary things done by evil
spirits, is no objection against the sufficiency of that proof, that
arises from miracles. For the question is not, whether nothing that
is extraordinary can be done by evil spirits, but whether nothing that
is miraculous can, be a proof of its being done by God. For these two
cases are very consistent. It may be very possible for evil spirits, to
do things extraordinary in _some circumstances_, as ♦where people enter
into contracts with them, and resign themselves up to their power, and
yet that miracle may in _other circumstances_, be a sufficient proof of
their being done by God.

    ♦ “were” replaced with “where”

And as miracles are the highest and most undeniable evidence of the
truth and divinity of any external revelation; so Christianity stands
fully distinguished from all other religions, by the highest and most
undeniable evidences; since it has all the proof that the _highest
state_ of miracles can give, and every other religion is without any
support from them.

And though this writer, with a boldness worthy of himself, often
puts all _traditional religion_ upon a level; yet he might have shewn
himself as much a friend to truth as sobriety, by asserting, that all
_arguments_ are equally conclusive, all _tempers_ equally virtuous,
all _designs_ equally honest, and all _histories_ and _fables_ equally
supported by evidences of fact.

To give you one instance more of this writer’s extravagant and
inconsistent notions.

He makes _reason_, or _natural religion_, to be God’s _internal
revelation_, differing _only_ from _external revelation in the manner
of its being communicated_. He rejects _external revelation_ as
unworthy of God, because it has not been sufficiently made known at
_all times_, and in _all places_; yet he sets up an internal revelation,
as worthy of God, which has never been made known to any _one man_ of
any _time_ or _place_ in the world. For what one man ever knew that
_reason_ was God’s _internal revelation_, to which nothing could be
added by any external revelation?

It is a mighty complaint with our author against Christianity, that
so much happiness should be deferred till the time of _Tiberius_, and
that it should be communicated to no greater a part of the world, than
Christianity hath been. But is not this a _judicious_ complaint in
the mouth of a person, that is setting up a religion, that has been
communicated to no body but himself.

I know nothing that can be said for our author, in excuse of so much
confusion and self-contradiction, unless it be the particular hardships
of his _sect_. The _free-thinking few_, he says, _are forced into
an outward compliance_; and that which _forces_ a man into a state
of hypocrisy, may force him into a great deal of confusion and
self-contradiction.

To return: I have from a consideration of the state of man, and the
several relations which God stands in towards his creatures, shewn that
it is utterly impossible for human reason to be a competent judge of
the fitness, or unfitness, of all that God may, or may not require of
us. The two following chapters shall state the nature and perfection of
reason, as it is a faculty, or principle of action in human nature.




                              CHAPTER IV.

  _Of the state and nature of reason, as it is in man; and how its
    perfection in matters of religion is to be known._


THIS writer and others, who take to themselves the names of
_free-thinkers_, make their court to the world, by pretending to
vindicate the right that all men have, to judge and act according to
their own reason. Though, I think, the world has no more to thank them
for on this account, than if they had pretended to assert the right
that every man has, to see _only_ with his _own eyes_, or to hear
_only_ with his _own ears_.

For their own reason always did, does, and ever will, govern rational
creatures, in every thing they determine, either in speculation or
practice. It is not a matter of _duty_ for men to use their own reason,
but of _necessity_: and it is as impossible to do otherwise, as for a
being that cannot act but from choice, to act without choice.

Man is under the same necessity of acting from his own choice, that
_matter_ is of not acting at all; and a being, whose principle of
action is reason and choice, can no more act without it, or contrary
to it, than an extended being can be without extension.

All men therefore are equally reasonable in this respect, that they are,
and must be, by a _necessity_ of nature, equally directed and governed
by their own reason and choice.

* The dispute therefore betwixt Christians and _unbelievers_,
concerning reason, is not, whether men are to use their _own reason_,
any more than whether they are to see with their _own eyes_; but
whether every man’s reason must needs guide him, by its _own light_, or
must cease to guide him, as soon as it guides him by a light borrowed
from revelation? This is the true state of the question, not whether
reason is to be followed, but when it is _best_ followed? Not whether
it is to be our guide, but how it may be made our _safest guide_?

* The _free-thinkers_, therefore, rather appeal to the passions, than
reason of the people, when they represent the clergy and Christianity
as enemies to reason, and themselves as friends and advocates for the
use of reason.

* For Christians oppose unbelievers, not because they _reason_, but
because they reason _ill_. They receive revelation, not to suppress the
natural power, but to give new and heavenly light to their reason; not
to take away their right of judging for themselves, but to secure them
from false judgments.

Christians therefore do not differ from unbelievers in the _constant
use_ of their reason, but in the _manner_ of using it: as _virtuous_
men differ from _rakes_, not in their desire of happiness, but in their
manner of seeking it.

It appears from what has been said, that every man’s own reason is
his only principle of action, and that he must judge according to it,
whether he receives, or rejects revelation.

Now although every man is to judge according to the light of his own
reason, yet his reason has very little light that can be called its
own. For, as we derive our nature from our parents, so that which
we generally call _natural knowledge_, or the light of nature, is a
knowledge and light that is made natural to us, by the same authority,
which makes a certain language, certain customs, and modes of behaviour,
natural to us.

Nothing seems to be our own, but a bare capacity to be instructed, a
nature fitted for any impressions; as liable to be made a _Hottentot_,
by being born among Hottentots, as to be a _Christian_, by being born
among Christians.

It is not my intention by this to signify, that there is not a good and
evil, right and wrong founded in the nature of things: but only to shew,
that we find out this right and wrong, not by any inward strength, that
our natural reason of itself affords, but by such external means, as
people are taught articulate language, or the rules of civil life.

Men do not prefer virtue to vice, from a philosophical contemplation of
the fitness of the one, and the unfitness of the other; but because it
is a judgment as early in their minds, as their knowledge of the words,
virtue and vice.

And it can no more be reasonably affirmed, that our knowledge of God
and divine things, our opinions of the excellency of this, or that
virtue, and of the immortality of our souls, are the effects of our
natural light; than it can be reasonably affirmed, that our living in
society, and our articulate language are owing to the light of nature.

For, as all mankind find themselves in this state before any reasoning
about it; as education, and human authority have taught us language,
and accustomed us to the rules and manners of a social life: so
education, and the same authority, have planted in our minds, certain
notions of God and divine things, and formed us to a belief of our
soul’s immortality, and the expectation of another life.

And mankind are no more left to find out a God, or the fitness of
virtue, by their own reason, than they are left by their own reason, to
find out who are their parents, to find out the fitness of speaking an
articulate language.

Now if this is the state of reason, as it is in man; if this is all the
light that we have from our own nature, a bare capacity of receiving
good or bad impressions, right or wrong opinions and sentiments,
according to the state of the world we fall into; then we are but
poorly furnished, to assert the _absolute perfection_ of our own reason.

If our light is little more than the opinions and customs of those
amongst whom we live, and it be so hard for a man to arrive at a
greater wisdom, than the common wisdom of the _country_ which gave him
birth and education; how unreasonably do we appeal to the perfection
of our reason, against the _necessity_ and _advantage_ of divine
revelation?

* If we are nothing without the assistance of men; if we are a kind of
foolish, helpless animals, ’till education and experience have revealed
to us the wisdom and knowledge of our fellow-creatures; shall we think
ourselves too wise and full of our own light, to be farther enlightened
with a wisdom revealed to us by God himself?

This gentleman, speaking of education, saith, “Education is justly
esteemed a second nature; and its force is so strong, that few can
wholly shake off its prejudices, even in things unreasonable and
unnatural.”

All that I shall add to this account, is, that we are by the condition
of human life, necessarily subjected to this _second nature_, and
cannot avoid coming under its power.

And here let me ask this pleader for the sufficiency of the light of
nature, how those that resign themselves up to the light of their _own
nature_, shall know, whether it is their _first_, or their _second_
nature that directs them?

Here are, it seems, _two natures_; they may be as different as good and
evil; yet as they are both _natures_, both _internal light_, how shall
a man know which he follows? He does not know which was first, or why
he should call one first, and the other second; they are both internal,
and without any thing to distinguish them. And as he is not to resist
the motions of nature, or stifle its directions; so he must be as
obedient to the directions of the second, as of the first nature,
because he does not perceive their difference, nor has any means to
distinguish their operations.

He therefore that asserts the light of nature to be a sufficient
unerring guide in divine matters, ought either to shew, that our
_second_ nature is as _safe_ a guide as the first; or that though it
is nature, yet it has no _natural powers_ over us.

For since every man is _necessitated_ to take upon him a second nature,
which he does not _know_ to be a second, or _when_ it began, or _how
far_ it has proceeded, or how _contrary_ it is to his first nature; he
that would prove the light of nature to be so perfect, that nothing can
be added to it, is obliged to prove, that our second nature, which we
receive by education, has the same degree of perfection. For so far as
our second nature is different from the first, so far it has changed
the first; and if we are to follow nature exclusive of revelation,
we may take _revenge_, _self-murder_, _incontinence_, _sensuality_,
_pride_, _self-conceit_, and a _contempt_ of all things sacred, to be
the true dictates of nature.

For it often happens to people, to be thus educated; so if education
is a second nature, and nature is to be esteemed a _true_ and _perfect_
guide; a man thus educated, has all his vices made so many glorious
laws of nature; and thro’ the strength of his natural light, he
condemns humility, self-denial, and devotion, as foolish bigotry.

This writer says, “Natural religion, _that is, the religion of nature_,
is a perpetual standing rule for men of the meanest, as well as
the highest capacities, and carries its own evidence with it, those
internal, inseparable marks of truth.¹ _But if education is a |second
nature|, and, as this writer affirms, |has the force of a second nature
even in things unreasonable and unnatural|; then this second nature
has not only its natural religion, which is also |a perpetual standing
rule for men of the meanest, as well as the highest capacities; which
carries its own evidence with it, those internal, inseparable marks of
truth|; but it may also have a natural religion, both |unreasonable and
unnatural|; since education has the force of nature even in things of
this kind._”

    ¹ Page 243.

Again: If education has this force of nature even in things
unreasonable and unnatural; if it is also absolutely necessary for all
men to come under the power of some second nature; what can be more
vain, than to pretend to state the light, or rectitude of human nature,
since it must be for the most part in every man, as the uncertainty,
variety, happiness or unhappiness of education has rendered it?

And our author can no more tell, what man would be without education,
or what nature would do for those who had no foreign instruction, than
he can tell what sort of beings dwell in the moon. And yet he that does
not know this, how can he know what the light of nature is in itself?

* Again to declare the light of nature so perfect, as to be
incapable of all improvement even by divine revelation, is no less an
extravagance, than to declare the education of mankind to be perfect in
the same degree.

* For if nature not only wants, but cannot possibly avoid education;
if this necessary unavoidable education becomes another nature,
undiscernible from the first; then nothing can possibly be affirmed of
the perfection of the light of nature, but what must be affirmed in the
same degree of the perfection of education. And he that affirms that
mankind have had, at all times, and in all places of the world, the
same sufficient, perfect light of nature, must affirm, that mankind
have had, at all times, and in all places of the world, the same
perfect, unerring education.

* When therefore it is just, for all people to abide by the absolute
perfection of their education, the infallible light of their second
nature, as the unerring standard, of all that is moral, religious, and
divine; then it may be just to appeal to the natural light of all men,
of all ages, and all places, as a sufficient teacher of all that ought,
or ought not to be a matter of religion.

* For till it can be shewn, that men are not liable to a second nature
from education; the state of nature must differ all over the world,
and in every age of the world, just as the light, and advantages of
education, have differed in the several parts, and ages of the world.

* In a word, the religious and moral light of our first nature, is just
as great as the first strength of infants; and the religious and moral
light of our second nature, is just as perfect as our education, and
as much of our own growth, as the first language that we are taught to
speak.

May not therefore one justly wonder, what it is that could lead any
people into an imagination of the absolute perfection of human reason?
There seems no more in the state of mankind, to betray a man into this
fancy, than to persuade him, that the reason of infants is absolutely
perfect. For sense and experience, are as full and strong a proof
against one, as against the other.

But it must be said for these writers, that they decline all arguments
from facts and experience, to give a better account of human nature;
but with the same justice, as if a man was to lay aside the authority
of history, to give you a truer account of the life of _Alexander_.

Their objection against revelation is founded upon the pretended
sufficiency and perfection of human reason, to teach all men all that
is wise, and holy, and divine, in religion. But how do they prove this
perfection of human reason? Do they appeal to mankind as proofs of it?
Do they produce any body of men in this or any other age, that without
any assistance from revelation, have attained to this perfection of
religious knowledge? This is not so much as pretended to; the history
of such men is entirely wanting. And yet the want of such a fact
as this, has even the force of demonstration against this pretended
sufficiency of natural reason.

Because it is a matter not capable of any other kind of proof, but
must be admitted as certainly true, or rejected as certainly false,
according as fact and experience bear witness for or against it.

* For an enquiry about the light, and strength, and sufficiency of
reason, to guide and preserve men in the knowledge and practice of
true religion, is a question, as _solely_ to be resolved by _fact and
experience_, as if the enquiry was about the _shape_ of man’s body,
or the _number_ of his senses. And to talk of a light and strength of
reason, natural to man, which fact and experience have never yet proved,
is as egregious nonsense, as to talk of natural senses, or faculties of
his body, which fact and experience have never yet discovered.

From the bare consideration of a rational soul in union with a body,
and bodily passions, we can neither prove man to be _strong_ nor _weak_,
_good_ nor _bad_, _sickly_ nor _sound_, _mortal_ nor _immortal_: all
these qualities must discover themselves, as the _eye_ discovers its
degree of _sight_, the _hand_ its degree of _strength_.

To enquire therefore, whether men have by nature light sufficient to
guide, and keep them in the true religion; is the same appeal to fact
and experience, as to enquire, whether men are _mortal_, _sickly_, or
_sound_: or how far they can _see_ and _hear_.

* As therefore these gentlemen are, in this debate, without any proof,
or even pretence of proof, from experience, so their cause ought to be
looked upon to be as vain and romantic, as if they had asserted, that
men have senses naturally fitted to hear sounds, and see objects at all
distances, tho’ experience has, from the creation to this time, proved
the quite contrary.

For he that asserts the sufficiency of reason, to guide men in matters
of religion, is not only without any positive proof from experience on
his side, but has the history of all ages, for near six thousand years,
fully demonstrating the quite contrary.

If some other enquirers into human nature, should affirm, that there is
in mankind a _natural instinct_, sufficient to make every man, at all
times, love every other man, with the _same degree_ of affection, as he
loves himself; I suppose such an opinion would be thought too absurd to
need any confutation. And yet all the absurdity of it would lie in this,
that it affirmed something of the _sufficiency_ of a natural quality in
man, which could not be supported by a single instance of any one man,
and was contrary to the experience and history of every age of the
world.

Now this is exactly the case of these gentlemen: their opinion
has neither more or less absurdity in it: they only affirm such a
sufficiency of reason to be natural to all men, as cannot be supported
by a single instance of any one man, that ever lived, and is fully
contradicted by the experience and history of every age since the
creation of the world.

By what has been said, I hope the reader will observe, that this
enquiry about the perfection or imperfection, the strength or weakness,
of reason in man, as to matters of religion, rests _wholly_ upon fact
and experience; and that therefore all speculative reasonings upon
it, are as idle and visionary, as a sick man’s dreams about health;
and are as wholly to be rejected, as any speculative arguments that
should pretend to prove, in spite of all facts and experience, the
_immortality_, and _unalterable_ state of human bodies.

Our author himself seems sensible, that the argument drawn from facts
and experience, pressed hard upon his cause; and therefore has given
the best answer to it, he can yet think of.

“It cannot, _says he_, be imputed to any defect in the light of nature,
that the _Pagan_ world ran into idolatry; but to their being entirely
governed by priests, who pretended communication with their gods, and
to have thence their revelations, which they imposed upon the credulous,
as divine oracles.”

The justness of this assertion will fully appear by the following
illustration.

“It cannot be imputed to any defect in the health and soundness of
man’s natural constitution, that the world has, in all ages, been
over-run with distempers; but to their being entirely governed by
physicians, who pretended to I know not what secret knowledge of
medicines, which they imposed upon the sickly, as infallible remedies.”

For, as a perfect state of health, conscious to itself of a sufficiency
of natural strength to keep clear of all diseases, seems to be out
of all danger from physicians; so had mankind been ever conscious
to themselves, of a sufficient natural knowledge of what is true or
false in religion; such _as enabled men of the meanest capacity to
distinguish between religion and superstition_,¹ what _room_ had there
been for frauds and impostures herein?

    ¹ Page 3.

“Can the superstition of the _Pagans_ be imputed to any defect or
insufficiency in the light of reason, when it was wholly owing to
their abandoning that divine light; and in defiance of it, running into
senseless traditions?”¹

    ¹ Page 37.

But how came it, that they ran into senseless traditions? What was
it that admitted these traditions as just and good? Why, it was that
faculty which judges of every thing, and which this writer recommends
as an unerring guide. And to say, a man’s superstition is not owing to
any defect or weakness of his reason, but to his admitting senseless
traditions, is as vain, as to say, a man’s false reasoning is not owing
to any weakness of his reason, but to his proceeding upon foolish and
absurd arguments.

He proceeds thus: “It is certainly no good argument against the
sufficiency of the divine light of nature, that men could not err,
except they left it, and followed vain traditions.”¹

    ¹ Second Address, page 39.

This observation has just the same sense and acuteness in it, as
if it had been said, _It is certainly no good argument against_ the
sufficiency of the divine healthfulness _of human nature, that men
could not be sickly, except they left it_, and _fell into various
distempers: or, against the_ sufficiency of the divine strength of
natural courage, that men could not be timorous, till they left it, and
followed vain fears. For, to prove that reason is sufficient, because
every thing that is absurd, is contrary to reason, is like proving our
healthfulness to be sufficient, because all distempers are contrary to
it: or our courage to be sufficient, because fears and cowardice are
contrary to it.

Besides, how is it that men leave their reason? Why, just as ignorant
men leave their knowledge; as dull people leave their wit, or cowards
leave their courage. The first part of this paragraph tells you of a
sufficiency of the divine light of nature: well; What has this divine
light of nature done? What sufficient effects has it had? Why, it has
covered all the world with darkness.

Again: Supposing that all mankind, even the wisest nations, have for
this six thousand years been thus imposed upon, not knowing how to
distinguish idle tales and senseless traditions from true religion; is
not this a noble foundation for this writer to build the _sufficiency
of the divine light of nature upon_? For supposing it had been in the
greatest degree insufficient, what other effect could have followed
from it, but only this, that _all mankind_, even the _wisest nations_,
should have been over-run with error? And is it not strange, that
effects should bear no proportion to their causes; that the same things
should follow from the _sufficiency_ of the divine light of nature,
which must have followed from its _greatest insufficiency_?

* And must not the enemies of _reason_ and _free-thinking_ be forced to
confess, that this writer hath chosen an excellent guide for himself;
since he so fully acknowledges, that no one yet has been rightly guided
by it? Must not his present undertaking be granted to be the effect of
cool and sober deliberation, since it only calls people of _all_, even
the _meanest capacities_, to such an use of their reason, as the wisest
of men and nations have always been strangers to?




                              CHAPTER V.

  _Shewing that all the |mutability| of our tempers, the |disorders|
    of our passions, the |corruption| of our hearts, all the
    |reveries| of the imagination, all the |contradictions| and
    |absurdities| that are to be found in human life, and human
    opinions, are in effect the mutability, disorders, corruption,
    and absurdities of |human reason|._


IT is the intent of this chapter to shew, that altho’ common language
ascribes a variety of faculties and principles to the soul, imputing
this action to the blindness of our _passions_, that to the inconstancy
of our _tempers_; one thing to the heat of our _imagination_, another
to the coolness of our _reason_; yet, in strictness of truth, every
thing that is done by us, is the action and operation of our reason,
and is to be ascribed to it, as the sole principle from whence it
proceeded, and by which it is governed and effected.

And the different degrees of reason are in men, as the different
degrees of love and aversion; as the different degrees of wit, parts,
good nature, or ill nature, are in man.

And as all men have naturally more or less of these qualities, so all
men have naturally more or less reason: and the bulk of mankind are as
different in reason, as they are in these qualities.

As love is the same passion in all men, yet is infinitely different; as
hatred is the same passion in all men, yet with infinite differences;
so reason is the same faculty in all men, yet with infinite differences.

And as our passions not only make us different from other men, but
frequently and almost daily different from ourselves, loving and hating
under great inconstancy; so our reason is not only different from the
reason of other men, but is often different from itself; by a strange
inconstancy, setting up first one opinion, and then another.

So that when we talk of _human reason_, or a reason _common_ to mankind,
we talk of as _various_, _uncertain_, and _unmeasurable_ a thing,
as when we talk of a _love_, an _aversion_, a _good nature_, or _ill
nature_, common to mankind; for these qualities admit of no variation,
uncertainty, or mutability, but such as they directly receive from the
_reason_ of mankind.

For it is as much the reason of man that acts in all these tempers, and
makes them to be just what they are, as it is the reason of man that
demonstrates a mathematical proposition.

Was our reason steady, there would be just the same steadiness and
regularity in our tempers; did not reason fall into follies and
absurdities, we should have nothing foolish or absurd in our love
or aversion. For every humour, every kind of love or aversion, is as
strictly the _action_ or _operation_ of our reason, as judgment is the
act of our reason.

And the tempers and passions of a child, differ only from the tempers
and passions of a man, as the reason of a child differs from the reason
of man.

So that our passions and tempers, are the natural real effects of our
reason, and have no qualities, either good or bad, but such as are to
be imputed to it.

A laudable good nature, or a laudable aversion, is only reason acting
in a _certain manner_: a criminal good nature, or a criminal aversion,
is nothing else but reason acting in another certain manner.

But still it is reason, or our understanding that is the _only
agent_ in our bad passions, as well as good passions; and as much the
_sole agent_ in all our passions and tempers, as in things of mere
speculation.

So that the state of reason in human life, is nothing else but the
state of human tempers and passions; and right reason in morality, is
nothing else but right love, and right aversion.

All _that_ therefore which we commonly call the weakness, blindness,
and disorder of our _passions_, is in reality the weakness, blindness,
and disorder of our _reason_. For a right love, or wrong love, denotes
only reason acting in a _certain, particular_ manner.

So that if any thing can be said of love, aversion, good nature, or ill
nature, as common to mankind; the same may be said of reason, as common
to mankind.

For the distinction of our reason from our passions, is only a
distinction in language, made at pleasure; and is no more real than the
_desire_ and _inclination_ are really different from the _will_. All
therefore that is weak and foolish in our passions, is the weakness and
folly of our reason; all the inconstancy and caprice of our humours and
tempers, is the caprice and inconstancy of our reason.

It is not properly _avarice_ that makes men sordid; it is not
_ambition_ that makes them restless; it is not _bribery_ that makes
men sell their consciences; it is not _interest_ that makes them lye,
and cheat, and perjure themselves. What is it therefore? Why it is
that _absolutely perfect_ faculty, which our author sets up as the
_unerring_ standard of all that is _wise_, _holy_, and _good_; it is
_reason_, the _use of reason, human reason_, that does all this.

For whether any thing be fit to be done, it is as he says, “reason
alone which must judge; as the eye is the sole judge of what is visible,
the ear of what is audible, so reason of what is reasonable.”

Every thing therefore that is done, every thing that is chosen in human
life before any thing else, is as strictly chosen by reason, as every
thing that is seen, is seen by the eye; and every thing that is heard,
is heard by the ear.

To suppose that reason permits itself to be governed by passions or
tempers, but is not the _immediate agent_ of all that is done by them,
is as absurd, as to suppose that reason permits itself to be governed
by the _hand_ when it is writing falsly, or the _tongue_, when it is
talking profanely, but it is not the immediate, direct agent of all
that is written and spoken by them.

* _Brutes_ are incapable of immorality, because none of their actions
are the actions of _reason_: every thing therefore that is immorality,
baseness, or villainy in us, must be the act of our reason, otherwise
it could no more be immoral, than the actions of brutes.

* If therefore, as this author often saith, reason be the only faculty
that distinguisheth us from brutes; it necessarily follows, that those
irregularities, whether of humour, passions, or tempers, which cannot
be imputed to brutes, must be solely attributed to that faculty by
which we are distinguished from brutes; and consequently, every thing
that is foolish, vain, shameful, false, treacherous, and base, must be
the acts of our reason; since if they were the acts of any thing else,
they could have no more vanity, falseness, or baseness, than hunger and
thirst.

It is not my intent to condemn our common language, which talks of
reason and the passions, as if they were as different as a _governor_
and his _subjects_.

These forms of speech are very intelligible and useful, and give great
life and ornament to all discourses upon morality.

But when persons ascribe to reason, as a _distinct faculty_ of human
nature, I know not what _absolute perfection_, making it as immutable,
and incapable of any addition or improvement, as God himself: it is
necessary to consider reason, not as it is represented in common
language, but as it is in reality in itself.

Notwithstanding therefore in common language, our passions, and the
effects of them, are usefully distinguished from our reason, I have
here ventured to shew, that all the disorders of human nature, are in
effect the disorders of human reason, and that all the perfection or
imperfection of our passions is the perfection or imperfection of our
reason.

Our follies and absurdities of every kind are as necessarily to be
ascribed to our reason, as the _first immediate_ cause of them, as our
wisdom and discretion are to be ascribed to it in that degree.

The difference between reason assenting to the properties of a _square_,
and reason acting in motions of desire or aversion, is only this, that
in the latter case, it is reason acting under a sense of its own good
or evil, in the former case, it is reason acting under a sense of
_magnitude_.

And as the relations of magnitude, as they are the objects of our
reason, are only the objects of its assent or dissent; so good and evil,
as they are objects of our reason, are only the objects of its _desire_
or _aversion_: and as the assent or dissent, in matters of speculation,
whether right or wrong, is solely the act of our reason; so desire or
aversion, in human life, whether right or wrong, is equally the act of
our reason.

We often say, that our passions deceive us, or persuade us; but this
is no more strictly so, than when we say, our _interest_ deceived, or
a bribe blinded us. For bribes and interest are not active principles,
nor have any power of deception; it is only our reason that gives them
a false value, and prefers them to a greater good.

It is just so in what we call the deceit of our passions: they meddle
with us no more than bribes meddle with us; but that pleasurable
perception, which is to be found in certain enjoyments, is by our
reason preferred to that better good, which we might expect from
self-denial.

We say again, that our passions paint things in false colours, and
present to our minds vain appearances of happiness.

But this is no more strictly true, than when we say, ♦our _imagination_
forms castles in the air. For the imagination signifies no distinct
faculty from our reason, but only reason acting upon our _own ideas_.

    ♦ “out” replaced with “our”

So when our passions are said to give false colours to things, or
present vain appearances of happiness, it is only our reason acting
upon its own ideas of _good_ and _evil_, just as it acts upon its own
ideas of _architecture_, in forming castles in the air.

So that all _that_ which we call different faculties, tempers, and
passions, strictly speaking, means nothing else, but the various acts
of one and the same rational principle, which has different names,
according to the objects that it acts upon, and the manner of its
acting.

In some things it is called speculative, in others it is called
practical reason. And we may as justly think our speculative reason is
a different faculty from our practical reason, as that our aversions,
or likings, are not as fully to be ascribed to our reason, as
syllogisms and demonstrations.

* It was truly reason that made _Medea_ kill her children, that made
_Cato_ kill himself, that made Pagans offer human sacrifices to idols;
that made _Epicurus_ deny a providence, _Mahomet_ pretend a revelation;
that made some men sceptics, others bigots; some enthusiasts, others
profane; that made _Hobbes_ assert all religion to be human invention,
and _Spinosa_ to declare trees, and stones, and animals to be parts
of God; that makes free-thinkers deny freedom of will, and fatalists
exhort to a reformation of manners; that made _Vaux_ a conspirator, and
_Ludlow_ a regicide; that made _Muggleton_ a fanatic; and _Rochester_
a libertine. It was as truly reason that did all these things, as it is
reason that demonstrates mathematical propositions.

_Medea_ and _Cato_ acted as truly according to the judgment of their
reason at that time, as the confessor that chuses rather to suffer,
than deny his faith.

Had not _Medea_ and _Cato_ thought it best to do what they did, at the
time they did it, they would no more have done it than the _confessor_
would chuse to suffer rather than deny his faith, unless he had judged
best so to do.

And when we say reason governs the passions, it means no more,
than that reason governs itself; that it acts with deliberation and
attention, does not yield to its first judgments, but uses second, and
third thoughts.

So that guarding against the passions, is only guarding against its own
first judgments and opinions; that is guarding against itself.

To all this may, perhaps, be objected, that our passions arise from
bodily motions, and depend upon the state of our blood and animal
spirits, and therefore what we do under their commotions, cannot be
attributed to our reason.

It is readily granted, that the body has this share in our passions
and tempers: but then the same thing must be granted of the body,
in all the acts and operations of the mind. So that if our desires
and aversions cannot be imputed to our reason, because of the joint
operation of the animal spirits in them; no more can syllogisms and
demonstrations be attributed to our reason, because the operation of
bodily spirits concurreth in the forming of them.

For the most abstract thought, and speculation of the mind, has as
truly the _conjunct_ operation of bodily spirits, as our strongest
desires or aversions. And it is as much owing to the state of the body,
that such speculations are what they are, as it is owing to the state
of the body, that such passions are what they are.

For the motions of the bodily spirits are inseparable from, and
according to, the state and action of the mind: when reason is in
speculation of a trifle, they concur but weakly; when reason speculates
intensely, their operation is increased. And sometimes the attention of
the mind is so great, and has so engaged and called in all the animal
spirits to its assistance, that the operations of our senses are
suspended, and we neither see, nor feel, till the attention of the mind
has let the spirits return to all the parts of the body.

Now will any one say, that these intense thoughts are less the acts of
the mind, because they have a greater concurrence of bodily spirits,
than when it is acting with indifference, and so has a lesser quantity
of bodily spirits?

Yet this might as well be said, as to say, that the assent or dissent,
in speculation, is the act of our reason; but liking or disliking,
loving or hating, are not the acts of our reason, because they have a
greater concurrence of bodily spirits.

For, as the mind is in a different state when it desires good, or
fears evil, from what it is when it only compares two triangles; so
the motions of the bodily spirits, have only _such_ a difference, as
is _correspondent_ to these two states of the mind. They act and join
as much in comparing the triangles, as in the desire of good, or fear
of evil. And the mind is just as much governed by the body, in its
passions, as in its calmest contemplations.

For as the gentle operation of the animal spirits is then correspondent
to the state and action of the mind; so in all our passions, the strong
and increased motion of the animal spirits, is equally correspondent
thereto.

So that reason is no more the agent, in our tempers and passions, than
in our dry and sedate speculations.

It may happen, that a man may have as great an eagerness in solving
a mathematical problem, as another hath to obtain any great good, or
avoid any great evil.

But may it therefore be said, that it is not reason that solves the
problem, because the bodily spirits are so active in it?

To draw now some plain consequences from the foregoing account.

_First_, If reason be the _universal agent_ in the natural man; if all
the difference among _such_ men, is only such a difference as reason
makes, then nothing can be more extravagant, than to affirm any thing
concerning the degree of perfection, or imperfection of reason, as
_common_ to man. It is as wild and romantic, as to pretend to state the
measure of folly and wisdom, of fear and courage, of pride and humility,
of good humour and ill-humour, _common_ to mankind: for as these
states of the mind, are only so many different states of reason; so no
uncertainty belongs to them, but what, in the _same degree_, belongs to
_reason_.

_Secondly_, Granting that all matters of religion must be agreeable
to _right, unprejudiced_ reason; yet this could be no ground for
receiving nothing in religion, but what _human_ reason could prove
to be necessary; for _human_ reason is no more _right, unprejudiced_
reason, than a sinner is _sinless_, or a man an _angel_.

Granting again, that a man may go a great way towards rectifying his
reason, and laying aside its prejudices; yet no particular man can be a
_better judge_ of the rectitude of his _own reason_, than he is of the
rectitude of his own _self-love_, the brightness of his own _parts_,
and the depth of his own _judgment_.

For there is nothing to deceive him in _self-love_, in the opinion of
his _own merit_, _wit_, and _judgment_, but what has the same power to
deceive him, in the opinion of his own reason. And if, as our author
says, “It be the fate of most sects to be the fondest of their ugliest
brats.”¹ None seem so inevitably exposed to this fatality, as those
whose religion is to have no form, but such as it receives from their
own hearts.

    ¹ Page 184.

_Thirdly_, A man that has his religion to chuse, and with this precious
privilege, that he need not allow any thing to be matter of religion,
but what his own reason can prove to be so, is in as fair a way to be
governed by his _passions_, as he that has his _condition_ of life to
chuse, with the liberty of taking that which his own reason directs him
to.

Does any one suppose, that nothing but _reason_ would direct him in
the choice of his condition? Or that he would make the better choice,
because he proceeded upon this maxim, that nothing could be right, but
that which was agreeable to his _own reason_? Or that his tempers, his
prejudices, his self-love, his passions, his partiality, would have no
influence upon his choice, because he had resigned himself up to his
_own reason_?

Now it is just the same in the choice of a religion, as in the choice
of a condition of life: as it is not a matter of speculation, but
of _good_ and _evil_; so if it is left to be determined by our _own
reason_, it rather appeals to our _tempers_, than employs our reason;
and to resign ourselves up to our own reason, to tell us what ought, or
ought not to be a matter of religion, is only resigning ourselves up to
our tempers, ♦to take what we _like_, and refuse what we _dislike_ in
religion.

    ♦ removed duplicate “to”

* In a word; when _self-love_ is a proper arbitrator betwixt a man and
his adversary; when _revenge_ is a just judge of meekness; when _pride_
is a true lover of humility; when _falshood_ is a teacher of truth;
when lust is a fast friend of chastity; when the _flesh_ leads to the
spirit; when _sensuality_ delights in self-denial; when _partiality_
is a promoter of equity; when the _palate_ can taste the difference
between sin and holiness; when the _hand_ can feel the truth of a
proposition; then may _human reason_ be a proper arbitrator between God
and man, the sole, final, just judge of all that ought, or ought not to
be a matter of a _holy_, _divine_, and _heavenly_ religion.

_Lastly_, If this be the state of reason, then to pretend, that our
reason, is too perfect to be governed by any thing but its own light,
is the same extravagance, as to pretend, that our love is too pure to
be governed by any thing but its own inclinations, our hatred too just
to be governed by any thing but its own motions. For if all that is
base and criminal in love, all that is unjust and wicked in hatred, is
to be imputed to our reason; then no perfection can be ascribed to our
reason, but such as is to be ascribed to our love and hatred.




                       An Extract from Mr. LAW’s
                            SERIOUS ANSWER
                     To Dr. TRAPP’s Four Sermons,
      On the Sin, Folly, and Danger of being righteous over-much.


1. * MIGHT I follow the _bent_ of my own mind, I should be wholly
employed in setting forth the infinite love of God to mankind in
Christ Jesus, and endeavouring to draw all men to the belief and
acknowledgment of it. This _one great mercy_ of God, which makes the
_one_ happiness of all mankind, so justly deserves all our thoughts
and meditations, so highly enlightens, and improves every mind that
is attentive to it, so removes all the evils of this present world, so
sweetens every state of life, so inflames the heart with the love of
every divine and human virtue, that he is no small loser, whose mind is,
either by writing or reading, detained from the view and contemplation
of it.

2. When the mystery of divine love was first manifested to the world,
it produced its proper effects. It put an end to all _selfishness and
division; for all that believed were of one heart and one spirit, and
had all things common_.¹ And indeed, under the real influence and full
belief of this great mystery of divine love, there seems to be no room
left for any thing else amongst Christians, but returns of love to God,
and flowing out of love towards one another.

    ¹ Acts ii. 44.

3. * It is so difficult to enter into controversy without being, or at
least seeming in some degree unkind to the person one opposes, that it
is with great reluctance I have entered upon my present undertaking;
having nothing more deeply riveted in my heart, than an universal love
and kindness for all men, and more especially for those whom God has
called to be my fellow-labourers, in promoting the salvation of mankind.
But however unwilling, yet I find myself obliged to consider and lay
open many grievous faults in the Doctor’s discourse; and to shew to
all Christians, that the dearest interests of their souls are much
endangered by it.

4. * And this I must do with great plainness and sincerity in the love
of truth, and under the direction of charity, saying nothing in the
spirit of an _adversary_, sparing nothing thro’ _respect of persons_,
sacrificing nothing to the taste or temper of the world, but setting
every thing in that naked light, in which the Spirit of God represents
it to my own mind.

5. The Doctor undertakes to stir up, and alarm mankind with the _sin_,
_folly_ and _danger_ of being _righteous over-much_. The text from
which he has the title of his discourses is very unhappily chosen,
and must be looked upon rather as a severe reproach, than any kind of
justification of it. The text is indeed in the writings of _Solomon_,
and as it stands there, has no hurt in it; because as the royal
preacher sometimes introduces fools, and sometimes infidels making
their speeches, so there is a necessity of supposing that to be the
case in the Doctor’s text; not only from the context which plainly
shews there are two persons introduced, the one _for_, the other
_against_ righteousness; but because the words, otherwise, cannot
be taken in a sense that is tolerable, or consistent with the common
_notions_ of piety.

6. Is it not therefore strange, that the Doctor should think it right,
to limit, explain, and model both the letter and spirit of the gospel
by such a saying in the writings of _Solomon_ as must be ascribed to
the spirit and mouth of an infidel? Is it not stranger, that such a
text, so offensive to piety, should have not only been so long dwelt
upon in the Doctor’s three churches, but sent abroad into the world, as
a proper key to all the practical sayings, parables, and doctrines of
Jesus Christ?

7. Supported by this text, the Doctor endeavours to deter and fright
Christians from the sin, folly and danger of being righteous over-much,
and from what he calls the baneful plague of enthusiasm. But then it is
matter of just complaint, that he does all this, without ever shewing
in any part of his discourse, wherein true righteousness, or the right
and sober spirit of piety consists. And if he supposed all his readers
to be already well acquainted with the nature, and extent of Christian
holiness, there would then have been little occasion for his present
undertaking.

8. But the Doctor overlooks this important matter. He neither supposes
them to have this knowledge, nor endeavours to help them to it; but in
a flow of zeal, reflects at large upon all attempts towards a piety,
that is not _modern, common_, and according to the present fashion of
religion in the world. Thus, you every where find severe reflections
cast upon pretenders to piety, pretended spiritualists; great
accusations of excesses, extraordinaries and by-paths; but no where a
word or a hint, in favour of those, who would only be so extraordinary,
and so much out of the _common_ paths, as the blessed saints and
martyrs of the primitive church were. No where are _such people_ told,
that he wishes them _God speed_, that _their zeal_ is much wanted both
amongst _clergy_ and _laity_, and that the gospel suffers because we
know not where to find living examples of its purity and perfection.
No where are they told, that he writes not against them, that he loves
their spirit, and should be glad to add new fervours to it: nor what
Christian perfection is, what a holiness of body, soul and spirit it
requires; how powerfully all are called to it, how earnestly all ought
to aspire after it, and how sadly mistaken, what enemies to themselves
they are, who for the sake of any, or all the things in the world, die
less purified and perfect, than they might have been.

9. If we had to do with _one single_ person sincerely good, yet seeming
to carry matters too high in some part of his duty, and intended
privately to dissuade him from such heights; yet even this, thus
privately done and to a person of piety, would be exceeding _dangerous_
and _unjustifiable_; unless we took the utmost care at the same time,
to _keep up_ the pious zeal of his mind, to shew him wherein true
perfection consisted, and to encourage his utmost endeavours after it.

But if this caution, instruction and encouragement, cannot be omitted
without great hurt to religion, when we speak only to a person of piety,
and in private, about any religious _extremes_, what must be said of
the Doctor’s conduct? Who to the world dead in trespasses and sin,
preaches up the _sin_, _folly_ and _danger_ of _being_ righteous
over-much? To the world _eating and drinking and rising up to play_, he
harangues temperance, abstinence, mortification and severity of life!
To the world asleep, insensible, and careless, not only of the purity
and perfection, but of the first principles of the gospel, he boldly
and rashly approaches all appearances of holiness, that are uncommon
and extraordinary! To _no_ part of the world does he represent or
propose the _perfection_ of the gospel, or recommend it as that, which
deserves all that they can do, or suffer for the sake of it.

This, therefore, I am obliged to point out, as a _fundamental defect_
in the Doctor’s discourse, and such as renders it an evil _temptation_,
a dangerous _snare_, and fatal _delusion_ to all those who do not read
it with a full, and thorough dislike.

10. * Coldness, indifference, and a lifeless, outward compliance
with the duties of religion: a slavery to ease, softness, and
sensual pleasures: a criminal conformity to the spirit, fashions, and
corruptions of the world; unmortified passions; conniving at favourite
sin; deep roots of pride, partiality, and self-love: an unawakened
conscience; an insensibility of their corrupt, unreformed, unregenerate
state: a proneness to be content and satisfied with poor beginnings,
names and appearances of virtue; is perhaps the state of more than two
_thirds_ of those that are looked upon to be the religious amongst us.

Now the Doctor’s discourse has a direct and natural fitness to lull
all these people asleep, to ♦suppress all stirring and intentions of
amendment, to keep up and nourish every disorder of their hearts, to
increase their blindness, and awaken nothing in them, but a _hurtful
zeal_ to censure and condemn all those that are endeavouring to
practise the _uncommon_ piety of the gospel.

    ♦ The first line on page 144 “upon the madness, danger, and
      folly of too much” appears to be extraneous and inconsistent
      with the text flow, so has been removed. The catchword from
      the previous page appears at the start of line two.

There is scarce a reader amongst this number of people, whether he be
_layman_ or _clergyman_, but will find this effect from the Doctor’s
instructions; he will begin to take _fresh comfort_ in his state,
to think himself _happy_ for having had no aspirings after high
improvements in piety; he will not only be content with his corruptions,
but be fixed and hardened against all _inward_ and _outward_ calls to
a solid piety; he will approve of the deadness and insensibility of his
own heart, and acquiesce in it, as his just security, from the _sin_
and _folly_ and _danger_ of being _righteous over-much_.

11. Again, others there are, I make no doubt in all parts of the
kingdom, both amongst clergy and laity, men and women, rich and poor,
whose consciences are greatly awakened, who see the general apostacy
from the religion of the gospel, whose souls are wanting and wishing
nothing so much, as to know how all that they _are_, all that they
_have_, and all that they _do_, may be one continual sacrifice, and
service of love unto God; to know how, and in what manner, and to what
extent, and by what means, they may and ought to _be perfect, even as
their Father which is in heaven is perfect_.

Now, who can help looking with _love_ and _compassion_ upon those poor
souls, longing for that which has been so long lost; asking after that,
which scarce any one will tell them any thing of, and wanting to enter
upon paths where there are few or no footsteps to be seen, nor any
travellers in motion?

Had these awakened souls lived in the first ages of the church, nay, I
may say in almost any till these very last ages of it, their zeal had
not been in vain: they could have been at no loss to know _how_ they
were to proceed in their heavenly purpose; because they would have
been immediately directed to some living examples of the perfect spirit
of the gospel, who were publicly known and acknowledged by all to be
such, who had the same undisputed right, to point out the Christian
profession, as _John_ the Baptist had to preach up _mortification_
and _self-denial_. Every age, and every sex, priests and people of all
conditions, had their known standards to resort to, where every one was
sure to be guided, assisted, and encouraged to live up to that height
of holiness.

12. But now how does the Doctor deal with this sort of people? What
_love_, _assistance_, and _encouragement_ does he reach out to them?
Why, truly, he considers them as a _deluded_, _weak_, or _hypocritical_,
or _half-thinking_ people, that disturb the Christian church with their
projects; who are to be set right by returning to the instructions of
common sense. He ridicules every step they must take in their intended
progress, by adding absurdities of his own invention to it. There is
nothing for such people throughout his whole discourse, but reproaches,
and discouragement.

Are they desirous of all that _self-denial_, all such _mortification_
of bodily appetites and sensual passions, as may best fit them to
be temples of the Holy Spirit? He ridicules them, as holding the
sinfulness of _smelling a rose_.

Do they begin to discover the _deep corruption_ of their nature,
the superficialness and weakness of their virtues, and to fear they
have as yet scarce come up to the righteousness of the _Scribes_
and _Pharisees_? He tells them “The great enemy of souls adapts his
temptations to all sorts of tempers and dispositions.” Those who are
disposed to be good and virtuous, if he cannot prevail with them to
be vicious, commonly so called, he labours to make them over virtuous,
that is vicious, tho’ not commonly so called; and so involves them in
dangers and mischiefs.

Are they such as are desirous of reforming their own lives, by bringing
all their actions to the standard of the gospel, and wholly intent upon
their own advancement in merely _practical piety_?

To these he shews, that they are in the very paths that lead, and
always did lead to _fanatic madness_.

Thus says he, “To what a height of _fanatic madness_ in _doctrines_,
as well as practice are some advanced, who set out at first with the
appearance of more than ordinary sanctity in _practice only_?” And
again, “I do say that in all ages enthusiasts have been _righteous
over-much_; they began with the last mentioned, and ended with the
other; _and is it not so now_?”

13. Further, are there others, who begin to feel the _mystery_ of
their redemption discovered in their own souls, so that they hunger
and thirst after the manifestation of the divine life in them, desiring
that Christ may be wholly formed and revealed in them, that they
may _put on_ Christ, _be_ in him _new creatures_, led by his spirit,
_growing_ in him as branches in the vine, hearing the word of God
written and spoken in their hearts, in his light _seeing_ light, and
_tasting_ in the inward man _the powers of the world to come_?

* For such as these, the Doctor has this instruction: “That there is,
says he, such a thing as the operation of the Holy Spirit upon our
souls, tho’ we cannot distinguish it from the operations of our own
minds, is not only granted, but insisted upon by all sincere and sober
Christians. But what _reason_, what _scripture_, is there for this
inward _seeing_, _hearing_, _feeling_?”

* According therefore to the Doctor’s divinity both reason and
scripture require, that the true Christian be _inwardly blind_,
inwardly _deaf_, and void of all inward _feeling_. For if neither
scripture nor reason will allow of any inward senses, then they must
both of them require an _inward insensibility_. But as scripture
from _Genesis_ to the _Revelation_, is full of proofs of these inward
senses, I shall not now produce them: I shall here only observe that
_hardness of heart_ is a well known phrase of scripture, and every
where _signifies_ some degree of _blindness_, _deafness_, and loss of
_feeling_. I suppose it will not be said that it signifies blindness,
or loss of _outward eyes_ and _ears_, or feeling: neither does it
signify a want of _human reason_, or natural _sagacity_; for _learned_,
_polite_, and _ingenious_ men, are full as subject as others to this
hardness of heart. Therefore the scripture is as open, as plain and
express in declaring _for inward senses_, as it is in declaring against
such a thing, as _hardness_ of _heart_. Hardness of heart is that to
the _inward_ senses, which a deep, or as we call it, _dead sleep_, is
to the _outward_. It keeps our inward eyes, and ears, and feeling all
locked up.

14. A broken and a contrite heart unlocks our inward senses, and makes
us see, and hear, and feel the things, which could no more be seen,
heard or felt before, than a man in a deep sleep can hear, and see, and
feel the things, that are said and done about him.

Water frozen into a rock of ice, is very different from the same water
melted, warmed, and moving under the influence of the sun and the air.

Now this difference between water _flowing_, full of _light_ and _air_,
and the same water frozen into a dark, hard rock of ice, is but a small
resemblance of the difference between a _hardened_ heart, and the _same
heart_ become broken.

15. But I return to the Doctor. His further instruction to this sort of
people stands thus. They are told by him, “that their high notions of
spiritual improvements have this effect: on the one hand, they lead to
_presumption_, on the other to _desperation_.” “He has been told, _he
says_, that some have been actually thrown into despair. They have been
made stark mad, and received into _Bedlam_ as such. _And then he cries
out_, Was the religion of Jesus Christ intended to make people mad? Is
this for the honour of Christianity?”

* I shall not here question the Doctor’s information. I shall only
observe, that when our Saviour was upon earth, there were two sorts
of _mad_ people about him; the _one sort_ ran about in disorder, tore
their cloaths and cut their own flesh; the other sort raved in malice,
threw dust into the air, stopped their ears, and cried out _crucify him,
crucify him_.

* It may be asked, which of these two sorts of state? Whose madness was
the most shocking, that of the lunatics, or that of the _High Priests_,
_Scribes_, and _Pharisees_? Those who only mangled their own bodies, or
those that thirsted after the blood of Christ, and would have no rest
till they saw his body nailed to the cross? To me the _lunatics_, seem
to be in a _less degree_ of disorder; and the reason is this, because I
see that our Saviour could heal them, but not the Priests, Scribes, and
Pharisees.

Now is it reasonable, on account of the _madness_ of these Priests,
Scribes and Doctors of the law, to say, “Is this for the honour of the
_Jewish law_? Were the _law and the prophets intended to make people
mad_?” If the Doctor knows how to excuse the law and the prophets,
tho’ these great students of them were in such a desperate state of
_madness_, then Christianity may be blameless; tho’ here and there a
Christian (so called) may be fit for _Bedlam_.

16. Again, are there others, who desire to bring the whole form of
their lives under rules of religion, to let the spirit of the gospel
give laws to the most ordinary, indifferent, innocent and lawful things
and enjoyments; so that, as the apostle speaks, _whether they eat or
drink, or whatever they do_, they may _do all to the glory of God_?

These people are told by the Doctor, that “Wholly abstaining from
things indifferent and innocent in themselves, as forbidden and
unlawful, people were in the most disordered and distempered is a
signal instance of being righteous over-much; and so on the other hand,
is making things indifferent to be necessary, and matters of duty.”

What is here said has some truth in it, and might be useful in its
proper place, and under right limitations. But as it here stands, it
is a grievous _snare_ and _deceit_ to the reader. For it is to signify
to him, that _wholly abstaining from_ things in themselves indifferent,
cannot be made a _matter_ of true religious advancement; but is a
blameable instance of excess. If the Doctor had meant only to teach,
that we should not abstain from things indifferent, as if they were in
_themselves unlawful_, he should have told his readers that he meant
no more. He should have told them, that such things might be abstained
from justly, upon a better principle, and so become very expedient and
edifying; and that he did not condemn the abstaining from such things,
when it was done upon a motive of piety, or for the better fulfilling
any duty; but only when it was done from superstitious notion, of the
things being in themselves sin.

Had he done this, he had prevented the _snare_ and _deceit_ that is
now in his assertion: but then he would at the same time have made it
useless, and insignificant to the design of his discourse, and would
have left a door open for such advances in piety, as he is now opposing.

17. It might easily be shewn, if this was the place for it, that no one
can truly fulfil the two first and greatest of all laws, that of loving
God with all our heart, and that of loving our neighbour as ourselves,
unless he be willing and glad, in many instances, _wholly_ to _abstain_
from things in themselves indifferent and innocent.

St. _Paul_’s doctrine is this: _All things are lawful for me, but all
things are not expedient._ This sets the matter right on both sides.
It leaves things in their own state of indifference, and yet carries
us to a higher rule of acting. It directs us wholly to abstain from,
some things innocent in themselves, and to do things because they are
_expedient_; because by so doing, we shew a higher love of God, and a
greater desire of doing every thing to his glory; because we thereby
attain a greater conquest over all our inward and outward enemies, and
in a greater degree help forward the edification of our neighbour.

18. Let us look at St. _Paul_’s doctrine and examples in the two
following remarkable instances.

First where he declares it to be _lawful_ for those that preach the
gospel to live by the gospel, and yet makes it matter of the greatest
_comfort_ and joy to himself, that he wholly abstained from this
_lawful_ thing: and declares, it were better for him to die, than that
this _rejoicing_ should be taken from him. He appeals to his daily
and nightly labouring with his own hands, that so he might preach the
gospel freely, and not be chargeable to those that heard him. And this
he said he did, not for want of authority to do otherwise, but that he
might make himself an example unto them who followed him.

* What awakening instructions are here given to us of the clergy, in
a matter of the greatest moment! How ought every one to be frighted at
the thought of desiring or seeking a second living, or of rejoicing at
great pay where there is but little duty, when the apostle’s rejoicing
consisted in this, that he had passed thro’ all the fatigues and perils
of preaching the gospel without any pay at all! How _cautious_, nay,
how _fearful_ ought we to be, of going so far as the _secular_ laws
permit us, when the apostle thought it more desirable to lose his life,
than to go so far as the general laws of the gospel would have suffered
him!

* It is _looked upon_ as _lawful_, to get several preferments, and
to make a gain of the gospel, by hiring others to do duty for us at
a lower rate.――It is looked upon as lawful, to quit a cure of souls
of a small income, for no other reason but because we can get another
of a greater.――It is looked upon as lawful, for a clergyman to apply
the revenue of a church, which he serves, to his own use, tho’ he has
more than a sufficient competency of his _own_, and much more than
the apostle could get by his labour.――It is looked upon as lawful, for
the clergy to live in state and equipage, to buy purple and fine linen
out of the revenue of the church.――It is looked upon as lawful, for
clergymen to enrich their families, and bring up their children in the
fashionable vanities of a worldly and expensive life, by money got by
preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

* But now _supposing_ all these to be _lawful_, what _comfort_ and
_joy_ might we treasure up for ourselves, what benefit and edification
should we give to our neighbour, if we wholly abstained from all these
things, not by working day and night with our hands, as the great
apostle did, but by limiting our wants and desires according to the
plain demands of nature, and a religious self-denial?

The other instance of the apostle’s I appeal to is that, where he says,
it is good neither to eat “flesh, nor drink wine, nor any thing whereby
thy brother stumbleth and is offended. And again, if meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, that
I may not offend my brother.” Hence it appears, that to abstain from
things indifferent, as if they were in themselves sinful, is wrong; but
to _abstain_ from them upon other motives, may be matter of necessary
duty and edification. But since the Doctor has not looked at this
matter in the twofold view in which only it can be justly apprehended,
he cannot well be excused from that _half thinking_, which he so much
reproaches in others.

19. But I must further observe, that there is yet more of _snare_ and
_deception_, in what the Doctor has here said of this matter. For the
reader may thereby be easily brought into a belief, that things in
themselves indifferent, are not _proper subjects_ of religion, or means
of advancing in piety; and that he need not bring himself under _any
laws_ of religion, concerning such things.

Whereas nothing can be more contrary to truth, or more hurtful to piety
than such a belief. “Eating, drinking, sleeping, dressing, resting,
labour, conversation, trade, diversion, and money, are in themselves
indifferent.”

But it is in the religious, or irreligious use of these that some
people _live_ up to the spirit of the gospel, and others _wholly die_
to it. And it is from strict laws of religion, made concerning these
indifferent things, that the spiritual life of every one is to be built
up.

And it is for want of religious laws in the use of these things, that
the spirit of the gospel cannot get possession of our hearts. For our
souls may receive an infinite hurt, and be rendered incapable of all
true virtue, merely by the use of innocent and lawful things.

* What is more innocent than rest and retirement? And yet what more
dangerous than sloth and idleness? How lawful is the care of a family?
And yet how are many people rendered incapable of all virtue, by a
♦worldly, sollicitous temper? How lawful is it for us, to eat and drink
in such quantity and quality, as may render the body healthful, and
useful to the soul? And yet what danger is there in eating and drinking
if we are not under this strict law of religion, to seek _only_ health;
and not the pleasure of various tastes in our food? What _sensuality_
of discourse shall we not every day fall into, unless it be a fixed
law to us, to speak of no other joy in our food, but that which is
expressed by our grace before, and after our meals?

    ♦ “wordly” replaced with “worldly”

How indifferent a thing, and innocent in itself, is _dress_? And
yet what more hurtful and abounding with sin? It reaches and affects
the heart and soul both of the wearer and beholder. Its evils are
innumerable; it has destroyed, and does destroy like a pestilence.

Now how can all these evils, which arise from the use of these things
indifferent and lawful in themselves be avoided, but by making every
thing in our _common_ and _ordinary_ life to be matter of conscience,
which is to have its _rule_ and _measure_ and _end_ from the spirit of
religion? And indeed what other end is there in religion, but to govern
every motion, and desire of our hearts? To make all the actions of our
common life pure and holy, by being done in strict conformity to the
will of God, and under the light and guidance of his Holy Spirit? So
that the very outward _form_ of our lives, and the _whole manner_ of
our living in the world, whether in estate, shops, or farms, whether in
eating, drinking, or dressing, may make it known to all the world, that
we do every thing in the name of Jesus Christ, suitably to that high
vocation wherewith we are called.

20. No folly of life whatever can be rightly removed but by being thus
wholly cut up by the roots, by making every thing subject to the spirit
of religion.

That which is to direct our _prayers_, and govern us at church, must
with the same strictness direct our conversation, and govern our
dealings in common life. We must dress with the same spirit that we
give _alms_, or go to _prayers_; that is, we must no more dress to be
seen and admired by others, than we must give alms, or make prayers for
the same reasons.

And when religion has its seat in our hearts, and is the work of God’s
spirit in us, this acting according to its direction in _all things_,
will be so far from seeming to be a hard lesson, that it would be a
pain to act otherwise. It is no hardship to a _miser_ to do _every_
thing suitably to the greedy desires of his heart. The ambitious man
is not troubled with acting always agreeable to his ambition. If these
persons are in trouble or distress, or under any dejection, you can
only comfort the one with honour and power, and the other with filthy
lucre and gain.

21. Yet the Doctor complains of the _Treatise upon Christian
Perfection_, because Christians in _sickness, distress, and dejection_
of _spirit_, are there directed to seek for comfort and refreshment in
God alone! Our blessed Lord is very short and yet very full upon this
article. He only says, _Be of good comfort, I have overcome the world._
And the Doctor might as well be angry at the gospel for having made no
mention of worldly amusements proper for sick and distressed Christians,
as at the treatise of Christian Perfection, for not having done the
same.

If I should see a sick man smelling a rose, I should not reprove him.
But if he wanted comfort in his state, I would no more direct him to
_any thing_, but the great and solid comforts that are to be found
in the love, and goodness of God, than I would direct him to another
Saviour, than Jesus Christ.

* For to tell Christians that in _some kinds_ of trouble, they might
justly seek for relief in reading a _play_, or wanton _Bucolic_,
instead of the _gospel_; would be the same absurdity, as to have told
people in our Saviour’s time, that in some sorts of distress, they
might justly have recourse to _Simon Magus_, instead of Jesus Christ.

22. But now to look back a little. I have considered the bulk of those
Christians that are the most likely to be the Doctor’s readers, under
two characters. The one as living some way or other in a partial, false,
superficial, or half state of piety; the other as an awakened people,
called by the Spirit of God to come out of the common corruption of
the times. I have shewn that the Doctor’s discourse (where it is not
disliked) must do great hurt, and have dreadful effects upon those two
sorts of people; the one sort it seals up in a false security, sleeping
in the chambers of death, without any oil in their vessels; the other
it frightens, and discourages from their pious intentions of trimming
their lamps with all diligence, and living upon the watch for the
midnight call of the bridegroom’s voice.

That I may therefore do all the good I can to both these sorts
of people, that I may awaken the one from their false security in
their form of godliness, and encourage the other to proceed with all
earnestness, after every degree of Christian holiness; I shall before I
proceed any further, lay down a short account of the whole _ground_ of
the Christian religion, that every one may clearly see, why we want the
Christian religion to save us, what it is to do for us; and how it is
done.

23. [1] Man was created a living image of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost.

“2. This whole visible world, as far as the stars, or any corporeal
being reaches, takes up that extent of space, where _Lucifer_ and his
angels before their fall, had their glorious kingdom. So far as this
visible frame of nature extends, so far was the extent of that kingdom.¹

    ¹ N. B. This, with several of the particulars that follow are
      probable, but not supported by scripture. This is the theory
      of _Jacob Behme_, ingenious, but quite incapable of proof.

“3. That the _place_ or _extent_ of this world, was the place or extent
of their kingdom, is probable from the two following reasons: first,
because the place of this world is now their habitation. For we must
by no means suppose that God brought them from some other region into
this world, only to tempt man. No: but they are here _now_, because
they were created to dwell _here_. For fallen angels do not leave
the _place_ of their sin and fall: they live in the _defilements_
and _disorders_ of their spoiled kingdom; and in that place they find
their hell and torments, where they extinguished their light and joy.
Secondly, because the whole extent of the world, and every thing in it,
_sun_, _moon_, _stars_, _fire_, _air_, _water_, and _earth_, _stones_,
_minerals_, must all be _dissolved_, and pass thro’ a _purifying fire_.
Therefore all these things are polluted, and have in them some disorder
from the fall of the angels; and we may see _how far_ the place of
their kingdom extended, by the extent of those things that are to be
_dissolved_ and _purified_.

“4. When the angels had, by their rebellion, lost the divine life
within themselves, and brought their _whole outward_ kingdom into
darkness and disorder, so that as _Moses_ speaketh: ‘Darkness was
upon the face of the deep;’ that is, the whole extent of the place
of this world; then in the place where they were fallen, and out of
the _materials_ of their ruined, angelical kingdom, did God begin the
_creation_ of this present, material, temporary, visible world.

“5. ‘In the beginning, saith _Moses_, God created the heaven and the
earth.’ Here, at this _instant_, ended the devil’s power, over the
place or kingdom in which he was created. As soon as the whole of his
outward, disordered kingdom was thus divided into a _created heaven and
earth_, all was taken out of his hands, he was shut out of every thing,
and he and all his host became _poor prisoners_ in their lost kingdom,
that could only _wander about_ in chains of darkness, looking with
impotent rage at the _created heaven and earth_, which was sprung up in
their own place of habitation.

“6. Thus was this _outward kingdom_, of the whole extent of this world,
taken out of the hands of _Lucifer_ and his angels. All its darkness,
disharmony, and disorder, was by the _creation_ restored to a low
resemblance of its first state, and put into that form of sun, stars,
fire, air, light, water, and earth, in which we now see it.

“7. Into this world thus created out of the _ruins_ of the kingdom of
the fallen angels, was man introduced on the sixth day of the creation,
to take his place as lord and prince of it; to have power over all
outward things, to discover and manifest the wonders of this new
created world, and to bring forth such an _holy offspring_, as might
fill up the place of the fallen angels. And when certain periods of
time had produced these great effects, then this _whole frame_ was by
the last _purifying fire_, to have been raised from its paradisaical
state, into that _first heavenly_ brightness and glory, in which it
stood before the fall of _Lucifer_.

“8. But the first man, thus created to be a prince of a new, angelical
kingdom, stood not out his trial.

“9. He came into this world in that _same glorious_ body in which after
the resurrection, he shall _be like the angels in heaven_. For no other
body, but that which was at _first_ created shall rise in Jesus Christ.
He only restores that which was lost. The resurrection will only take
away what _sin_ and _death_, and _earth_, had added to the _first
created_ body.

“10. In this glorious body, did the first man stand in this world,
incapable of receiving any hurt, or _knowing_ evil from outward nature.
The _Holy Ghost_ was the _light_ that illuminated all both within and
without him.

“11. Had he fixed his will to be _eternally_ what he was, had he
desired only to eat of the tree of life, to live by the word of God, he
had been established and confirmed an eternal angel, or divine man.

“12. But his imagination wandered after the secrets of this outward
world, after the knowledge of such good and evil, as wrought an entire
change in his nature.

“He turned from the tree of life to the forbidden fruit. And so he fell
as deep into an _earthly life_, and the miseries of the earth, as the
devil fell into a _hellish life_, and the miseries of hell.

“13. And here we may see as in a glass, what it is that earthly desires
_now do_ to every son of _Adam_. They do all that which they did to the
first man. They carry on, keep up, and continue that _same_ death in us
which he died in paradise.

“14. Thus it was, that _Adam_ lost the _light_ of the Son of God, and
the breath of the Holy Spirit. And this was the _immediate death_ that
he died in paradise, a death much more grievous than that which is to
bring us all to our graves. It was a death that extinguished all that
was divine and holy in human nature, just as the sin of angels turned
them into devils. Now in looking at _this death_, we have the clearest
view, of what our regeneration by the _second Adam_ means. For what
can it be, but the restoration of that divine life which was lost in
_Adam_ the _first_? For will any one say, that Christ is not in as high
a degree, the _restorer_ of our nature, as _Adam_ was the _destroyer_
of it? Now tho’ this great truth, seated in the very heart of the
Christian religion, speaks at once the whole nature of regeneration;
yet many learned men either not seeing or not _loving_, or being afraid
_to own_ it, have been forced, not only to mistake, but wholly to
sink the most glorious article of the Christian faith? And instead of
telling us the height and depth of the blessing of having the nature
and life of Christ derived into us, they can only teach us, what kind
of word regeneration is――that it is a figurative expression――and that
our Saviour may be justified, for having made use of it. What learned
pains do people take, to root up the belief of our having a new life in
Christ? They run from _book_ to _book_, from _language_ to _language_;
they consult all ♦critics, search all lexicons, to shew us, that
according to the rules of true criticism, regeneration _need signify_
no more than the _federal_ rite of baptism. Nay, what is still worse,
they appeal to the poor notions of the blind, infatuated Jews! They
produce the opinions which they had of a regeneration talked of, and a
baptism used amongst them, when they rejected and crucified our Saviour,
to teach us, what we are to understand by our divine birth in Christ
Jesus! But if this be the use of learning among ourselves, we need not
look at _Rome_, or the ancient Rabbies of the _Jewish Sanhedrim_, to
see what miserable work learning can make with the holy scriptures. For
it is sure the true Messiah is not _rightly owned_, nor the Christian
religion _truly known_, till the soul is all love, and faith, and
hunger, and thirst after this new _life_, and real formation of Jesus
Christ in it: till without fear of _enthusiasm_ it seeks, and expects
all its redemption from it. But to return.

    ♦ “criticks” replaced with “critics” for consistency

“15. Man, thus dead to the divine life, thus destitute of the Son, and
_Holy Spirit_, thus fallen into an _earthly nature_, under the dominion
of an earthly world, which would afford him for a while a miserable
life, and then leave him to a more miserable death; could do no more
to replace himself in paradise, or to regain his first nature, than the
devil could do to restore himself to his lost glory.

“16. But in this state the _infinite mercy_ of God met him. That love
which at _first breathed_, a holy and divine soul into him, now again
breathed a spark, or ray of divine light into him in the declaration
of a _serpent bruiser_: which spark of life should in time do all
that which _Adam_ should have done; that is, should bring forth
a _generation_ of men, that should become _Sons of God_, and take
possession of that kingdom from which the angels had fallen.

“17. Here began the merciful mystery of man’s redemption; for this seed
of divine life, was the Holy Jesus, who from that time, stood in the
place of the first man.

And from that time it may be said in a true sense that the
_incarnation_ of the Son of God began; because he was from that time
entered again into the human nature, as a seed of its salvation, tho’
not made manifest, till he was born in the Holy Virgin _Mary_. And in
this sense St. _John_ says of him, _that he was the true light, which
lighteth every man, that cometh into the world_. Because every man has
from him this light, which if it is duly attended to, is our certain
guide to Christ, born in the fulness of time, and sacrificed for us
upon the cross.

“18. What we want from Christ, as our Redeemer, is manifest by that
which he gives to us, namely a redemption from the _hell_ that is in
our souls, and from the death and corruption that is in our bodies.

“19. We are no more created to be in the sorrows, and anguish of an
_earthly life_, than the angels were created to be in the _darkness_
of hell. It is as contrary to the _will_ of God towards us, that we
are out of paradise, as it is contrary to the design of God towards the
angels, that some of them are _out_ of heaven, prisoners of darkness.

“The sickness, pain and corruption of our bodies, is brought upon us by
ourselves, in the same manner as the dark, hideous forms of the devils
are brought upon them. * How absurd, and even blasphemous would it
be, to say, with the scripture and the church, that we are by _nature,
children of wrath, and born in sin_, if we had that nature which God
at first gave us? What a reproach upon God to say, that this world is
a _valley of misery_, a shadow of death, an habitation of _disorders_,
_snares_, _evils_, and _temptations_, if this was an original
creation, or that state of things in which God created us? Is it not
as consistent with the goodness of God, to speak of the _misery_ and
_disorder_ that holy angels find above, and of the vanity, emptiness
and sorrow of the _heavenly state_, as to speak of the misery of _men_,
and the sorrows of _this world_, if man and the world were in that
order, in which God at first had placed them?

“20. But by the mercy of God in Christ, this prison of an earthly life,
is turned into a state of purification. It is made a time and place of
putting off our _filthy_ garments, and of _staying_ and _sacrificing_
that man of sin that is hid under them. And God suffers the sun to
shine upon us, and the elements to afford us nourishment, for no other
end, but that we may all have time and opportunity to hear the call of
the Son of God, to be _born again_, to be renewed by the _Holy Spirit_,
and be made capable of that kingdom, from which _Lucifer_ and his
angels fell.”

    ♦ Paragraph numbers 21‒23 skipped

24. Look at our Saviour’s sermon on the _mount_, and indeed at all his
instructions, and you will find them pointing at nothing else on our
_side_, but a _denial_ of ourselves, and a _renunciation_ of the world.
And indeed how could it be otherwise! For if we want a Redeemer, only
because we have _wandered_ out of paradise, and could not get back to
it ourselves; if we are overcome by this world, only because our first
father _sought_ after it, what wonder is it that he who is to replace
us in paradise, should call us to a _renunciation_ of the world?

25. * Vain man, taken with the _sound_ of heavenly things, and
_prospects_ of future glory, yet at the same time a _fast friend_
to the interests of flesh and blood, would fain compound matters
between God and mammon. He is very willing to acknowledge a _Saviour_,
that died on the cross to save him. He is ready to receive outward
_ordinances_ and _forms_ of worship, and to contend with zeal for
the observance of them. He likes heaven, and future glory on these
conditions. He is also ready to put on _outward morality_, to let
religion polish his manners, that he may have the credit and ornament
of a _prudential piety_, and a _decency_ of life. This does no hurt.
But to lay the axe to the _whole root_ of our disease, to cut all those
_silken cords_ asunder, which tie us to the world, and the world to
us, to deny every temper and passion that cannot be made holy, wise and
heavenly; to die to every gratification which keeps up, and strengthens
the folly, vanity, pride, and blindness of our _fallen nature_; to
leave no little morsels of sensuality, avarice and ambition for the
_old man_ to feed upon, however well-covered under his mantle; this,
tho’ it be the very essence of religion, is what he flies from with
as much aversion as from _heresy_ and _schism_. Here he makes learned
appeals to reason and common sense to judge betwixt him, and the gospel;
which is just as wise, as to ask the learned _Greek_, and the worldly
_Jew_, whether the _cross_ of Christ be not foolishness, and a just
rock of offence: or to appeal to flesh and blood about the narrow way
to that kingdom of heaven, into which itself cannot possibly have an
entrance.

26. * To seek for any thing in religion, but a _new nature_ fitted for
a new world, is knowing neither it, nor ourselves. _To be born again_,
is to be fit for Paradise in whatever part of the universe we live.
_Not to be born again_, is continuing where the sin and death of _Adam_
left us, whatever church, or sect of religion we have fellowship with.
All ways and opinions, all forms and modes of worship, stand on the
outside of religion. They certainly are helps to the kingdom of God,
when we consider them only as the _gate_ to that _inward life_, which
we want. But this is unquestionably true, that our _salvation_ consists
wholly in our inward renewal by the Holy Ghost. When this begins, our
salvation begins; as this goes on, our salvation goes on; when this is
finished, our salvation is finished. This alone saves the soul, because
this alone restores the first paradisaical, divine nature, which is the
true image of God, and which alone can enter into the kingdom of heaven.

27. If we had only a _notional knowledge_ that our first father had
sinned, and knew no more of his _sinful condition_ than history tells
us of it; if we had only _instituted types_ and _figures_ to keep up
the remembrance of it in our minds, we should be never the worse for
his sins. We should have no hurt by _owning_ ourselves to be children
of a sinful father, if his nature, _life_ and _spirit_ were not
propagated in us. So, if we have only a _notional belief_ that Jesus is
become the _second Adam_, to redeem, and regenerate the fallen nature;
if we know this only in the _notion_ and history kept up in our minds
by _outward_ figures and _ordinances_: tho’ we contend ever so much
for this belief of a Saviour, and write _volumes_ in defence of it; yet
he is not our Saviour, till his nature, life and spirit, be in us. If
there be any man in the world, in whom the _nature_ of _Adam_ is not,
he has no _sin_ from _Adam_. If there be any man in whom the life of
Jesus is not, he has no _righteousness_ from him. We must have life and
righteousness in the same _truth_ and _reality_ in us from the second
_Adam_, as we have sin and death in us from the first.

28. The whole matter is this: Christ, by the overshadowing of the
Holy Spirit, became in the _Virgin Mary_, of the same nature with
that _first man_, which was created in Paradise; who according to the
_purpose_ of God, was to have been the father of an holy _race_ of men.
But seeing the first _Adam_ failed in this _design_ of God, the wisdom
of God provided a _second Adam_, who was born in the _same degree_
of perfection, in which the first man was created. To this holy
paradisaical human nature the _Son_ of God was personally united. And
thus Christ the second _Adam_, took the place of the first, and stands
as the second father of all the sons of _Adam_. Now as we are _earthly_,
corrupt, and _worldly_ men, by having the _nature_ and _life_ of the
first _Adam_ propagated in us, so we must become _holy_ and heavenly
men, by having the life and nature of the second _Adam_ derived into
us; or as the scripture speaks, by being _born again_. Jesus Christ
therefore helps us by a _second_ birth, to such an _holy_, and
_undefiled_ nature, as he himself received in the _blessed Virgin_, and
which we should have received in _Paradise_ from our _first father_.

Thus by faith in Christ we put _on Christ_, he is formed in us; we eat
his _flesh_ and drink _his blood_, and have his _nature_ and _life_ in
us.

Thus we are real members, living branches, and new born children of God.

29. * Look now at _yourselves_, at the _world_, at _religion_, in
this true light, and surely you must see the desirable nature of every
virtue, and every degree of it, which the gospel sets before you.
Surely you must awake into a strong abhorrence of every thing that the
fall has brought upon you; whether it be in your _souls_, your _bodies_,
or the state of the world into which you are fallen. To renounce the
poor interests of a worldly life, to be content with a _pilgrim’s fare_
in it, to live looking and longing after that which you have lost;
to have no more of covetousness, of pride, of vanity and ambition,
than _John_ the Baptist had; to live unto God in your _shops_, your
_employments_ and estates, with such thoughts and desires of going
to your heavenly Father, as the lost son had when he saw his poor
condition, eating _husks_ among _swine_, is only a proof that you are,
like him, come to yourselves, that you begin to see _what_, and how,
and where you are. Surely you can need no exhortations to run to your
Redeemer, to beseech him to do every thing in you and for you that your
corrupted heart, and polluted body are in need of. He now stands as
near you, as full of love to you, as he did to _Lazarus_ when he raised
him from the dead. He is no farther from your call than he was from the
call of blind _Bartimæus_.

30. * Surely it should be as needless to exhort you to look earnestly
after every means of recovering your first glorious state, as to exhort
the blind to receive their sight, the sick to accept of health, or
the captive to suffer his chains to be taken off. For when you see
your _misery_ and your _redemption_, both of them so exceeding great,
you see _something_ that must needs penetrate the depth of your soul,
that leaves you no room to _doubt_ about the nature of any virtue; no
liberty to indulge _one vain_ passion, or to think it any hardship that
the gospel calls you to be _perfect_. For in this light every virtue of
the gospel stands recommended to us, as _health_, _purity_ and _sight_
stand recommended to a _sick, noisome, blind leper_, who was shut up in
a place that continually increased all his evils.

* It strips us of nothing, but the _uncleanness_ of leprosies, the
_miseries_ of sores, pains and blindness. It takes nothing from the
world which is about us, but its poison and power of infecting us.

* So that to be called to the height of all virtue, however excessive
it may seem to the _reasonings_ of flesh and blood, is only being
called away from every _misery_ and _evil_ that can be avoided by us.

31. * No virtue therefore has any _blameable extreme_ in it, till
it _contradicts_ this general end of religion, till it _hinders_
the restoration of the divine image in us, or makes us _less fit_ to
appear amongst the inhabitants of heaven. _Abstinence_, _temperance_,
_mortification_ of the senses and passions, can have no excess,
till they hinder the purification of the soul, or make the body less
subservient to it. _Charity_ can have no excess, till it contracts that
love which we are to have in heaven, till it is more than that which
would lay down its life even for an enemy, till it exceeds that which
the first Christians practised, when they had all things common; till
it exceeds that of St. _John_, who requires him that has two coats,
to give to him that has none; till it is loving our poor brethren more
than Christ has loved us; till it goes beyond the command of loving our
neighbour as we love ourselves.

32. See now how the Doctor instructs his readers on those two great
articles, Christian _temperance_, and _charity_. To remove restraints
of the first kind he says, Our Saviour came eating and drinking, was
present at weddings, and other entertainments. The Doctor may go on,
and prove these indulgences to be good and pious, because what our
Saviour worked a miracle to promote must needs be so. And so the adding
another bottle, when friends are rejoicing, may be made a Christian
duty.

But I must vindicate the life and example of our blessed Lord from the
indignity done to it by the Doctor. Our blessed Lord came indeed, as he
says of himself eating and drinking. But in what manner? In what sense,
did he say this of himself? Why it was in distinction from _John the
Baptist_, who came eating only one sort of food. And it was to shew
the _Jews_ their great guilt in this respect, that nothing could do
them any good. For the mortification of the Baptist they condemned,
as coming from the devil, and the condescension of the holy Jesus in
coming to their tables, they accused as gluttony and wine-bibbing. Now
the Doctor is plainly doing what our Lord accused the _Jews_ of; he
with them condemns the mortification of the Baptist, as coming from the
devil. But he differs from the _Jews_ in this that he does not condemn,
but _approves_ of our Lord, as a _friend_ to feasts, and merry meetings.

33. Our Saviour, suitable to his gracious love, in coming into the
world, sought the conversation of sinners and publicans, because he
came to save that which was lost, and because he knew that some amongst
such sinners were more moveable, than the proud sanctity of the learned
Pharisees. But may we thence conclude, that the lives of such sinners
were not blameable in his sight? Is not this as well, as to imagine he
favoured the indulgence of feasting, and good fellowship, because he
was found there? The holy Jesus conversed more freely, spoke of himself
and of the kingdom of God more divinely to a wicked woman of _Samaria_
than he appears to have done to his disciples. May we thence conclude,
that he approved of a woman of that character, or thereby set his seal
to the goodness, and lawfulness of her way of living? Is not this as
well, as to make his presence at a wedding an approbation of the usual
indulgences of such feasts?

34. O holy Jesus, thou didst nothing of thyself: thou soughtest only
the glory of thy Father, from the beginning to the end of thy life.
Thou spentest whole nights in prayer in mountains and desert places;
thou hadst not where to lay thy head. Thy common poor fare with thy
disciples was _barley bread_ and _dryed fish_. Thy miraculous power
never helped thee to any dainties or refreshment, tho’ ever so much
fatigued. But yet because this holy Jesus came into the world to save
all sorts of sinners, and to shew that every kind and degree of sin
could be taken away by him, therefore he came into all places, and
entered into all sorts of companies. He did not as the Baptist, tie
himself to one sort of food. But he came eating and drinking. But
why did he so? It was that he might reprove, and convert sinners at
their own tables. He came not to indulge himself, or to find such
gratifications as the Baptist abstained from; but to work miracles,
to awaken sinners in the midst of their indulgences.

It is said, that wherever the King is, there is the court. But with
much more reason may it be said, that wherever our Saviour came, there
was the temple or the church. He came to _feasts_ and _entertainments_
with the same spirit, for the same end, and in the same divine power,
as he went to raise a _dead corpse_, namely to shew forth the glory
of God. Wherever he came, it was in the _spirit_ and _power_ of the
Redeemer of mankind; every thing he did was only to destroy the works
of the devil, to deliver man from his power, raise the dead, and give
sight to the blind, and ears to the deaf. It made no difference to him,
whether he did this in the temple, or in the streets, at a feast, or
at a funeral. As he was every where God, so every place became holy to
him. Lastly, if our Saviour, was present, at chearful entertainments, to
shew his _approbation_ of such indulgences, how came _John the Baptist_,
that severe master of mortification to be a fit preparer of the way
to the kingdom of heaven? Surely his voice must cry wrong, if such
mortification was not right.

And if our Saviour disapproved of the severity of his life and manners,
how came he to point him out as a burning and shining light? Thus
much may serve to vindicate our Saviour’s example from the shocking
misapplication the Doctor has made of it.

35. Let us now see how he treats, and instructs the charitable
Christian in these words.

“What, says the _half-thinker_, is not charity to the poor, a most
excellent thing? And can I be too charitable? Can I therefore bestow
too much upon the poor? I answer, tho’ you cannot be too charitable,
yet you may bestow too much upon the poor, to the ruin of your wife
and children, which is not charity, but madness, and a great and _most
grievous sin_. Did you never hear that _charity begins at home_? Did
you never read that of St. _Paul_? _If any provide not for his own,
and especially those of his own house: he hath deny’d the faith, and is
worse than an infidel?_”

The Doctor’s proverb I shall leave to himself; but the text of St.
_Paul_, which he has as grosly misapplied, as he did our Saviour’s
miracle, I must take out of his hands. St. _Paul_’s words are quoted
to prove, that it is madness, a great and grievous sin, for any one
thro’ charity to the poor to render himself unable to provide for his
wife and children. Now the apostle in this place speaks no more about
this sin, than he speaks against the sin of watching and prayer. Nay,
what is more, there is not in all his writings, or in the whole New
Testament, the _least supposition_ or _hint_ that such a sin ever was,
or would be committed. The apostle was singly speaking of _such women_,
as were to be taken into the order of widows for the service of the
church, and to be maintained by it. Verse 4. he says, that such widows
as had children or nephews that could support them, were not to be
maintained by the church. And to such sons and nephews who have mothers
and aunts that thus want their assistance, he says, _If any one provide
not for his own, especially for those of his own house_, i. e. If any
sons or nephews have mothers or aunts become desolate widows, and take
not care to assist them, especially if they live with them, such have
renounced the piety of the gospel, and have not so much humanity as
infidels.

36. This alone is the plain doctrine of the apostle, which the Doctor
has grosly perverted, to the condemning of that which he never thought
of. On the contrary, the scripture abounds with passages which might
persuade us, that no family could ever be ruined by the alms and
charity of its father; _I have been young, and now am old_, saith the
psalmist, _Yet never saw I the righteous forsaken or his seed begging
their bread._

_The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth shall be
watered again._ They that cannot believe this, want the faith of
Christians. Had any one in the apostle’s time reduced his wife and
children to want, by his great charity to the poor, the apostle
would have been so far from rebuking him, as a half-thinking fool, or
exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, and grievous sin, that he
would have told them, that he had consecrated himself and family to the
church, that he and they were thereby become the dear objects of the
church’s care and love, since their present distress was brought upon
them by a boundless love and compassion for the poor.

I will now put the following _case_ in as high terms as the Doctor
can well desire. Let it be supposed that some good _bishop_, possessed
of as rich a _bishoprick_ as that of _Winchester_, should through his
extensive charity for the poor throughout the whole diocese, be forced
to use the utmost frugality in family expences, and to bring up his
children in employments of labour, to help themselves to food and
raiment; one a carpenter, in which business our Saviour is said to have
laboured in his youth; another a maker of tents, the trade of the great
apostle: and the rest in the like manner. Let it be supposed, that
when he died, he left only twenty pounds a year amongst them, not to
be _possessed_ by any one of them, but only to be used by every one
as sickness or age made them stand in need of it, with this injunction,
that it should be given to other sick and helpless people, when there
was no such amongst themselves: Let it be supposed that by his life
and conversation, he had filled his wife and children with the true
and perfect spirit of the gospel, that they loved and rejoiced in his
memory for all the good he had done to them, desiring nothing, but
to go through the world, in the same _humility_, _piety_, _charity_,
_love_ of God, and _renunciation_ of the world, as he had done. Will
the Doctor say that this _bishop_ had _ruined_ his wife and children;
that _half thinking_ had betrayed him into a most _grievous sin_,
that he had by this life _deny’d the faith_, and become _worse_ than
an infidel? I will venture to say, that if such a bishop should ever
appear in this kingdom, he would bid fair to put an end to infidelity
through all his diocese, though it were the largest in the nation.
Now if the Doctor does not know of any one either among the _laity_
or _clergy_, who is _ruining_ his wife and children by a greater and
more blameable charity than that of this bishop, it must be said, that
he has been in too much haste, that his zeal has not proceeded from
_knowledge_; and that he has been throwing _cold water_ upon charity,
before there was any flame in it.

37. I now proceed to shew in a more general way the blameable nature of
the Doctor’s discourse. The whole Christian world from the time of our
Saviour to this day, has been praying, _Thy kingdom come, thy will be
done on earth as it is in heaven._ Sacraments, divine worship, and the
order of the clergy, are appointed as ministerial helps for this end,
to raise, set up, and establish this kingdom of God on earth. The fall
of a man brought forth the kingdom of this world; sin in all shapes is
nothing else but the will of man, following the workings of a nature
_broken off_ from its dependency upon, and union with the divine will.
All the evil and misery in the creation arises _solely_ from this one
cause. There is not the smallest degree of pain or punishment either
within us, or without us, but is owing to this, viz. that man stands
out of his place, is not _in_, and _under_, and _united_ to God as he
should be, as the nature of things requires. God created every thing
to partake of his _own nature_, to have some share of his _own life_,
and happiness. Nothing can be good or evil, happy or unhappy, but as
it does or does not stand in the same _divine life_ in which it was
created, receiving in God, and from God, all that good that it is
capable of, and so co-operating with, and under him, according to the
nature of its powers and perfections. As soon as it turns to itself,
and would as it were have a sound of its _own_, it breaks off from
the _divine harmony_, and falls into the misery of its own _discord_;
and all its workings then are only so many sorts of torments. The
redemption of mankind can then only be effected, the harmony of the
creation can only then be restored when the will of God is the will of
every creature. For this reason our blessed Lord having taken upon him
a created nature, so continually declares against the doing any thing
of himself, and always appeals to the will of God, as the only motive
and end of every thing he did, saying, that it was his meat and drink,
to do the will of him that had sent him.

38. * What now can be so desirable to a sensible man, as to have the
vain, disorderly passions of his heart removed from him, to be filled
with such unity, love, and concord, as flow from God, to stand united
to, and co-operating with the divine goodness, willing nothing, but
what God wills, loving nothing, but what God loves, and doing all
the good he can to every creature, from the principle of love and
conformity to God. Then the kingdom of God is come and his will is
done in that soul, as it is done in heaven. Then heaven itself is in
the soul, and the life and conversation of the soul is in heaven. From
such a man the curse of the world is removed; he walks upon consecrated
ground, and every thing he meets, every thing that happens to him,
helps forward his union and communion with God. For when we receive
every thing from God, and do every thing for God, every thing does
us the _same good_, and helps us to the same degree of happiness.
_Sickness_, and _health_, _prosperity_ and _adversity_, bless and
purify such a soul; as it turns every thing _toward God_, so every
thing becomes _divine_ to it. For he that seeks God in every thing,
is sure to _find_ God in every thing. When we thus live wholly unto
God, God is wholly ours, and we are then happy in all the happiness of
God. This is the purity and perfection, that we pray for in the Lord’s
prayer, that _God’s kingdom may come_, and _his will be done in us, as
it is in heaven_.

39. And this we may be sure is not only _necessary_, but _attainable_
by us, or our Saviour would not have made it a part of our daily prayer.
It may then justly be asked, have we yet obtained that, which we have
been so long, and so universally praying for? Can we look upon the
church of this nation, as drawing _near_, or even _tending_ to this
state of perfection? Can we be carried to any one parish, either in
town or country where it can with truth be said of any _one pastor_
and his _flock_, that there the kingdom of God is _coming_ and his will
_begins_ to be done on earth, as it is done in heaven? Can we therefore
find any _one parish_, where the _pastor_ has not _great_ reason to
reject the Doctor’s discourse, and to pray both for himself and his
flock, that they may enter _much farther_ into the spirit and practice
of Christianity, than they have yet entered, that the gospel may have
_much greater_ power over them, than it hath yet had; and that they
may all _see_ what it is that has made so _divine_, and _powerful_
a religion, so without its _proper effect_ upon them? For if the
case be thus, if we stand at this amazing distance from that state of
perfection to which Christ has called us, do not _heaven_ and _earth_
seem to call upon _every minister_ of the gospel, to take _some share_
to himself of this _miserable state_ of things, and to endeavour to
convince both _himself_, and his _flock_, that they have not yet been
Christians in _true earnest_, that they have professed Christ with
the tempers of _Jews_ and _Heathens_, that they have not yet enough
_renounced_ the world, not enough _denied_ themselves, not enough
_emptied_ their hearts of passions hurtful to piety, not enough
_offered_ and devoted themselves to God, not enough made the spirit of
religion the spirit of their lives, not enough sought for strength and
deliverance from sin, by a _firm_ and _living faith_ in Jesus Christ;
not enough prayed and desired that they might be born again of God, so
that Christ may be truly formed in them; not enough prayed and desired
to be every where, and on all occasions under the perpetual influence
and guidance of the Holy Spirit, that they may think and say, and do
every thing by his holy inspiration; not enough looked to that first
and great commandment, of loving God with our whole heart and strength:
not enough endeavoured to keep the next, that of loving our neighbour,
as ourselves; not enough renounced such fashions, customs, and
conformities to the world, as corrupt the heart, and grieve and
separate the Holy Spirit from it.

40. Now which way soever we consider the lamentable state of religion
amongst us, no remedy can be procured by us of the _clergy_, but in
this one way, that every _individual_ of the order, from the highest
to the lowest, begin in right earnest with himself, open the book of
his own heart and life, and consider seriously, in the presence of God,
whether, according to his degree in the ecclesiastical function, the
world has its _due_ share of _salt_ and _light_ from him; whether all
that is in the world, the _lust of the flesh_, _the lust of the eyes_,
and the _pride of life_ have been so openly, so constantly discouraged,
and renounced by him, that the whole form of his life has been one kind,
continual call to all orders of Christians, to set their affections on
things above, to mind only the one thing needful, to have nothing at
heart, but to be in Christ new creatures, seeking, intending, desiring
nothing, thro’ the pilgrimage of this life, but to live _unspotted
from the world_, and to obtain every height of holiness, and heavenly
affections, which becomes those who are to be called sons, and heirs of
God with Christ Jesus.

41. If religion was at this time in a most flourishing state amongst
us, abounding with such congregations as made up the primitive church,
it would be great injustice to suppose that the clergy had not, under
God, been the chief instruments of building it up to such a state of
perfection. Seeing then an universal corruption of manners is on all
hands confessed, to have overspread this Christian nation, and the true
spirit of religion is hardly any where to be seen, nothing can be more
reasonable than for every _clergyman_, wherever his lot is fallen, to
suspect himself to have, in some degree, contributed to this common
calamity, and to try to discover his own state, by such questions as
these, laid _home_ to his conscience. If Christianity has not done that
to my flock which is the _only end_ of it, is there nothing of this
failure chargeable upon my conduct over it? Can my righteous Judge lay
nothing to my charge on that account? Can my own heart bear me witness
that I was not driven by _human passions_, but stayed and waited till
the Holy Spirit called me to this office? Have I not undertaken the
care of other souls, before I had any true and real care of my own?
Have I not presumed to convert and strengthen others, before I was
converted myself? To preach by hearsay of the grace, and mercy, and
salvation of the gospel, whilst I myself was an obedient slave to sin?
Have I not taken upon me to lay open the mysteries of God’s love in
Christ Jesus, before they had their _proper entrance_ into my own soul?
Have my own repentance, compunction, deep sense of the burden of sin,
and want of a Saviour taught me how to make the terrors of the Lord
known in the deep of every man’s heart, and to awaken and pierce the
consciences of sinners? Has, my own _true and living faith_ in Christ
my Saviour, my own experience of the atoning, cleansing, sanctifying
powers of his precious blood, enabled me with great boldness to tell
all sinners, that to the _faith which worketh by love_, Christ always
and infallibly saith, what he said in the gospel, _Thy sins are
forgiven; thy faith has saved thee; go in peace._

42. * Can my own heart, and God who is greater than our hearts, bear
me witness that in my sacred office I have not sought myself, or my
own things, but the things of Jesus Christ? If I have changed one flock
or station for another, or added one cure to another, have I done it
in _singleness of heart_, as unto the Lord and not for myself? Has all
that I have sought or done of this kind, been only from this motive,
that I might be more faithful to him that hath called me, and be more
and more spent and _sacrificed_ for the salvation of souls? Have I
neglected no means of fitting and preparing myself for the illumination
of God’s Holy Spirit, which alone can enable me in any measure to
speak to and work upon the hearts and consciences of men? Have I
earnestly longed, and laboured after every kind and degree of inward
and outward holiness, and purity of _body_, _soul_, and _spirit_,
that my standing at the altar may be acceptable to God, and my prayers
and intercessions for my flock avail much before him? Has my own
self-denial, renunciation of the world, and love of the cross of Christ,
enabled me to preach up those duties in their full extent? Has my own
strictly pious use of the things of this world, my own readiness to
assist every creature to the utmost of my ability fitted me to call
others to these things with power and authority? Have all ages and
conditions of people under my care had their proper instruction and
warning from me, so that I have spared no folly, vanity, indulgence,
or conformity to the world, that hurt mens souls, and hinder their
progress in piety? Have I done all that by my prayers and preaching,
life and example, which Christ expects from those whom he has enjoined
to feed his sheep? Can my flock by looking at me see what virtues they
want? Can they by following me, be led to every kind and degree of
Christian perfection! Lastly, has the will of God been the beginning
and end, the reason and motive, the rule and measure, of my liking or
disliking, doing or not doing ♦every thing among those people with whom
I have lived as their minister?

    ♦ removed duplicate word “every”

43. These are a few of such questions as the present state of religion
in this _island_ calls every minister to try himself by. For as
the order of the clergy is instituted for no other end, but for the
preserving of true piety in the world; so when any age is more than
ordinarily sunk in vice and impiety, the _whole order_ of the clergy,
and _every member_ of it, have great reason not only to be deeply
afflicted, but greatly affrighted at it, and to suspect their own
conduct, since that which is their particular work, has had so
_little_ success. They have great reason to apprehend, that it is
some degeneracy of spirit, some general negligence, some want of
example, some failure in doctrine, some defect in zeal and care of
their particular flocks, that _too much_ contributes to so _general a
corruption_ of manners. This does not suppose, that it is in the power
of our order to regulate the manners of people as we please; it only
supposes, that of all human means it has the _greatest effect_, and
that when any nation or people are _very bad_, it behoves the clergy,
who have any _right sense_ of the nature of our order, any _true love_
for our brethren of it, to awaken and stir up one another to a faithful
diligence in our callings; not such as may secure us from public
scandal, and the laws of the land, but such diligence as the nature of
our office, the spirit of the gospel, and the present decay of religion
call for. Let us beseech one another, deeply to consider the great
need that this poor nation hath of a _zealous_, _pious_, _exemplary_,
_disinterested_ and _laborious_ clergy; to consider the dreadful
judgments of God, that may justly be expected to fall first upon our
own heads, if this only remedy is not procured by all of us, according
to the utmost of our ability. It is now no time for ease, indulgence
or worldly repose; all is to be renounced, all is to be sacrificed.
Our religion is founded on this doctrine.――That we are to be born again
of the Holy Spirit;――that there is no sanctification of the heart, no
illumination of the mind, no knowledge of divine mysteries, no love
of holy things possible to be had, but in and by the motion and life
of this Holy Spirit in us;――that its life, motion and power in us,
increase according to our faith, prayers and desires of it.

44. * Is it not now a flat denial of all this to say, as do some,
that the establishment of the gospel in the world, together with the
assistances of _human learning_, and _languages_, has been the occasion
why the assistance of the Holy Ghost is abated? For if we consult
either scripture or experience, must it not be said, that _worldly
peace_ and _prosperity_ want _as much_ to be sanctified by the Holy
Spirit, as _persecution_ and _distress_? That _human learning_ and
_knowledge_ need as _high degrees_ of divine grace, as human ignorance?
Is not the blindness and corruption of _men of letters_, as notorious
as that of _unlearned_ men? Does an _editor of Terence, Horace_ or
_Virgil_, receive such illumination from _plays_ and _poetry_? Do
_cardinals_ and _pluralists_ receive so much _unction_ from human
establishments, as to need less to be governed by the Holy Spirit
of God? Or will we say, that a _critical study_ of divided languages,
and a religion established in worldly ease and peace, are not only
in themselves free from danger and corruption, but have so much of
the nature of the Holy Spirit in them, that they can be to us in _his
stead_, and make his sanctifying operations upon us needed in a _less
degree_?

45. On the part of God, our _redemption_ in Jesus Christ, and our
_sanctification_ by the Holy Ghost, stand always in the _same degree_
of _nearness_ and _fulness_ to all of us. There is hardly a chapter
in the New Testament that can be understood, but upon the supposition
of this great truth. If Christ is less formed in us than he was in
the first saints of the church, if we come not to the _perfect man_,
_to the measure of the stature_ of the _fulness of Christ_, it is not
because Christ is now become only our Redeemer in an ordinary way; but
it is because we have not so counted all things but _dung_, that we
might win Christ, as the first saints did. If the Holy Spirit does not
now in _such a degree_ renew, quicken, move, and sanctify our hearts,
and fill us with _such degrees_ of divine light and love, as was done
in the first age of the church, it is not because this sanctifying
spirit has committed _some part_ of his work to _human learning_, and
so is become only our sanctifier in a lesser and _ordinary degree_,
but it is because we ourselves have _forsaken this fountain of living
waters, and hewed out broken cisterns_ for ourselves; it is because
we have grieved this Holy Spirit, _resisted_ his motions, and under
an _outward profession_ of Christ have kept up that _old man, with his
deeds_, which cannot be the habitation of the Holy Spirit.

* If therefore we have any true sense of the nature and weight of
our ecclesiastical calling, any desire to do the _full work_ of the
ministry, to satisfy the necessities of our flocks; if we have any fear
of being condemned as _useless_ labourers in Christ’s vineyard, it is
high time to awake from this dream of an ordinary and extraordinary
sanctification of the Holy Spirit. It serves only to keep us
_unsanctified_, shut up in death, in our own corrupted nature, to
keep us _learnedly_ content with our state, as if we were _rich_ and
_increased_ in _goods_, and _had need_ of _nothing_: and hinders us
from knowing that we are _wretched_ and _miserable, and poor, and blind
and naked_.

46. * Several of the clergy, whose lot is fallen in this corrupt age,
may be supposed to have taken upon them the sacred office, and to
have lived in it, not enough according to the nature and spirit of it,
merely through the _degeneracy_ of the times, and from a consideration
that they are well enough, according to the religion that now
passes in the world. And perhaps there are few, if any of the order,
however eminent for good works, whose virtues have not receiv’d _some
abatement_ from the same cause――This therefore may be added as another
reason why all the clergy of this land must in the spirit of martyrdom
awaken the world into a faith and love of the gospel. Now is the time
that we must _give up_ all our worldly regards, _forsake all that
we have, that we must hate father and mother, wife and children, and
brothers and sisters, yea and our own lives also_, or we cannot be
faithful ministers of Jesus Christ. The same spirit which first planted
the gospel, is now required to _recover_ and _restore_ it amongst us.
We must break off our chains of worldly prudence, and come forth in the
spirit and power of the gospel: so live, and speak, and act, whether in
the pulpit or out of it, that all who see and hear us may be forced to
confess that God is in us of a truth. A _ministry_ that have not this
power, that have not _full proof_, both to themselves and others, that
the Holy Spirit is thus _with them_, opening the kingdom of God in
their own souls, and enabling them to preach it to others with spirit
and power, are to answer to God for their want of it.

47. To ask whether the assistance of the holy Spirit is to be
_ordinary_ or _extraordinary_, is as needless a distinction, as to
ask whether a _minister_ of the gospel ought to be an ordinary or
extraordinary man. The operation of the holy Spirit in us since the
fall, is a supernatural power, and therefore in a just sense always
extraordinary; because enabling us to be and do that, which the
ordinary power of fallen nature is insufficient for. But it is more
or less restored to us, as we are more or less fitted to receive it.

* The Christian religion has not had its proper effect, till it has so
set up the kingdom of God among us, that _his will is done on earth, as
it is done in heaven_.

* This is the perfection that every Christian is to _aspire_ after.
And if they who are to be taught, are to be thus emptied of all worldly
passions, thus dead to the workings of self-will, that the Spirit of
God may be all in all in them, what manner of men ought they to be,
who are to _teach_, _promote_, _advance_, and _lead_ the way to this
purity and perfection? At what a distance ought he to be from every
_appearance_ of pride, that is to draw others to live and practise
the profound humility of the blessed Jesus? How ought he to humble his
body, and be steady in all kinds of self-denial, who would convince his
flock, that _they who sow to the flesh reap_ destruction? How heavenly
minded, how devoted to God, how attentive to the one thing needful, how
unspotted from the world ought he to be, who is to persuade others that
they cannot possibly _serve God and mammon_? How empty ought he to be
of all _worldly_ policy, all arts and methods of _ambition_, who is to
fix it deep in the hearts of his hearers that _unless they become as
little children, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God_? What open
hands, and open heart ought he to have, what an extent of charity ought
to be visible in him, who is to bring his flock to this faith, that _it
is more blessed to give than to receive_? How remarkably, undeniably
plain, open, sincere, undesigning, and faithful should he be, who is
to plant, and establish sincerity, plainness, simplicity, truth and
innocence amongst his flock? There is such a necessary fitness in these
things, that the power of religion, must be much prevented, when its
precepts are recommended by such as excuse themselves from the plain
and open practice of them.

48. * The office of the ministry is of the highest nature; it is a
trust which no language can sufficiently express: and the unfaithful
discharge of it is of all conditions in life the most dreadful. To be
charged with the death and blood of souls, by that God who laid down
his life to redeem them, is a condemnation that will carry more of
guilt and punishment in it than any other. Would you know the office
of a Christian pastor, you must look at the office of Christ. Would
you know what manner of spirit he ought to be of, you must look at
the Spirit of Christ. For the work of the ministry is only the work
of Christ committed to other hands, who are to supply his absence, to
be here in his stead, to be doing the same things, and with the same
spirit that he did, till the end of the world.

* Nothing is so highly honourable as to bear a part in the priesthood
of Christ, and be employed in the work of the ministry. But then it
should be _well considered_, that it is only honourable in the _same
sense_, as it is honourable to suffer as a martyr. It is an honour that
is as different from all worldly figure and distinction, as the glory
of Christ upon the cross is different from the triumph of an earthly
prince. When therefore we think of the _honour_ and _dignity_ of the
pastoral function, we should be careful to remember, that it is only
the honour of dying a martyr, an honour of humbling, abasing, and
sacrificing ourselves with Christ, and continuing the exercise of his
suffering-priesthood for the salvation of the world. The holy function
is often considered only as an authoritative commission to minister in
holy things. But it is much more than this. It is a call and command to
act with the Spirit of Christ, to represent his purity, to continue his
holiness, to bear a part of his sacrifice, and devote themselves for
the good of others, as he did. A priest that has only his ordination to
distinguish him, wants as much to make him a true priest, as _Judas_
wanted to make him a true apostle. For tho’ holiness alone gives no man
a commission to exercise the pastoral office, yet all who are called to
it, are as much ordained to a peculiar holiness, as to the
administration of the sacraments.

49. For the sacred office is God’s appointment, to continue through all
ages, the spirit and power of Christ for reconciling men to God in the
same manner and by the same means of holiness, sacrifice and devotion,
which Christ exercised when he was upon earth. We need no other proofs
of this, than this one saying of our Lord: _As my Father hath sent
me, so send I you._ That is, for all the ends for which I am come into
the world, for all the same ends I send you into it; to be there in my
stead, to supply my absence, to carry on the work that I have begun,
to act with my spirit, to continue the exercise of my love, and labour,
and suffering for the salvation of mankind. Now to be sent by our Lord
for the same ends as he was sent into the world, is such an appointment
of us to all kinds of holiness, as can never be rightly discharged, but
by our devoting ourselves wholly and absolutely unto God.

Imagine that you had lived with our blessed Lord upon earth, that
you had learned the dignity and divinity of his person, that you had
seen the love which he bore to mankind, that you had entered into the
glorious designs of his kingdom, which was to convert the inhabitants
of the earth, poor creatures of flesh and blood, into sons of God and
heirs of eternal glory.

Imagine that you had seen him after his resurrection, when he had
redeemed the world, conquered sin, death and hell, and was about to
take possession of his throne; imagine that then, you had seen him
commission some of his followers to be priests and intercessors with
God on earth, as he had been, to feed and nourish, and watch over his
flock, as he had done, to go before them in such exemplary holiness,
such love of God, such compassion for sinners, such contempt of the
world, such poverty of spirit, such obedience, and resignation, as they
had him for an ensample. Had you been present at all this, how would
you then have felt these words, “As my Father hath sent me, so send I
you?”

50. * What sentiments of piety, what magnificence of spirit, what
exalted holiness, would you have expected of those, who were called
to succeed so great a master in so great a work? Could you think
they could be fit for this office, unless they had _renounced_ and
_sacrificed_ every thing for the sake of it? Could you think that any
care but that of the church of God was proper for them? Would you not
own that the conversion of sinners to God, ought to have been their
only labour and pains? That they were to seek for no other happiness in
this world, than such as their Lord and master had done, but consider
themselves as called from the common affairs, ease and pleasures of
life, to be in Christ’s stead towards the rest of mankind, to conduct
them safely to eternal happiness? Now when we consider the apostles in
this light, as being the first that were entrusted with the _care of
souls_ from Christ himself, we can see no degree of zeal, no height of
piety, no compassion for sinners, no concern for the honour of God, no
contempt of suffering, no disregard of worldly interest, no watchings
or mortifications, no fervours of devotion, to which we of the clergy
are not equally obliged. For the salvation of mankind is still the same
glorious, and necessary work that it was in their days; is still to
be carried on by the same means, and is now in the hands of the clergy
as it was then in theirs. If it was their happiness and glory to be
faithful to him that called them, to forget the little interests of
flesh and blood, and have nothing at heart, but the advancement of
God’s kingdom, we shall fail both of happiness and glory if we seek
it any other way. If an apostle considering the weight of reconciling
souls unto God, is forced to cry out, _Who is sufficient for these
things?_ Shall we think any care but that which is the greatest, will
make us stand uncondemned before God?

51. * It is a fatal deception to imagine, that the life of a minister
of God is ever to be a life of ease and worldly repose. For tho’ the
temporal sword be not always drawn against them, nor they forced to
flee from one city to another, yet the world, the flesh and the devil,
are never so difficult to be resisted, as in temporal prosperity; nor
have the ministers of Christ ever more occasion to put on all their
armour, than when the world is given up to ease, and peace, and plenty.
Swarms of vices steal in upon us in these seasons; the spirit and life
of religion is in danger of being lost, and the salvation of souls
is made more difficult, than in the most perilous times. And how is
such a state of temptation to be resisted, such a torrent of vice to
be suppressed, but by the clergy’s shewing themselves _visible_ and
_notorious_ examples of all the contrary virtues? When mankind are
wallowing in debauchery, wantoning in pleasures, and given up to vanity
and luxury in all shapes, it is then the duty of the faithful minister,
by his being crucified to the world, to proclaim himself a messenger
of a crucified Saviour, and to make his own self-denying, mortified,
and heavenly life, a plain, open, and constant reproof of all vain
indulgences.

But to proceed, “To what a height of fanatic madness in doctrine as
well as practice, says the Doctor, are some advanced, who set out at
first with an appearance of more than ordinary sanctity only.” Is not
this calling upon the clergy to beware, how they admit these beginnings
of a more than ordinary sanctity of life, either in themselves, or
those committed to their care? Is it not plainly telling them, that
they must stick _closely_ and _steadily_ to such sanctity of practice,
as may be called _ordinary_, or else they will be in fanatic madness?
Nay, it is no force put upon his words, to suppose, _a more than
ordinary sanctity in practice only_, is marked out as the genuine,
natural cause of _fanatic madness_, and therefore the cause is equally
condemned with the effect. Had he meant that his reader should not have
the same dislike of the one, as of the other, would he not have put in
a word in favour of a _more than ordinary_ sanctity of life? Would he
not have said, that he did not intend to _blame that_, or at least not
_so much_ as the other? But not a word of this. A more than ordinary
sanctity in _practice_ only, and fanatic _madness_ are considered as
cause and effect, and left in the same state of condemnation, to be
equally guarded against, and avoided, by the reader.

52. I can’t help here addressing myself with great affection to all my
younger brethren of the clergy. According to the course of nature, you
are likely to have the care of the church wholly upon your hands in a
short time; and therefore it is chiefly from you that the restoration
of true piety is to be expected in this nation. I beseech you,
therefore for your own sakes, for the gospel’s sake, for the sake of
mankind, to devote yourselves wholly to the love and service of God. As
you are yet but beginners in this great office, you have in your power
to make your lives the greatest happiness, both to yourselves and the
whole nation. You are entered into _holy orders_ in degenerate times,
where trade and traffic have seized upon all holy things; and it will
be easy for you without fear to swim along with the corrupt stream,
and to look upon him as an enemy or enthusiast, that would save you
from being lost in it. But think my dear brethren, think in time what
remorse you are treasuring up for yourselves, if you live to look back
upon a loose, negligent, worldly life, spent among those whose blood
will be required at your hands. Think on the other hand, how blessedly
your employment will end, if by your voices, your lives, and labours,
you put a stop to the overflowings of iniquity, restore the spirit of
the primitive clergy, and make all your flock bless and praise God, for
having sent you among them. * Lay this down as an infallible principle,
that _an entire, absolute renunciation_ of all worldly interest, is the
only possible foundation of that virtue which your station requires.
Without this all attempts after an exemplary piety are in vain. If
you want any thing from the world by way of figure and exaltation, you
shut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls, and instead of
converting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are about you. Detest
therefore with the utmost abhorrence, all desires of making your
fortunes, either by preferments or rich marriages, and let it be your
only ambition to stand at the top of every virtue, as visible guides
and patterns to all that aspire after the perfection of holiness.
Consider yourselves merely as the messengers of God, that are solely
sent into the world, to bring the world to God.

53. I don’t call you from a sober use of human learning, but I would
fain persuade you to think nothing worthy of your notice in books and
study, but that which applies to the amendment of the heart, which
makes you more holy, more divine, more heavenly, than you would be
without it. You want nothing, but to have the corruption of your
natural birth removed, to have the nature, life, and spirit of Jesus
Christ derived into you. As this is all you want, so let this be all
that you seek from books, study, or men. This is the only certain way
to become eminent divines, instructed to the kingdom of heaven. And
above all, let me tell you that the book of all books is your own
heart, in which are written and engraven the deepest lessons of divine
instruction. Learn therefore to be deeply attentive to the presence of
God in your heart, who is always speaking, always instructing, always
illuminating that heart that is attentive to him: and be assured of
this, that so much as you have of inward attention to God, of love and
adherence to his holy light and Spirit, so much as you have of real,
unaffected humility and meekness; so much as you are dead to your own
will, so much as you have of purity of heart; so much and no more,
nor any further, do you see and know the truths of God. These virtues
are the only eyes, and ears and senses, by which you will understand
every thing in scripture, in that manner in which God would have it
understood, both for your own good, and the good of other people.

54. It was owing to this purity of heart, and attendance upon God, that
an ancient widow named _Anna_, knew him to be the true Messiah, whom
the rulers, chief priests, and doctors of the law, condemned as an
impostor. Had they, instead of their adherence to critical knowledge
and rabbinical learning, been devoted to God in such purity of heart
as she was, they had known as much of the kingdom of God, as she did.
Place therefore all your hope, all your learned help and skill, in the
ardent love and practice of _these virtues_. And then, you will be able
ministers, holy priests, and messengers of God; your cleansed hearts,
like so many purified mirrors, will be always penetrated, always
illuminated by the rays of divine light, and you will no more need the
critics, to tell you what God speaks to you in the scriptures. But of
all men in the world, the critical dealers in words and particles, know
the least of them, and make the vainest attempts to understand them.
Scripture considered as a doctrine of _life_, _faith_ and _salvation_
in Jesus Christ, is a sealed or unsealed, an open or shut up book to
every heart, in the same proportion as it stands turned to the world,
or turned to God. Nothing understands God, but the Spirit of God;
nothing brings the Spirit of God into any mind but the renouncing all
for it, the turning wholly unto it, and the depending wholly upon it.
* Human learning is by no means to be rejected from religion, for it is
of the same use, and affords the same assistance to religion, that the
_alphabet_, _writing_ and _printing_ does. But if it is raised from
this kind and degree of assistance, if it is considered as a key, or
the key to the mysteries of our redemption, instead of opening to us
the kingdom of God, it locks us up in our own darkness. God is an all
speaking, _all working_, _all illuminating_ essence, possessing the
depth of every creature according to its nature; and when we turn
from all impediments, this divine essence becomes as certainly the
true light of our minds here, as it will be hereafter. This is not
enthusiasm, but the words of truth and soberness; and it is the running
away from this enthusiasm, that has made so many great scholars as
useless to the church as tinkling cymbals, and Christendom a mere
_Babel_ of learned confusion.




                       Some ANIMADVERSIONS upon
                       Dr. ♦TRAPP’s late REPLY.


HAD I the spirit of an _adversary_, or were inclined to find
entertainment for the _satirical reader_, it would not be easy for
me to overlook the opportunity which Dr. _♦Trapp_’s Reply has put
into my hands; but as I don’t want to lessen any appearance of ability
which the Doctor has shewn on this occasion; so whatever _personally_
concerns him, either as a _writer_, a _scholar_, a _disputant_, a
_divine_, or a _Christian_, shall have no reflection from me; and tho’
by this means, some sort of readers may be less pleased, yet, the more
Christian reader will be glad to find, that thus I must leave _two
thirds_ of his reply untouched; and as I neither have, nor (by the
grace of God) ever will have any _personal contention_ with any man
whatever, so all the _triumph_ which the Doctor has gained over me by
that flow of wrath and contempt which he has let loose upon me, I shall
leave him quietly to enjoy.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

It would be no pleasure to me, nor benefit to the world, to discover
that _malignity_ of _spirit_, that _undistinguishing head_, that
_diabolical calumny_, that _shameful ignorance_, that _indecent
sufficiency_, that _unbecoming presumption_, that _nauseous_ dulness,
that _ignorance_ of _logic_, that _insensibility_ of argument, that
want of _grammar_, which he has so heartily laid to my charge; and if
he has any readers that thank him for this, I shall make no attempt to
lessen their number.

As I desire nothing for myself, or the reader, but good _eyes_, and a
good _heart_, seriously attentive to things useful, and always open to
the light and influence of the Holy Spirit of God, so I shall endeavour
to say nothing but what is suitable to such a state of mind, both in
myself and the reader.

* The thing of importance which I shall speak to, shall be with regard
to what I have said to the clergy. The miserable state of religion,
and the great corruption of manners, so incontestably apparent in this
island, gave me a just occasion to desire all the clergy, from the
highest to the lowest in the order, to consider their conduct, and see
how free they were from the common corruption, and how justly every one
could clear himself from having any share in this general depravity of
manners. I was not insensible that this was a dangerous attempt, that
would expose me to the resentment of not a few of my brethren: but as
I wrote for no other end but to do as much good as I could to those
who were capable of it, so I had no care but how to speak disagreeable
truths, in as inoffensive a manner as I could; how I have succeeded
in this, is left to the world to judge. And as it is but too apparent,
that the root of all the evil, which but too much spreads itself
through the whole body of the clergy, is owing to a worldly, trading
spirit, too visible from the top to the bottom of the order, so I
pointed at it in the softest manner that I could, in the following
words, grounded on a plain apostolical doctrine and practice.

St. _Paul_, I had observed, had said, it was lawful for those that
preach the gospel to live by the gospel, and yet makes it matter of
the greatest comfort to himself that he had wholly abstained from this
_lawful thing_; and declares it were better for him to die than that
_this_ rejoicing should be taken from him. He appeals to his daily and
nightly working with his own hands, that so he might preach the gospel
_freely_, and not be chargeable to those that heard him. And this he
said he did, not for want of authority to do otherwise, but that he
might make himself an example unto them to follow him. Here, I say,
“What awakening instructions are here given to us of the _clergy_,
in a practical matter of the greatest moment? How ought every one to
be frighted at the thoughts of desiring or seeking a _second living_,
or of rejoicing at great pay where there is but little duty, when the
apostle’s rejoicing consisted in this, that he had passed thro’ all
the fatigues and perils of preaching the gospel without any pay at all?
How cautious, nay, how fearful ought we to be, of going so far as the
secular laws permit, when the apostle thought it more desirable to lose
his life, than to go so far as the very law of the gospel would have
suffered him?

“It is looked upon as lawful to get several preferments, and to make a
gain of the gospel, by hiring others to do duty for us at a lower rate.
It is looked upon as lawful to quit a cure of souls of a small income,
for no other reason, but because we can get another of a greater. It
is looked upon as lawful for a clergyman to take the revenues of the
church, which he serves, to his _own use_, tho’ he has more than a
competency of his own, and much more than the apostle could get by his
labour. It is looked upon as lawful for the clergy to live in state
and equipage, to buy purple and fine linen out of the revenues of
the church. It is looked upon as lawful for clergymen to enrich their
families, to bring up their children in the fashionable vanities, and
corrupting methods of a worldly and expensive life, by money got by
preaching the gospel of Christ. But supposing all this _lawful_, what
comfort might we treasure up to ourselves, what honour might we bring
to religion, what force might we give to the gospel, what benefit
should we do to our neighbour, if we wholly abstained from all these
lawful things? Not by working day and night with our own hands, as the
great apostle did, but by limiting our wants and desires to the plain
demands of nature, and a religious self-denial.”

Now, there are but two possible ways of justly replying to this; first,
either by shewing that these observations are falsely drawn from the
apostle’s doctrine and practice, that I have mistaken the spirit of St.
_Paul_, and the genius of the gospel, that I am doing what the apostle
would not do, was he here in person, and representing such things as
corruptions, which the apostle would be glad to see flourishing in
the church of Christ: Or, secondly, that though these things are
condemnable from the apostle’s doctrine and practice, yet they are not
chargeable upon the temper and practice of the clergy of this land. But,
though not a word to the purpose could possibly be said, unless by one
of these two ways, yet the Doctor shuts his eyes to both of them, and
then pronounces sentence upon me, “That a Quaker or Infidel could not
well have reflected with more virulency upon the clergy of our church,
than I have done in these expressions.”

Must I then suppose, that the Doctor in his sermons never mentions any
failings that concern his auditors? If he does, I desire to know, how
he clears himself from virulently reflecting upon them? The Quakers
and Infidels are ready enough, and able enough to shew, that most
congregations of Christians are sadly fallen from the religion of the
gospel. But does the Doctor forbear this charge, is he ashamed to call
his flock to a more Christian life, or afraid to remind them of their
departure from the gospel, lest he should seem to join with Quakers and
Infidels? Or, how can the Doctor be thought to have any _true love_,
or _just esteem_ for those Christians, whom he is so often reminding
of the corruption of their manners, so contrary to the religion of
Jesus Christ? Now, if the Doctor knows how to untie this knot, and
to extricate himself from the charge of virulent reflecting upon his
parishoners, as Quakers and Infidels do, then he has dissolved his
charge against me into a mere nothing.

* If it was a thing required of me, I know no more how to raise in
myself the least spark of ill-will towards the clergy, as such, than I
know how to work myself up into a hatred of the light of the sun. It is
as natural to me, to wish them all their perfection, as to wish peace
and happiness to myself here and hereafter; and when I point at any
failings in their conduct, it is only with such a spirit as I would
pluck a brother out of the fire.

In that part of my answer, which is addressed to the younger clergy,
I said, “Lay this down for an infallible principle; that an entire,
absolute renunciation of all worldly interest, is the only possible
foundation of that exalted virtue, which your station requires; without
this, all attempts after an exemplary piety are vain: (_and then,
by way of limitation and explication of this, it thus immediately
follows_:) If you want any thing from the world by way of _figure_ and
_exaltation_, you shut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls,
and instead of converting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are
about you. Detest therefore, with the _utmost abhorrence_, all desires
of making your fortunes, either by _preferments_, or _rich marriages_,
and let it be your only ambition, to stand at the top of every virtue,
as visible guides and patterns to all that aspire after the perfection
of holiness,” _p._ 61.

Now, one would imagine there was no part of the Christian world,
however corrupted, where this doctrine would not be admitted at least
in theory; or, that the gospel of Christ should be thought to be
reproached, where such advice as this was given to young divines:
and yet it is of this very advice, that Dr. _♦Trapp_ says, “he _hopes
they_ will have more _grace_ and sense _than to follow it_: that it is
_false doctrine, tending to the reproach and scandal of the Christian
religion_,” p. 87.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

Is it then come to this, that unless young divines chuse to serve
mammon as well as God, their profession is a renouncing of grace and
sense, and a reproach to religion? And must they that pretend to act
in Christ’s name, as successors in his office, take care that they
renounce not the politics of the kingdom of this world? For my part,
I thought it as consistent with the honour of the gospel, to give this
advice, to suppress all worldly views, as to resist the temptations of
the devil.

Had _Martin Luther_, when he gave his reasons for withdrawing from the
_Pope_, been able to have added this; that the advice here given, had
been formally condemned by the _Pope_ in a great council, the defenders
of that church would have found it as hard to have made such a decree
consistent with the gospel, as the selling of ♦indulgences: and it may
well be supposed, that no Protestant writer, when setting forth the
marks of antichrist, in that church, would have forgot to have made
this condemnation to be one of them.

    ♦ “indulgencies” replaced with “indulgences” for consistency

For who can shew it to be so contrary to the whole spirit of the gospel,
to call in the _assistance_ of the saints, or to deny the cup to the
laity, who can shew this to put so entire a stop to salvation by the
gospel, as to condemn this _advice_ to young divines, as a reproach to
Christianity? For all the ends of the gospel may be pursued, and men
may arise out of the corruption of their nature, notwithstanding these
two mistakes: but to condemn it as an error inconsistent with grace
and sense, a reproach to Christianity, for young divines to renounce
worldly views, and devote themselves wholly to God, is striking at the
whole root of all holiness, and a denial of the whole spirit of the
gospel.

Our church requires all its candidates for holy orders, to make
profession of their being moved and called by the Holy Ghost to enter
into the service of the church: this, I should think, is proof enough,
that the spirit of this world ought not to be alive in them, when they
make this profession; and yet, if any young persons should come to be
ordained, thus dead to all worldly views, thus wholly devoted to God,
they ought according to the Doctor, to be rejected by the bishop, as
being led by a spirit that has lost all _grace_ and _sense_, and is a
_reproach_ to the Christian religion.

It is needless to quote particular texts of scripture, teaching the
same that I have here taught; the whole nature of our redemption is
a standing proof of the same thing; for we want to be redeemed for no
other reason, but because we are born children of this world, ♦and have
by nature only the life, spirit and temper of this world, in us: this
is our fall, our curse, our separation from God; and therefore we can
have no redemption, but by a renunciation of all the workings of the
life of this world in us, by a total dying to, and denying ourselves;
because all that we are, as to our state, spirit and life in this world,
is a life that carries us from God, a life that should not have been
in us; ’tis a life begun by the fall, a life of sin and corruption,
which cannot enter into heaven. Indeed the life that we have in this
world, from _Adam_, is not to be _naturally_ destroyed, nor are the
necessaries and conveniences of life to be rejected, nor is any one to
renounce his share in the employments that are useful to social life:
the renunciation of this world reaches no farther than the renouncing
the spirit, and inclinations of it. We may stand in our stations,
when we stand in them as the servants of God, as citizens of the new
_Jerusalem_, who have amongst earthly things, our conversation in
heaven: we may keep our possessions, when we possess them as the things
of God, and use them not as nature, but as the Spirit directs us; when
we do thus, we have the poverty of spirit, which the gospel requires,
and come up to the sense of that command given to the young man, _to
sell all that he had, and give to the poor_.

    ♦ “ahd” replaced with “and”

But now, if our natural life is a corrupt, bestial, diabolical life
brought forth by the fall, if we want to be born again of the Holy
Spirit, because our natural birth is according to the spirit of this
world; if nothing of the beast, or the devil, no kind or degree of envy,
pride and vanity can enter into the kingdom of God, then it is plain,
that all religion which leaves this nature unrenounced, which lets
pride, wrath, and vanity subsist in us, which brings us to our graves
in the same nature in which we were born, is not the religion that
can save us. If this nature in all its most secret workings is not
renounced, it matters not what we are, or what we have been doing,
it signifies little in what chair we have sat, whether in _Italy_,
or _England_, how long we have been preachers, how many hereticks and
schismaticks we have opposed, or how many books we have written in
defence of orthodoxy; it is as vain to appeal to this, as to our having
preached and _prophesied_ in the name of Christ: for if this nature
is allowed to live in us, all our good works have been governed by it,
they are animated with pride, and only serve to gratify our own natural
passions. When therefore the Doctor calls upon young divines to have
_more grace_ and _sense_ than to be driven from thoughts of advancing
themselves by _preferments and rich marriages_, he would do well to
consider, how little short this is of calling them to break their very
baptismal vow, of _renouncing the pomps and vanities of the world_. And
if young candidates for holy orders, looking only at their baptismal
vow, should be led into this degree of self-denial and detachment from
the world, does the Doctor think, that the apostles, from whom this
baptismal vow is descended, will rise up in the day of judgment, and
condemn such abuse of it? Does he think, that there are any departed
saints that will join with him in saying, such a spirit is a _reproach_
to the gospel? What more favourable disposition could the adversary of
mankind wish to see, either in young or old divines, than a wanting and
desiring to have figure in the world, either by preferments or rich
marriages? Would he find it difficult to enter into those hearts, where
the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life has
thus entered? Or would he look upon such as but half fitted for him,
in comparison of those who entered into holy orders in a spirit of
self-denial, and renunciation of the pomps and vanities of the world?

* _John_ the _Baptist_ was but the preparer of the way for evangelical
purity of life; but does, the Doctor think that if the _Baptist_ was
now to come amongst us, he would look at things as the Doctor does,
that he would see such perfections and such corruptions, such orthodoxy
and such enthusiasm as the Doctor sees; that this _burning and shining
light_ would see no _generation of vipers_ but where the Doctor sees
them; that he would preach no where but in churches; that he would
spare no clergy, nor any church, but that which is established in this
island; that he would complain of the hardships of our clergy, and the
suffering spirit which they are forced to practise, that he would plead
for a priestly liberty of coveting preferments and rich marriages,
that he would recommend the Doctor’s discourse of the _folly, sin, and
danger of being righteous over-much_, as the true fruits of that spirit
which first preached the gospel? He that can believe this, must believe
that the Baptist was come to confess the errors of his first appearance
in the world.

I shall therefore proceed to tell young divines, that a total
renunciation of the spirit, and inclinations of this life, is the one
thing necessary to consecrate them to their holy office; that as sure
as the church of Christ is not a kingdom of this world, as sure as
Jesus Christ came to deliver us from this evil world, as sure as he
requires us to be born again, and to forsake all and follow him, so
sure is it that no one has the call of the Holy Spirit to the ministry,
nor the least ground of hoping to be led and governed by it in his
ministry, till he at least prays, desires, and heartily endeavours to
have all that disregard of worldly prosperity, figure, and distinction,
which the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the maxims of the gospel, and the
practice of the apostles set before him. Till this renunciation of the
world is made, we cannot enter into the ministry at its _own door_, but
like thieves and robbers, climb over its walls; and then it will be no
wonder if we do no more good to the church than thieves do the house
they break open and plunder. If a young minister wants to act the part
of a fine gentleman, to go on in the common spirit of the world, to
cover a secular spirit with an ecclesiastic garb, and make his fortune
in the church, he must be told that it is much safer to be a _publican_
and a _sinner_, than to be a _trader_ in spiritual things; that he
who with unsanctified hands attends at the altar, is farther from the
kingdom of God, than a _publican_.

Covetousness is idolatry; it is a heathenish, anti-christian vice, tho’
only trafficking in worldly matters; but when it takes possession of
the altar, and makes a trade of the mysteries of salvation, it has a
blackness of vice which much exceeds that of the worldly miser. The
spirit of an ♦ecclesiastic should be the spirit of heaven, knowing
nothing of this world, but how to escape its snares and temptations,
burning in the love of God, and holding out light to all that aspire
after every perfection of the Christian life.

    ♦ “acclesiastic” replaced with “ecclesiastic”

* ’Tis too commonly thought, that when a young student has taken his
degree, and shewn some signs of a genius for learning, he is well
prepared to enter into the service of the church. But alas! all the
accomplishments of human learning are but the ornaments of the _old
man_, which leave the soul in it slavery to sin, full of all the
disorders and corruptions of the fallen nature. If it were not thus,
how could the errors of all churches have the greatest scholars
for their champions? All the learned Catholic world is amazed at
the blindness, the perverseness, the weakness, the sophistry, the
unfairness of _Protestant critics_. All the Protestant world is in the
same degree of wonder at the same disorders in _Catholic disputants_.
Is not this a demonstration of the nature, power, and place of human
learning? Of its great uselessness to religion? Does not this enough
shew, that it is the offspring of the old man, and his nature and
qualities dwells in him, and is governed by him? Is not this a
demonstration, that the greatest degrees of historical, verbal,
critical knowledge are no real hinderance of spiritual blindness? That
human learning is as different from divine light as heaven is from
earth; and that considered in itself, it leaves us in our slavery to
blind and corrupt passions? Now nothing can deliver a man from this
state, but the Spirit of God derived into his soul, which alone can
bring forth a new man created in Christ Jesus. Nothing can make way
for this new birth, but a total dying to all that we are by our natural
birth. ’Tis only _this separation_ from things below, that can make us
partakers of the truth and light that comes from above. Take away all
selfishness from the Papist and the Protestant, let them be dead to the
workings of the Spirit, and they will be as fully agreed about gospel
truths, as they are in the form of a square or a circle. For nothing
stands in the way of divine truth, or hinders its full entrance into us,
but this selfishness, which adheres to every one who does not make it
his first maxim, prayer, and endeavour to die to, and deny himself in
all the tempers and inclinations of our fallen nature. This self-denial
is the continual doctrine of our Lord; it is by him made the beginning
of all conversion to God, and he that cannot, or will not begin there,
can make no beginning of that life, to which he is called in Christ
Jesus: therefore he that offers himself for holy orders, without this
spirit of self-denial, is a miserable intruder; he only hardens and
fixes himself in the corruptions of his own nature, and instead of
becoming an instrument of saving others, his very office makes his own
salvation more dangerous.

I doubt not but some will here charge me with pleading for poverty in
the ministry, and with enmity to that maintenance which they have both
from the law and the gospel. But this is so far from being true, that
I wish every good minister, whom the Spirit of God has called to this
office, and governs in it, had much more of this world’s goods than
are needful for his own subsistence; because it is certain, that such
a one’s money would all be put into the poor’s bag, and he would as
gladly administer to their temporal as to their spiritual necessities.
I write against nothing but _avarice_, _pride_, and _ambition_, and the
making the provisions of the church _subservient_ to these tempers. A
provision arising from the gospel, is _consecrated_ by the gospel, and
is profaned by being touched and used by a worldly spirit. And he who
turns this provision of the gospel into a gratification of worldly
passions, sins against the gospel more than he that pays his tithes
with reluctance.

I can easily believe, there are clergy in this land, who labour in the
gospel, without having a sufficient subsistence from it; but may not
much of this evil be charged upon _pluralities_, _commendams_, and such
like spiritual trading? If the inferior clergy had their labours only
undervalued by the laity, they would be in a much better condition than
they are.

When it is complained by what shameful _qualifications_, empty _titles_,
and unworthy pretences, numbers of persons get loaded and dignified
with variety of preferments; it is answered, that if preferments might
not be thus crowded together, distinguished abilities and eminent
labours for the service of religion, must go unrewarded.

As this answer is not fetched from the gospel, or the primitive church,
so it is as little supported by reason. For if this eminent labour
is truly pious labour, what state of life can so little want to be
rewarded? How can imagination itself place a man more _above_ the
thoughts and desires of worldly advancement? If such a one is full of
the spirit of the gospel, if his labours have been like those of an
apostle, must he not like an apostle, be _dead_ to the world? Can such
a one look upon his labour as a _hardship_, because it has left him
as low, and as far from the _pomp_ of the world as it found him? Can
he repine because the gospel has not proved a good _worldly bargain_
to him? If the Spirit of God has begun, and directed all his labours,
animated all his studies and designs, can such a one think it hard,
that he has not by such labours purchased to himself a share in the
state and pride of life?

* If by a _great divine_, is only meant a person well skilled in
_critical contention_, who can artfully defend a set of notions,
amongst which he happened to be born and bred, such a divine, I own,
may be very _impatient_, and _much cooled_ in his zeal, unless he finds
himself well rewarded. But if an eminent divine is to be understood
in a sense suitable to the gospel, he is that _particular person_ that
must needs have the greatest contempt and dislike of every thing, that
has but the appearance of the pomp and vanity of this world in it.
If therefore it was urged, that this conjunction of preferments and
dignifying rewards was necessary to bring _ambitious scholars_ into
the church, or to keep them in it, there would be some sense, tho’
no gospel in the pretence; but to talk of them as necessary to be the
rewards of eminent piety and apostolic labour, is as absurd, as to
say, that those who have truly put on Christ, who stand in the highest
degree of a renewed nature, who best know and feel the blessing of a
mortified, heavenly spirit, have less reason to be _content with food
and raiment_, than those who stand in a lower degree of the Christian
life; ’tis saying, that a _bishop_, because he has most of the spirit
and office of an apostle, may well desire more of the _pride_ and
_figure_ of this world, than the lower clergy, who have less of the
apostolic spirit and perfection in them.

To want to stand in some degree of worldly figure, is the state of a
_babe_ in the Christian life, and therefore can no way become those,
who are to lead others to fulness of stature in Christ Jesus.

A _great divine_ is but a _cant_ expression, unless it signifies a man
_greatly advanced_ in the divine life, whose own experience and example
is a demonstration of the _reality_ of all the graces of the gospel. No
divine has any more of the gospel in him, than that which proves itself
by the spirit, and form of his life: if therefore poverty of spirit,
a disregard of worldly figure, a total self-denial is any part of the
gospel, an eminent divine, can have no wish with regard to the figure,
pride and pomp of life, but to be placed out of every appearance of it:
and if the highest in divine knowledge are not the foremost in poverty
of spirit, and the outward humility of Christ and his apostles; if
they desire to have a dignity of worldly figure, to have respect by any
other means than by a divine evangelical spirit and conversation, and
are not content with all the contempt that such a life can expose them
to, they may be _great scholars_, but they are _little divines_, and
are wanting in that which is the chief part of the ministers of Jesus
Christ.

The next thing I said to the young clergy, was this; “Consider
yourselves _merely_ as the messengers of God, that are sent into the
world _solely_ on his errand; and think it happiness enough that you
are called to the same business for which the Son of God was born into
the world.” _p._ 81.

Now, I thought what I have said, was as unexceptionable, as unfit to
be condemned by a professor of Christian theology, as if I had only
recommended the loving of God with all our heart and soul, and mind
and strength; and that if any clergyman disliked it, he would be forced
to keep his dislike to himself; but the Doctor is very open in his
indignation at it; the same answer, he says, is to be given here, as
before, _viz._ _that it is false doctrine, tending to the scandal and
reproach_ of the Christian religion.

Our blessed Lord, when he sent the first preachers of the gospel
into the world, said unto them, _As my Father hath sent me, so send I
you――go ye and teach all nations_――and _lo I am with you to the end of
the world_. Now let it be supposed, that these first preachers of the
gospel fully believed, that from the time of their appointment to this
high office, they _were to consider themselves merely as the messengers
of God, sent into the world solely on his errand_, and that _it was
happiness enough for them to be called to that business_, for which
the Son of God was _born into the world_; if they had this belief,
what follows? Why, according to the Doctor, that they set out from the
very first in one of the greatest errors, had mistaken the nature and
intent of their mission, and had gone into the world upon a principle
that _was false_ in itself, and _scandalous_ and _reproachful_ to the
Christian religion.

But if this belief is not to be condemned in the first clergy, I desire
to know why those who claim their succession from the first, and expect
the presence of Christ in and with their ministry, are not to be called
upon to be of the same spirit and belief with them, or how can it be a
scandal to the gospel, for the modern clergy to be as wholly devoted to
the service of God, as the apostles were.

The Doctor sets it out as an extraordinary presumption in _such a man_
as I am, to pretend to give advice to young divines, when it is so
sufficiently done already by the _offices of our church, the charges,
instructions and exhortations of our bishops at their visitation,
and so many excellent ordination and visitation sermons_, p. 87. Now,
granting the plenty and excellency of all these, yet I have some hope,
my presumption may be found to be only like that of the _poor widow_,
who after so many rich oblations of great people, presumed to put
her little mite into the treasury. And if it be true, that the things
suggested by me, are only such as have been already set forth by so
many great bishops and excellent preachers, how will the Doctor come
off for condemning it, as false doctrine, scandalous, and reproachful
to the Christian religion?

Dr. _♦Trapp_ gives a reason for his condemning this advice, which is
thus expressed: “It is, says he, false to say, that clergymen ought
to mind nothing, in any degree, but their profession and duty, as
clergymen; they are husbands, parents, men, as well as clergymen, and
must in some measure be concerned in the affairs of the world. p. 88.”

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

Part of this I own to be very true, _viz._ that they are men, and have
the wants of human nature which must be supplied; and for proof of this,
the Doctor might have appealed to St. _Paul_, who, tho’ miraculously
called to be an apostle, and separated from the world to be merely a
messenger and apostle of Jesus Christ; yet, after this high apostleship,
worked at his trade, and often spent part of the day and the night in
making tents: therefore, if all those whom I have exhorted to consider
themselves as set apart for the sole service of God, should shew such a
degree of worldly care as St. _Paul_ did, when he worked at his trade,
they might yet justly be said to act suitably to their station, as
the ministers of God, that are wholly devoted to his service; for who
can say that St. _Paul_ departed from his character, as a minister
of God, when he laboured with his own hands, that he might gloriously
and freely preach the gospel? For it was for the sake of the gospel,
to promote and recommend the gospel, to make his preaching the more
successful; it was to shew that he had fully renounced the world, and
desired nothing from it, but for the glory of God. And thus have all
the ministers of the gospel an example in St. _Paul_, how they may make
their care of a livelihood a part of their service to God.

But when the Doctor says, that clergymen are husbands and parents,
I must object a little; because no scripture or antiquity shews me,
that these characters _must_ belong to a preacher of the gospel; and
therefore, when a clergyman excuses himself from any heights of the
ministerial service, by saying, _he has married a wife_ and _therefore
cannot come_ up to them; it seems to be no better an excuse, than if he
had said, _he had hired a farm_, or _bought five yoke of oxen_.

I know very well, that the _reformation_ has allowed priests and
bishops not only to look out for wives, but to have as many as they
please, one after another: but this is only to be considered as a
bare allowance, and perhaps granted upon such a motive, as _Moses_
of old made one to the _Jews_, for _the hardness of their hearts_,
tho’ _from the beginning it was not so_; and therefore when eulogiums
are sometimes made from the pulpit on this matter, I think they had
better have been spared; an allowance granted to weakness is but an
indifferent subject to be made a matter of glory.

The Doctor should also have observed that my address was made to the
young clergy, and such as are only upon entering into holy orders, nine
in ten of whom may be supposed to be neither husbands nor fathers. He
should also have remembered that our universities are full of clergy,
who are obliged to live unmarried, that they may have proper leisure
and freedom to attend their studies without impediment from worldly
cares. And therefore, if I pointed at such a dedication of the clergy
to the service of God, as _husbands_ and _fathers_ cannot enter into,
yet the matter is not blameable, because here are so many that have not
yet entered into this state, but are at liberty to devote themselves
wholly to the service of the gospel. And therefore if to such as these,
I can so represent the weight, the duties, the heavenly nature of
the priesthood, as to prevent or extinguish in them all thoughts and
desires of being thus married to the world, what hurt have I done them,
or the married clergy, or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

* _Celibacy_, when entered into from a principle of divine love, from a
heart burning with the desire of living wholly to God, is a state that
gives wings to all our endeavours, and fits the soul for the highest
growth of every virtue: and if he that is consecrated to the service
of the altar, feels not such an ascent of his soul towards heaven, as
to have no wish, but that his _whole body_, _soul_, and _spirit_, may
be presented to God in its utmost degree of purity, he has his lamp
much less kindled, than many of the laity, both men and women have
had, in all ages of the church. Custom has too great a power over our
judgments, and reconciles us to any thing; but if a Christian, who
lived when Christianity was in its glory, when the first apologists for
it, appealed to the numbers of both sexes, devoted to a single life,
as an invincible proof of the power and divinity of the gospel; if a
Christian of those days was now to come into the world, he would be
more shocked at Reverend Doctors making love to women, than at seeing
a monk in his cell, kissing a wooden crucifix.

* The knowledge and love of the virgin state began with Christianity,
when the nature of our corruption, and the nature of our redemption
were so fully discovered by the gospel. Then it was, that a new degree
of heavenly love was kindled in the human nature, and brought forth
a state of life that had not been desired, till the son of the virgin
came into the world. _John_ the _Baptist_ was the beginner of the
gospel dispensation; this _burning and shining light_ was in his person,
the figure of _Judaism_ ending in Christianity. In his outward state
he was a _Jew_, in his inward spirit and character he belonged to the
gospel. He came out of the wilderness burning and shining, to preach
the kingdom of heaven _at hand_. This may shew us that heat and light
from above, kindled in a state of great self-denial, are necessary
to make us able ministers of the gospel; and that if we pretend to
the ministry, without these qualifications, and come only burning and
shining with the spirit of this world, we are as well fitted to hinder,
as the Baptist was to prepare the way to the kingdom of heaven. Look
at this great saint, all ye that desire to preach the gospel. He came
forth in the highest degrees of mortification and chastity of life. But
why did he so come? It was to shew the world that these virtues must
form the spirit of every preacher of the gospel. His character does
not call you to a wilderness beyond _Jordan_, or to be cloathed with
camel’s hair. Such circumstances are particular to himself; but it
calls you to his inward spirit of self-denial, to his death to the
world, and all carnal love, if you would not only preach, but prove the
perfection of the gospel: For if the _Baptist_ was to be thus dead to
the flesh and the world, that he might preach thus much, _the kingdom
of heaven is at hand_; can less self-denial be required of those, who
are to preach that which is much more, namely, that _the kingdom of
heaven is come_?

* Now if this holy _Baptist_, when he had preached awhile upon
penitence, and the kingdom of heaven _at hand_, had made an offering of
his heart to some fine _young lady of great accomplishments_, had not
this put an end to all that was burning and shining in his character?
And if those clergy who date their mission from Jesus Christ himself,
sent by him as he was by his Father, to stand as his representatives,
applying the means and mysteries of salvation to all that desire to be
_born again_; if they, whether they be vicars, rectors, arch-deacons,
deans, or bishops, should look upon their office to be as sacred, and
their station as high in the kingdom of God, as the _Baptist_’s was;
if they should look upon love addresses to the sex, as unbecoming, as
foreign, to their character, as to the _Baptist_’s, could any one say,
that they took too much upon them, or paid too great a reverence to the
holiness of the priesthood, which they derived from the very person and
office of Jesus Christ?

* Our blessed Lord improved upon these two articles of mortification
and chastity, and sets them before every preacher of the gospel in a
yet fuller light. It is needless to shew how much he speaks of the
nature and necessity of a total self-denial; but what he says of the
virgin life, as to be chosen by those who are able to chuse it, for
the kingdom of heaven’s sake, _Matthew_ xix. 12. is more than a volume
of human eloquence in praise of it. What wonder is it, if after this,
great numbers both of men and women were found in the first ages of the
church, that chose to know no love, but that of God in a single life?

* St. _Paul_ has done every thing to hinder a minister of Jesus Christ
from entering into marriage, except calling it a sinful state, when he
says, _He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he
may please his wife_; and how could he more powerfully press the virgin
life upon the clergy, than when he says, _He that is unmarried, careth
for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord_.

* I shall conclude this matter with a passage taken from the _Serious
Call to a devout and Holy Life_; it is a quotation from _Eusebius_, who
lived at the time of the first general council, when the faith of our
_Nicene Creed_ was established: his words are these, “There have been,
saith he, instituted in the church of Christ, two ways or manners of
living; the one raised above the ordinary state of nature, and common
ways of living, rejects wedlock, possessions, and worldly goods, and
being wholly separated and removed from the ordinary conversation of
common life, is appropriated and devoted solely to the worship and
service of God, through an _exceeding degree_ of _heavenly love_: they
who are of this order of people, seem dead to the life of this world,
and having their bodies only upon earth, are in their minds and
contemplations dwelling in heaven; from whence, like so many heavenly
inhabitants, they look down upon human life, making _intercessions_ and
_oblations_ for the whole race of mankind; and this, not with the blood
of beasts, or the fat, or smoak and burning of bodies, but with the
highest exercises of true piety, with cleansed and purified hearts,
and with a whole form of life strictly devoted to virtue: these are
their sacrifices, which they are continually offering unto God, and
implore his mercy and favour for themselves and their fellow-creatures.
Christianity receives this as the perfect manner of life.

“The other is of a lower form, and suiting itself more to the condition
of human nature, admits of chaste wedlock, the care of children and
families, of trade and business, and goes through all the employments
of life, under a sense of piety and fear of God: now, they who have
chosen this manner of life, have their set times for retirement and
spiritual exercise, and particular days are set apart for their hearing
and learning the word of God: and this order of people are considered
as in the second state of piety.”¹ Here you see the perfection of the
Christian life plainly set out, and how it was, what numbers of private
persons, men and women, who had no share in the ecclesiastical office,
yet, by their perfection of life, were _holy and heavenly intercessors_
for the whole race of mankind. * Now, may we not suppose, that the
clergy were in this number of people that were thus heavenly in the
whole form of their life, thus devoted to God and the edification of
the church, by embracing the perfect life of Christianity? If they were
not, do they not stand plainly condemned, since _Christianity held this
to be the perfect manner of life_? I shall only add, that till such
a degree of heavenly love, such a sense of the holiness and heavenly
nature of the sacred calling, till such a desire of perfection is
awakened in the clergy, as shuts out all carnal love and worldly
tempers from their hearts, they cannot be such priests and intercessors
with God, such patterns of holiness, such kindlers of divine love and
heavenly desires amongst men, as the nature of their office both
intends and requires of them.

    ¹ Serious Call, &c. p. 134.

* If a candidate for holy orders dares not make this total donation of
himself to God, to be an instrument of his good pleasure only in the
service of the gospel, if it is not his real state, to wish nothing
in this world but the most perfect purification of his nature, if
he desires any thing in and by his office, but a concurrence with
Jesus Christ in the salvation of souls; if he has any reserves of
self-seeking, or self-advancement in the world, and fleshly passions
which he hopes to make consistent with the duties of his profession:
if he is not separated in will and desire from all that is not God,
and the service of God, he must be said to want the best proofs of his
being called by the Holy Ghost.

But the Doctor has a _second reply, Whether you consider the |divinity|,
or the |sense| of this, could |George Fox| himself have outdone it_?
p. 48. This reply, considered in itself, might have its place amongst
those _algebraic quantities_, that are some degrees less than nothing;
but with regard to the Doctor’s purpose it has something in it, for it
is an appeal to that which is very powerful, which has suppressed many
a good truth: it is an appeal to vulgar prejudice; and shews that the
Doctor is not without his expectations from that quarter. And thus it
is, that the Catholic artist in his country plays a _Martin Luther_,
when he wants to reproach that which he knows not how to confute. What
degree of sense, or divinity _George Fox_ was possessed of, I cannot
pretend to say, having never read any of his writings; but if he has
said any divine truths, I should be as well pleased in seeing them in
his books, as in any of the fathers of the primitive church. For as the
gospel requires me to be as glad to see piety, equity, strict sobriety,
and extensive charity in a _Jew_ or a _Gentile_, as in a Christian; as
it obliges me to look with pleasure upon their virtues, and be thankful
to God, that such persons have so much of true and sound Christianity;
so it cannot be an unchristian spirit to be as glad to see truths in
one party of Christians as in another; and to look with pleasure upon
any good doctrines that are held by any sect of Christian people, and
be thankful to God, that they have so much of the genuine truths of the
gospel. * For if we have no complaint against those that are divided
from us, but what proceeds from a Christian fear, that what they hold
and practise will not be so beneficial to them, as our religion will be
to us, must we not have the utmost readiness and willingness to find,
own, and rejoice in those good doctrines and practices which they still
retain? If a poor pilgrim, under a necessity of travelling a dangerous
and difficult road, had, through his own perverseness lost the use of a
leg, and the sight of one eye, could we be said, to have any charitable
concern for his perverseness and misfortune, unless we were glad to
see that he had one good leg, and one good eye still left, and unless
we hoped and desired they might bring him at last to his journey’s
end? Now let every part of the church which takes itself to be sound
and good, and is only angry at every other part, because they have
_lessened the means_ of their own salvation; let her but have thus
much charity in her anger, and then she will be glad to see, in every
perverse division, something like the one good leg, and the one good
eye of the pilgrim, and which she will hope and wish may do them the
same good.

* _Selfishness_ and _partiality_ are very base qualities, even in the
things of this world; but in the doctrines of religion they are of a
baser nature. Now this is the _greatest evil_ that the division of
the church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish,
partial orthodoxy, which consists in courageously defending all that
it has, and condemning all that it has not. And thus all champions are
trained up in defence of their own truth, their own learning, and their
own church; and he has the most merit, who likes every thing, defends
every thing among themselves, and leaves nothing uncensured in those
that are of a different communion. Now how can truth, and goodness, and
religion be more struck at, than by such defenders of it? If you ask
why the great bishop of _Meaux_ wrote so many learned books against all
parts of the _reformation_, it is because he was born in _France_, and
bred up in the bosom of _mother church_. Had he been born in _England_,
had _Oxford_, or _Cambridge_ been his _alma mater_, he might have
rivaled our great bishop _Stillingfleet_, and would have wrote as many
learned folios against the church of _Rome_ as he has done. And yet
I will venture to say, that if each church could produce but one man
a-piece that had the piety of an apostle, and the impartial love of the
first Christians, in the first church at _Jerusalem_, a Protestant and
a Papist of this stamp, would not want half a sheet of paper to hold
their articles of union, nor be half an hour before they were of one
religion. If therefore it should be said, that churches are divided,
and made unfriendly to one another, by learning, a logic, a history,
a criticism in the hands of partiality, it would be saying that which
every particular church too much proves to be true. Ask why even the
best amongst the Catholics are very shy of owning the validity of the
orders of our church; it is because they are afraid of removing any
odium from the reformation. Ask why no Protestants touch upon the
benefit of celibacy in those who are separated from worldly business
to preach the gospel, ’tis because that would be seeming to lessen the
Roman error of not suffering marriage in her clergy. Ask why even the
most pious amongst the clergy of the established church, are afraid to
assert, the necessity of seeking only to the guidance and inspiration
of the Holy Spirit; ’tis because the _Quakers_, who have broken off
from the church, have made this doctrine their corner stone.

If we loved truth as such; if we sought it for its own sake; if we
loved our neighbour as ourselves; if we desired nothing by our religion
but to be acceptable to God; if we equally desired the salvation of all
men; then nothing of this spirit could have any place in us.

* There is therefore a _Catholic_ spirit, a _communion of saints_ in
the love of God and all goodness, which no one can learn from that
which is called orthodoxy in particular churches. It is only to be had
by a total dying to all worldly views, by a pure love of God, and by
such an unction from above, as delivers the mind from all selfishness,
and makes it love truth and goodness with an equality of affection
in every man, whether he be _Christian_, _Jew_, or _Gentile_. He that
would obtain this divine spirit in this disordered state of things, and
live in a divided part of the church, without partaking of its division,
must have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind: _first_, that
universal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and
makes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most
God-like state of the soul, and the utmost perfection to which the most
perfect religion can raise us; and that no religion does any man any
good, but so far as it brings this love into him. This will shew us,
that true orthodoxy can no where be found, but in a pure disinterested
love of God and our neighbour. _Secondly_, That in the present divided
state of the church, truth itself is torn and divided asunder; and that
therefore he is the only true Catholic, who has more of truth, and less
of error, than is hedged in by any divided part. This truth will enable
us to live in a divided part, _unhurt_ by its division, and keep us in
a true liberty and fitness to be assisted by all the good that we hear
or see in any other part of the church. And thus uniting in heart and
spirit with all that is holy and good in all churches, we enter into
the true _communion of saints_, and become real members of the holy
Catholic church, tho’ we use the outward worship of only one part of it.
It is thus, that the angels, as ministring spirits, assist, unite and
co-operate with every thing that is holy and good, in every division of
mankind. _Thirdly_, he must always have in mind this great truth, that
it is the glory of the divine justice to have no respect of parties or
persons, but to stand equally disposed to that which is right and wrong,
in _Jew_ and _Gentile_. He therefore that would like as God likes,
and condemn as God condemns, must have neither the eyes of the Papist
nor the Protestant; he must like no truth the less because _Ignatius
Loyola_ or _John Bunyan_ were very zealous for it; nor have the less
aversion to any error, because Dr. _♦Trapp_ or _George Fox_ had brought
it forth. Now if this impartial justice, is the spirit which will judge
the world at the last day, how can this spirit be too soon or too much
in us? Or what can do us more hurt than that which is an hindrance
of it? When I was a young scholar of the university, I heard a great
religionist say, that if he could believe the late _king of France_ was
in heaven, he could not wish to go thither himself. This was exceeding
shocking: yet something of this temper must be more or less in those,
who have, as a point of orthodoxy, worked themselves up into a hearty
contempt and hatred of those that are divided from them. He that has
been all his life long used to look with great abhorrence upon those
whom he called _superstitious bigots_, _dreaming visionaries_, _false
saints_, _canting enthusiasts_, must naturally expect they will be
treated by God as they have been by him; and if he had the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, such people would find it hard to get a place in it.
But it stands us greatly in hand to get rid of this temper before we
die: since nothing but universal love can enter into the kingdom of God.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

We often hear of people of great zeal and orthodoxy, declaring on their
death-beds their strict attachment to the church of _England_, and
making solemn protestations against all other churches: but how much
better would it be, if such a person was to say, “In this divided
state of Christendom, I must conform to some divided part of it, and
therefore I live and die in communion with the church of _England_;
fully believing, that if I worship God in _spirit and in truth_ in
this divided part of the church, I shall be as acceptable to him, as
if I had been a faithful member of the one whole church, before it
was broken into separate parts. But as I am now going out of this
disordered division, into a more universal state of things, as I am now
falling into the hands of the great Creator and lover of all souls; as
I am going to the God of all churches, to a kingdom of universal love,
which must have its inhabitants from all people, nations, and languages
of the earth; so in this spirit of universal love, I desire to perform
my last act of communion in this divided church, uniting in heart with
all that is holy, good, and acceptable to God in all other churches;
praying, from the bottom of my soul, that every church may have its
saints; that God’s kingdom may come, his will be done in every division
of Christians and men, and that _every thing that hath breath may
praise the Lord_.”

We have often seen learned Protestants very zealous in pulling to
pieces the lives of the saints of the _Romish_ church, and casting all
the reproach and ridicule they can, upon their wondrous spirit; tho’
the lives of the saints of the primitive church may be exposed in the
same manner. Now, whence does this proceed? Why, from a secret touch
of that spirit which could not bear to have the late king of _France_
in heaven; it proceeds from a partial, selfish orthodoxy, which cannot
bear to hear, or own, that the spirit and blessing of God are so
visible in a church from which it is divided. But if a person be of
this spirit, what does it signify where he has his outward church? If
a _Romish priest_ in the north of _England_ could not bear the splendor
of a life so devoted to God, so fruitful in all good works, as was
that of the lady _Elizabeth Hastings_, if he should want to sully the
brightness of her Christian graces, and prove her to have been no saint,
lest it should appear, that the Spirit of God was not confined to the
_Romish_ church, would not such a zeal shew a worse spirit, than that
of superstition, a greater depravity of heart, than the saying now and
then an _Ave Mary_?

* The more we know of the corruptions and hindrances of piety in the
church of _Rome_, the more we should rejoice, that in every age so many
eminent saints, have appeared in it, whom we should thankfully behold
as so many great lights hung out by God, to shew the true way to heaven,
as so many joyful proofs that Christ is still present, even in that
church, and that the gates of hell have not quite prevailed against it.
Who that has the least spark of heaven in his soul, can help rejoicing
in this manner at the appearance of St. _Bernard_, a _Teresa_, a
_Francis_ de _Sales_, in that church? Who can help praising God, that
her invented devotions, superstitious use of images, and invocation of
saints, have not so suppressed the graces of an evangelical life, but
that amongst _cardinals_, _jesuits_, _priests_, _friars_, _monks_ and
_nuns_, some have been found, who seemed to live for no other end, but
to give glory to God and edification to men, and whose writings have
every thing in them, that can guide the soul out of the corruption of
this life into union with God? And he who through a partial orthodoxy
is diverted from feeding in these green pastures of life, whose
abhorrence of jesuitical craft, keeps him from reading the works of an
_Alvares du Pas_, a _Rodrigues_, a _Pere Surin_, and such like jesuits,
has a greater loss than he can easily imagine: and if any clergyman can
read the life of _Bartholomeus_ a _Martyribus_ a _Spanish_ archbishop,
who sat with great influence at the very council of _Trent_, without
being edified by it, and desiring to read it again and again, I know
not why he should like the lives of the apostolical fathers: and if
any Protestant bishop should read the _Stimulus Pastorum_ wrote by this
Popish prelate, he must confess it to be a book, that would have done
honour to the best archbishop, that the reformation has to boast of.
O my God, how shall I unlock this mystery? In the land of darkness,
over-run with superstition, where divine worship seems to be all shew
and ceremony, thou hast those, who are fired with the pure love of thee,
who renounce every thing for thee, who are devoted wholly to thee, who
think of nothing, write of nothing, desire nothing but the honour, and
praise, and adoration that is due to thee, and who call all the world
to the maxims of the gospel, the perfection of the life of Christ. But
in the regions where light is sprung up, whence superstition is fled,
where all that is outward in religion seems to be pruned, dressed,
and put in its true order; there a cleansed shell, a whited sepulchre,
seems too generally to cover a dead Christianity.

The error of all errors, and that which makes the blackest charge
against the _Romish_ church, is persecution, a religious sword drawn
against the liberty of serving God according to our best light. Now,
tho’ this is the frightful monster of that church, yet, even here, who,
except it be the church of _England_, can throw the first stone at her?
Where must we look for a church that has so renounced this persecuting
beast, as they have renounced the use of incense, the sprinklings of
holy water, or extreme unction? What part of the reformation abroad has
not practised and defended persecution? What sect of dissenters at home
have not, in their day of power dreadfully condemned toleration?

When it shall please God to dispose the hearts of all Christian princes,
entirely to destroy this anti-christian beast, and leave all their
subjects in that religious freedom which they have from God; then the
light of the gospel, the power of its ministers, the usefulness of
its rites, the benediction of its sacraments will have proper time
and place to shew themselves; and that religion which has the most of
a divine power in it, whose offices and services do most good to the
heart, whose ministers are most devoted to God, and have the most proof
of the presence of Christ with them, will become, as it ought, the most
universal. All that I have said on this matter, has been occasioned by
the Doctor’s appeal to vulgar prejudice; and is only to intimate, that
the greatest evil which the division of the church brings forth, is a
sectarian, selfish spirit, which with the orthodoxy of the _old Jews_,
would have God to be only their God, and themselves only, his chosen
people. If therefore we would be true Christians of the Catholic church,
we must put off this partiality of the carnal _Jew_; we must enter
into a Catholic affection for all men, love the spirit of the gospel
wherever we see it; not work ourselves up into an abhorrence of a
_George Fox_, or an _Ignatius Loyola_; but be equally glad of the
light of the gospel wherever it shines, or from whatever quarter it
comes; and give the same praise to God for an eminent example of piety,
wherever it appears, either in Papist or Protestant.

To return. Dr. _♦Trapp_ supposing the world running into a charity that
would ruin wife and family, asks his charitable _half-thinker_, “Did
you never hear that _charity begins_ at home? Did you never read that
of St. _Paul_, If any provide not for his own, and especially those of
his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel?”
The Doctor’s proverb I meddled not with, but the text of St. _Paul_ I
rescued from his gross misapplication. That text has no more relation
to an excessive charity, than to an excessive fasting. The apostle
neither thought of this sin in this place, nor in any other part of
his writings; nor does he ever give the smallest hint of the danger of
falling into it. The only question was, whether poor widows, who had
near relations, that could supply their wants, should be maintained
by the church? The apostle determines the matter thus; that if such
persons, who were thus able, did not thus provide for, that is, supply
the wants of their poor kindred, they were so far from having the faith
of Christians, that they wanted a goodness that was to be found amongst
Infidels: this is the whole of the apostle’s doctrine in this text. He
speaks of providing for those of our own house or family, in no other
sense, than as it signifies our charity to them, when they fall into
distress; but the Doctor, trusting to the sound of the _English_ word
_provide_, grafts all these errors upon this plain text. When it is
said, a person has provided well for his family, every one supposes
that he has _laid up well in store_, or got an _estate_ to be divided
amongst them for their future subsistance. From this use of the
_English_ word, _provide_; the Doctor would have it believed, that the
apostle teaches every head of a family to be carefully and continually
laying up in store for his kindred. But the apostle is as infinitely
distant from this thought, as from teaching them to get their cellars
filled with strong liquors: when he here says, _provide_, he says only
this, shut not your eyes to the wants of your poor kindred, but provide
them with what they have need of, and don’t let them fall to the charge
of the church. The Doctor’s second error is this; according to this
text, a Christian ought not to hinder himself from thus laying up
in store for his family, or leave them to live by their labour and
industry, thro’ an excess of charity to his poor neighbours. But the
apostle has not one single syllable about this; and is as far from
saying any thing like it, as from saying, that a Christian, when he
makes a feast, should only invite his rich kindred and acquaintance.
The one has as much of the apostle and the gospel for it, as the other.
The Doctor’s third error is this; that, according to this text, he, who
by a daily, continual charity, has incapacitated himself to lay up in
store, a fixed provision for the future maintenance of his family, is
condemned by the apostle as _denying the faith_, and _worse than an
Infidel_: tho’ the apostle speaks no more here against such a person,
than he speaks in the praise of _Ananias_ and _Sapphira_.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

The person here condemned, is not he who thro’ a continual charity, is
hindered from laying up in store; not he, who, thro’ a Christian love
of relieving the distressed members of Christ, is content with helping
his own family to food and raiment; but it is that Christian, who being
able, is yet unwilling to support his near relations, that are fallen
into poverty, and leaves them to be maintained by the church: this is
the only Christian the apostle here condemns, as having put off the
piety of the gospel, and wanting even the virtue of good-natured
Infidels.

I said further, Had the apostle known a parent in his days, who, thro’
his great charity for others, had reduced his own family to want of
relief, he would have been so far from rebuking him as an half-thinking
fool, or exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, that he would
have told them, such a one had consecrated himself and family to the
church, as the proper objects of their care. To which the Doctor gives
this answer, “This he affirms, and this I deny; and as he produces no
other proof, so I give no other answer,” p. 69. What I said, has its
proof from the common voice of Christianity in the apostles days; as
may sufficiently appear from the following passage of St. _Clement_,
fellow-labourer of the apostle, and bishop of no less a church than
that of _Rome_. “We have known many amongst us, who have delivered
themselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to
their liberty; many who have hired out themselves servants unto others,
that by their wages they might feed and sustain them that wanted.”¹

    ¹ 1 Epistle to the Corinthians

Will the Doctor now say, that this is no proof of that which I affirmed
of the apostle, that he would have had a love for those who were become
sufferers by their own charity to others? Does not this apostolical
bishop make it his boast, and the glory of Christianity; not that they
had some, but many such among them?

It was not only in the first church at _Jerusalem_, that the Christians
had all things common. For St. _Barnabas_ writing to some converted
_Jews_, teaches them to call nothing their own in this world, because
they were called to the common enjoyment of the things of eternity.
_Communicabis in omnibus rebus proximo tuo; nihil dices quicquam tibi
proprium; si enim communicatis invicem, in bonis, incorruptibilibus,
quanto magis in corruptibilibus._¹

    ¹ Epistle to Barnabas. No. 10.

* An age after this, _Justin Martyr_ thus glories of the power of the
gospel-faith; “We, says he, who before we became Christians, loved
our wealth and possession above all things, now give up all property
in them, that they may be in common for all that want them. _Qui
pecuniarum & possessionum fructus ac proventus præ rebus omnibus
adamabamus, nunc etiam quæ habemus in commune conferimus, & cum
indigentibus quibuscunque communicamus._”¹ What a lean, heathenish
figure must the Doctor’s proverb of charity _beginning at home_, have
made in the days of St. _Barnabas_, _Clement_, or _Justin Martyr_? Or
who durst then have made such an use of the text of St. _Paul_, as the
Doctor has done, or coupled it with such a proverb? Were any of these
first saints to judge of this matter, the Doctor might, for ought I
know, have a worse reprimand from them for so doing, than if he had
only coupled Cardinals with Pluralists.

    ¹ 2 Apology

In order to shew the Doctor that he was very unseasonably preaching
against the sin and folly of an excessive charity, when yet every part
of the church wanted to be shewn how they were fallen from the gospel
degree of it, I set before him an imaginary Bishop of _Winchester_,
yet drawn according to the model of the holy Bishops of the first
ages. I supposed this Bishop so filled with the Spirit of Christ, that
he looked upon all the revenues of his see, with no other eyes, than
as our Saviour looked at that bag that was carried along with him by
his disciples, as so much for his own necessities and the necessities
of others. I supposed that in this spirit, he so expended his yearly
income, that he chose to bring up his children strangers to all worldly
figure, and in as low a state of labour as that to which our Lord
and his apostles had been used. I supposed, that by a piety of life
and conversation, equal to this exalted charity, he had instilled
such an heavenly spirit into his wife and children, as made them
highly thankful for their condition, and full of praise to God for
the blessing of such a relation. Dr. _♦Trapp_, tho’ an antient divine,
seems to start back with fright, at the sight of this apostolical
bishop, and supposes, that if such a monster of a man was now to get
into a bishoprick, he must needs make his children extraordinary wicked,
fill them with abhorrence of his memory, and spread infidelity in the
world, by making Christianity a jest to Infidels, p. 71.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

I say, says the Doctor, _very clearly and plainly_, that _such a bishop
must be a mad man_, p. 70. Now, if the Doctor will prove from the
scriptures this bishop to be a mad man, it must be for the following
reasons: _First_, because he had so mean a spirit, as to suffer the son
of a bishop to work under a carpenter, as the Redeemer of mankind had
done. _Secondly_, because he taught himself and his family to believe
that which St. _Paul_ believed, that _having food and raiment, we ought
to be therewith content_. _Thirdly_, because he came up to the very
letter of the great commandment, of _loving our neighbour as ourselves_.
_Fourthly_, because he imitated the spirit of the first Christians at
_Jerusalem_, who accounted nothing to be their own that they possessed.
_Fifthly_, because he had turned himself and family from all the vanity
of this world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life. _Sixthly_, because he seemed to have this of the apostle
fixed in his mind, “He that saith, he abideth in Christ, ought so
to walk, as he walked.” _Seventhly_, because his life was fashioned
according to this doctrine of the Holy Jesus, “Learn of me, for I am
meek, and lowly of heart: I am among you, as he that serveth: whosoever
will be great among you, let him be your minister; even as the Son of
man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister.” For it may be said
with the greatest certainty, that if the Doctor will have any proof
from the scripture of the madness of this bishop, it must be as absurd
as the reasons here alledged.

Come we now to consider this bishop according to the spirit, practice
and laws of the church in all ages. Any one versed ever so little
in the history of the church, must see at the first sight, that this
supposed bishop is a true copy of the first apostolical fathers. And
if this bishop was to be accounted a madman, because of the manner of
his life, we must come down several ages after _Constantine_, to the
_mitre_ and triple crown, before we could find a bishop in his senses.
The _Clements_, the _Polycarps_, the _Ignatius’s_, the _Irenæus’s_, the
_Cyprian’s_, the _Basils_, the _Ambrose’s_, and a number that have long
graced our calenders, as saints, must take their place among bedlamites:
for they were all of them to a tittle, the very man I have supposed at
_Winchester_. They considered every penny that was brought in by the
gospel, as a provision for the poor, and themselves as only entitled
to their common share out of it. They durst no more raise any of their
relations to a splendor of life, or give them any figure from the
revenues of the church, than commit sacrilege. They gloried as much in
their own strict poverty and want of worldly figure, as in their having
totally renounced idols.

But we have much more than primitive example for our bishop of
_Winchester_: the doctrine and laws of the church have unanimously
from age to age, to the very council of _Trent_, required every bishop
to be of the same spirit of which we have supposed him. The church,
both by the doctrine of fathers, and the canons of councils, constantly
maintains; _First_, that the clergy are not proprietors, but barely
stewards of the benefices they enjoy: having them for no other end,
but for their own necessary, frugal subsistence, and the relief of the
poor.¹ _Secondly_, that a clergyman using his benefice for his _own
indulgence_, or the enriching his _own family_, is guilty of sacrilege,
and is a robber and murderer of the poor.² _Thirdly_, that if a
clergyman has a reasonable subsistence of his own, and is not in the
state of the poor, then let his benefice be what it will, he has no
right to use any part of it for himself, nor for his kindred, unless
they be fit to be considered among those poor that are to be relieved
by the church.³ _Fourthly_, that every bishop and clergyman is to live
in an humble, frugal, outward state of life, seeking for no honour or
dignity in the world, but that which arises from the distinction and
lustre of his virtues.⁴ _Fifthly_, that a beneficed clergyman using the
goods of the church for his own indulgence, or raising fortunes for his
children, or their expensive education, is sacrilegious, and a robber
of the poor.⁵ _Sixthly_, that every clergyman is to die out of the
church as poor as he entered into it.⁶ _Seventhly_, that a clergyman
dying, cannot leave or bequeath any thing to his children or friends,
but barely that which he had independently of the church.⁷

    ¹ Nihil ecclesia nisi Fidem possidet.――Possessio ecclesiæ est
      Egenorum sumptus, _Ambrose, Epistle 31_.

    ² Si Pauperum Compauperes sumus, & _nostra_ sunt, & _illorum_.
      Si autem privatim quæ nobis sufficiunt, possidemus, non
      sunt illa _nostrum_, sed Pauperum _Procurationem_ gerimus,
      non Proprietatem nobis Usurpatione damnabili vindicamus,
      _Augustine Epistle 50 to Boniface._

    ³ Quoniam quicquid habent Clerici, Pauperum est――Qui bonis
      Parentum & opibus sustentari possent, si quod Pauperum
      est, accipiunt, _Sacrilegium profecto_ committunt, & per
      Abusionem Talium, Judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt,
      _Hieronymus, Epistle to Pope Damasus_.

    ⁴ Episcopus vilem _Suppellectilem_, & _Mensam_, ac _Victum
      Pauperem_, habeat, & Dignitatis, sua Authoritatum Fide &
      Vitæ meritis quærat, _Council of Carthage_, 4.

    ⁵ Memento quod _Pauperem Vitam_ Sacerdos gerere debet, & ideo
      si superbiam habet, si magno gaudet Beneficio, præter victum
      & vestitum _quod sperest_, Pauperibus dare non differat,
      quia omnia _pauperum_ sunt. _Augustine, Sermon 37 to the
      Brethren_.

    ⁶ Hujus tu e vicino sectare Vestigia, & cæterorum, qui Virtutum
      illius similes sunt, quos Sacerdotium & _humiliores_ facit &
      _pauperes_. _Hieronymus Epistle 4. to Rufinus._

    ⁷ Præcipimus ut in potestate sua Episcopus Ecclesiæ Res
      habeat――ex iis autem quibus indiget, (si tamen indiget)
      ad suas necessitates percipiat. _Canons of the Apostles_,
      40.――――eas veluti Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat
      ex iis aliquid contingere, aut Parentibus propriis (quæ dei
      sunt) condonare. Quod si Pauperes sunt, tanquam Pauperibus
      subministret, ne eorum occasione Ecclesiæ Res depredantur,
      _Canons of the Apostles_, 39. Manifesta sint quæ pertinere
      videntur ad Ecclesiam cum Notitia Presbiterorum & Diaconorum,
      ut si contigerit Episcopo migare de Seculo, nec _Res
      Ecclesiæ_ depereant, nec quæ _propria_ probantur Episcopi,
      sub occasione Rerum Ecclesiæ pervadantur: justem enim est ut
      sua Episcopus quibus voluerit, derelinquat, & quæ Ecclesiæ
      sunt, eidem conservantur Ecclesiæ. _Council of Antioch_,
      chapter 24. Quicunque Clerici, qui nihil habentes ordinantur,
      & _tempore Episcopatus_, vel _Clericatus sui_, agros,
      vel quæcunque predia nomine suo comparant, tanquam Rerum
      dominiearum _Invisionis Crimini_ teneantur obnoxii, nisi
      admoniti, Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. (_N. B._)
      Si autem ipsis proprie aliquid _liberalitate_ alicujus,
      vel _Successione_ Cognationis obvenerit, faciant, inde
      quod ipsorum Proposito congruit. Sacerdotes ipsis quoque
      Filiis suis, quibus paterna debetur Hæreditas, nihil debent
      derelinquere, nisi quod sibi a Parentibus derelictum est:
      _Ergo_ qui _ditior est_ Sacerdos, quam venit ad Sacerdotium,
      quicquid plus habuerit, _non filiis debet dare_, sed
      Pauperibus, & Sanctis fratribus, ut reddat ea quæ Domini
      sunt, Domino suo. _Hieronymus on Ezekiel_, chapter 46.

* May it not therefore well be wondered what could provoke Dr. _♦Trapp_
to censure our bishop as a madman, whose whole form of life, and use of
his bishoprick, is not only after the model of the first and greatest
saints that ever were bishops, but also such as the whole church from
the beginning, both in council and out of council, from age to age,
hath absolutely required of every beneficed clergyman, who would not be
condemned by her, as sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor? They who
would see the whole matter set in a clear light, may read an excellent
treatise of the learned _Dupin_, wrote near the end of his life, where
this truth is by him asserted and incontestably proved, _viz._ That
whatever changes have been made in the nature and tenure of the goods
and revenues of the church, or however they have been variously divided
amongst ecclesiasticks, yet this has remained _always unchangeable and
undeniable_, That a clergyman was no proprietor of his benefice; that
he could only take so much of it to his own use, as was necessary to
his subsistance, and then the remainder, be it what it would, belonged
to the poor. This, says he, is strictly maintained by the canons of
councils, both before and after the division of ecclesiastical revenues.

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

* But if this be the case, if this be an incontestable doctrine,
supported by every authority that can be brought for any one doctrine
of the gospel, have we not here an utter condemnation of pluralities?
Is it not an affront to the gospel, to the plainest maxims of right and
wrong, the whole authority of the church, to offer one single word in
defence of them? Logical, scholastic distinctions and definitions of
the nature of parishes and residence, can signify no more here, where
the whole nature of the thing is to be avoided, than the same art of
words, when used by _Jesuitical Casuists_, can justify the violation of
moral duties. And if Dr. _♦Trapp_ was only to look at this one doctrine,
he would have no reason to think it so sad a thing, to see _Pluralists_
coupled with _Cardinals_. “_See_, says the learned _Dupin_, rules which
will appear hard to many of the beneficed clergy, but yet, they are
true, conformable to natural equity, the laws, custom, and tradition
of the church, and the practice of the most holy bishops; and woe be
to those that observe them not! _Malheur a Ceux qui ne les suivent
pas._”¹ And therefore he concludes thus, “There may be many amongst
the beneficed clergy who err in this matter, thro’ an ignorance of that
which is required of them; therefore what I have said ought to be taken
in good part, as proceeding from charity, and a sincere love of truth.”

    ♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

    ¹ Ibid. p. 442.




                         SHORT but SUFFICIENT
                              CONFUTATION

      Of Bp. WARBURTON’s projected defence (_as he calls it_) of
        Christianity, in his _divine legation of_ Moses, in a letter
        to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.


_My LORD_,

THE reason of my presuming to write to your lordship on the following
subject is, because it is a matter on which your lordship has employed
your excellent pen, greatly to the benefit of the world.

And the reason of my writing at all, is owing to a book newly
published¹ in defence of bishop _Warburton_, in which your lordship,
is charged with a multitude of contradictions, and inconsistencies
relating to this point.

    ¹ Free and candid examination of the bishop of London’s
      sermons, &c.

It is not my design to enter here as an assistant to your lordship. For
this is quite needless.

My intention is, as mentioned in the title page. And because bishop
_Warburton_ has owned this writer, as a most able defender of his
scheme. I have taken occasion to shew, that it is a scheme so contrary
to scripture, and the truth of things, as no art of words, or stretch
of genius, however powerful in paradox, can ever be able to support.

The author of this book, as bishop _Warburton_ assures us,¹ is too
modest to make his name known to the world; a quality, which from the
reading of his book, one would not suspect to be so predominate in
him.――But though modesty has forced him to conceal his name, yet he
has given us some information of his character. He begins; “I, who
am a bare looker-on, and absolutely disengaged from all that biass of
affection, which is so wont to warp the followers of an old system, or
the inventers of a new, have done my best to examine this question with
all impartiality.”²

    ¹ Preface to critical enquiry, &c.

    ² Examination p. 2.

Had one of the antient writers of _Greece_ said this of himself, how
positive, might a modern critic have been, from the decisive words,
a _bare looker-on_, that he had never wrote upon the same subject
before? And that therefore, any book of that kind ascribed to him,
must infallibly be false and spurious. And yet, to the confusion
of criticism, this author, who unasked, and of his own free motion,
declares, that he begins this work as a bare looker-on, has for more
than ten years before he made this declaration, been sweating in the
thickest dust, and heat of Doctor _Warburton_’s most ardent contention
for novelties.¹

    ¹ Critical enquiry, &c. published 1746.

I have the Doctor’s own words for this, both for the novelties, and
this gentleman’s wonderful zeal, and skill shewn in the defence of them,
so many years ago.

“Notwithstanding, says the Doctor, all that can be said, much clamour
will ever attend novelties, though never so strongly proved.――But truth
seldom thrives the worse, for unreasonable opposition; and it would
seem (N. B.) _not to be far from its establishment_, when such writers,
as the following, appear in its defence――He hath established what
he undertook to defend, with such extent of learning, and force of
good argument, that I dare become responsible for all he says; and am
willing, that those of my opinions here debated, may stand, or fall,
by the strength, or the invalidity of this defence.”¹

    ¹ Preface to the critical enquiry, p. 10.

This compliment, so very hearty, as well as elegant, puts me in mind
of another, which the learned Doctor made some time since, to the
whole clergy of this nation; “a body of men, says he, the most learned,
virtuous, and truly Christian, that ever adorned a church, or state.”¹

    ¹ D. L. Vol. 2. Preface, p. 6.

These two compliments are of so very high a strain, that were it not
for the gravity of the Doctor’s character, and the seriousness of the
subject, the reader might have thought himself obliged to understand
them both ironically. But if the Doctor meant no more by this, than to
buy a peace with the clergy, it must however be said, that he gave more
for the purchase of it, than a man of a scrupulous conscience would
have given.

However the compliment paid to this modest gentleman (who to be sure
will, now never be able to let the world know his name) seems to have
been comfortably received in secret, by the ample return he has made
the Doctor for it, in his new book. Where, speaking of a part of the
Doctor’s performance, he says, “For this answer, I must refer the
reader to the _D. L._ where he will find the subject handled with
that force, solidity, and precision of argument, which so eminently
distinguish the author from all his cotemporaries.”

I shall now only just observe, that the compliment made by the bishop
to the clergy, has here very much abatement made to it, by his great
ally. For as matters now stand, if this very clergy, good, learned, and
Christian, beyond any thing ever heard of in the world before, should
one and all unite in opposing the bishop, all that they could possibly
get by their pains, would be only to shew, how eminently he stands
distinguished by force, solidity, and precision of argument from all
his cotemporaries.

But no more of this. Bishop _Warburton_ grounds his scheme, upon the
doctrine of the Old and the New Testament. But seeing he affirms that
to be of the greatest weight, which is taken from the New Testament,
and this author also begins there, I shall do so likewise.

_First_, I shall clearly evince, that there is not in all the New
Testament, one single text, which either in the letter, or the spirit
proves, or has the least tendency, or design to prove, that the
_immortality_ of the soul, or its perpetual duration after the death
of the body, was not an _universal_, _commonly_ received opinion in,
and thro’ every age of the world from _Adam_ to Christ. _Secondly_,
That this doctrine or belief of a future state, was not _designedly
secreted_, or _industriously hidden_ from the eyes of the people of
God by _Moses_, neither by the types and figures of the law, nor by any
other part of his writings. From whence I shall occasionally shew, that
the true _ground_ and _method_ of Christian redemption to eternal life,
preached by the apostles, began with _Adam_, was the religion of _Adam_,
and all his descendants. And also, that the writings of _Moses_, and
the patriarchal faith, give the very same full proof of the immortality
of the soul, or a future state, as the gospel doth.

Need I not observe, that the whole merits of the debate, betwixt Bishop
_Warburton_ on the one side, and the whole Christian church of all ages,
on the other side, lie wholly in these particulars, which, if they
can be made good, the whole costly fabric of the Doctor’s _projected
defence of Christianity_, (as he calls it) built at the expence of such
immense treasures of learning, fetched from all quarters of the antient
and modern world, must have the fate which always happens to castles
built in the air.

This learned writer, to shew, that the immortality of the soul, or its
perpetual duration in a future state, was entirely unknown in all the
former dispensations of God, until the coming of Christ, begins with
this passage of St. _Paul_. “God hath saved us according to his own
purpose, and his grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the
world began. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and
immortality to light, thro’ the gospel.”

On which words he thus proceeds: ♦“We are told, that God, before the
world began, had decreed to restore mankind to that lost inheritance
of eternal life, which they should forfeit by the disobedience of our
first parents. It is added, that this secret purpose, was now at last
made manifest by the appearing of Christ, who hath abolished death,
and brought life, and immortality to light by the gospel. The apostle
mentions two periods, one, when it was originally formed in the secret
counsels of God, the other, when it was published and revealed. The
opposition between these two states, seems necessarily to imply,
that during the interval, it remained a secret. If the apostle may be
allowed to be his own interpreter, it will be easy to establish this
exposition by a parallel passage in the epistle to _Titus_. _In hope of
eternal life_, which God, that cannot lie, promised _before the world
began, but hath in due time manifested his word through preaching_.
Agreeably to this, the author of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, assures
us, that the _great salvation of the gospel_, that is, the _promise of
eternal life, first began to be spoken by the Lord_. But how could he
be the first who taught this doctrine, if _Moses_ and the prophets had
taught it long before? Or how did he begin to speak of that, which so
many others had been commissioned to teach before? Sometimes we are
told, that life and immortality are brought to light, sometimes that it
was made manifest, sometimes that it first began to be spoken by Jesus
Christ. The bringing to light, and making manifest, are equivalent to
the beginning first to teach. And if so, the publication ascribed to
Jesus Christ, must have been the first and original publication, and
not merely the illustrating or giving new splendor to a doctrine, by
the addition of one, or more circumstances unknown before. However, an
eminent writer (meaning your Lordship) assures us, that Jesus Christ
did not give the first notice of this doctrine. All that I need remark
upon it, is, that this assurance seems directly to contradict the word
of inspiration.

    ♦ no endquote in text; unsure of placement

Your Lordship has also said, that the antient revelations _afforded a
good proof of a future state_. This writer makes great shew of triumph
over this most true assertion, and is continually bringing it forth as
a proof of your inconsistency, both with yourself and the apostles.

But to follow him farther: “St. _Paul_, saith he, observes that Jesus
Christ was sent to shew light to the people, that is, to the _Jews_
and to the _Gentiles_. It is plain from hence, that he was a light to
the first, in the same sense, in which he was a light to the last; and
therefore as he was a light to the Gentiles, by revealing the mystery
of redemption, in a restoration to life and immortality, to them
_absolutely unknown_, it seems to follow, that he also enlightened the
_Jews_, by the manifestation of a truth _equally unknown_. Agreeably to
this account of things, _Zacharias_, in his prophecy upon the birth of
_John_ Baptist, says, _The day-spring from on high hath visited us, to
give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace_. A description, which will by
no means permit us to suppose, that they were enlightened with a good
proof of a future state. If they had been enlightened with such a proof,
they would have been in the region of life and immortality, and not
in the verge and shadow of death. They would not have been sitting
in darkness, but walking in the light, if they actually saw the grand
object in question: how consistent it is, to assign a good view of an
object, to a people sitting in darkness, must be left to the judgment
of others. However, this seems to be the necessary consequence of
affirming, that the _Jews_ had a good proof of a future life.”

This is the glaring contradiction, which he is continually charging
upon your Lordship throughout his whole book. Again, he attacks your
Lordship thus, from your own words: “St. _Peter_, says his Lordship,
tells all Christians, that they are called out of darkness into
a marvellous light. Ask the evangelists, they will tell you, _The
day-spring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that
sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death_. Ask any, or all the
apostles, and they will tell you, their commission is, to open the
eyes of the people, _and turn them from darkness unto light_. But how
could the _Jewish_ people have a _good view and prospect_ of life, and
immortality, if their eyes were not opened? How could they be called
out of darkness, if their situation presented them with a good view of
an object, which they were now first invited to behold? And how could
they sit in the shadow of death, if they had been favoured with a good
proof of a future state?

“It would be ridiculous to say, that they sat in darkness, or that they
had not their eyes, merely, because they did not see the object in its
full proportion, or extent, or had not an exact view of every minute
part, and the opportunity of surveying it quite round. The sitting in
darkness and the shadow of death, evidently implies a total want of
light, by which the people thus circumstanced, were to be enlightened;
it being impossible to express the most entire ignorance in more
emphatic terms.”¹

    ¹ Pages 4, 5, 6, &c.

I have made these large quotations from this author, containing all his
chief texts of scripture, and his comments upon them, in his own words,
that there might be no complaint of my robbing his arguments of any of
their force, for all that he farther says on this subject, is but mere
repetition.

I shall now shew, that all his reasoning upon these texts is false in
itself, and nothing at all to the purpose, as not touching the one
great point in question, which is the doctrine or belief of a future
state, or the immortality of the soul in a life after this.――And this
I shall do, by making it plain, that not one of these texts, nor any
other in all the New Testament, proves, or has the least tendency to
prove, that the doctrine or belief of the soul’s immortality, and a
future state, was not known in and thro’ every age of the world, before
the coming of Christ in the flesh.

This will be sufficiently done, by shewing, that the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul, or its future existence in some kind of
happiness or misery in another life, is a matter about which these
texts say not a syllable, but leave it as untouched as the doctrine of
the pre-existence of souls.

If it be asked then, What is the great discovery, new light and
knowledge, declared in these texts, as newly made known to the world
by the gospel? It is answered, that the one thing meant both by the
letter and spirit of all these, and every other the like passages of
scripture, speaking of that mystery, new light, or knowledge made known
by the gospel, and unknown before, is absolutely nothing else, points
at nothing else, and has nothing else implied in it, but the one
whole process of Christ in his personality, his birth, his life, his
sufferings, his death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven.
This, and this alone, namely, The whole process of Christ, in all these
important particulars, is the great salvation, the great mystery, the
hidden wisdom of God, kept secret from the foundation of the world, and
not manifested, nor possible to be manifested, but by Christ himself
entering into, and going thro’ all the parts of this process.――Of this
process alone it is, that the apostles speak, when they declare the
mystery opened in the gospel, to have been a mystery kept secret since
the world began: and the reason why it was so is plain, because it must
be a secret, and continue such, till what was contained in it came into
actual existence, and thereby manifested itself.

Of this process alone, and its wonderful effects, it is that the
apostles speak, when they glory of the abolishment of death, and of
life and immortality brought to light through the gospel: because it is
the gospel alone, that manifests the actual existence of this process
of Christ in all its parts. Nor do they ever speak of any light,
life, or knowledge, as formerly the hidden wisdom of God, and now made
manifest to the world, but solely that light, that life, and knowledge,
which arises from some one or other, or all the parts of our Saviour’s
process, as the one only possible and actual Redeemer of the world.

That this is, the plain full truth of the matter, that the only thing,
discovered to the world by the light of the gospel, is the one whole
process of Christ, must be acknowledged by every considerate man, even
from the nature of the thing.――For what can the mystery of the gospel
be, but the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour, made known to the world?
And what can the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour made known be, but
the manifestation of _what_ he is in himself, in the power of his
personality, in the efficacy of his birth, in the blessed consequences
of his life, his sufferings, his death, resurrection, and ascension
into heaven, as our _second Adam_, or father of a new, divine nature,
derived into us by his wonderful process in all its parts.

Now as all these particulars make up the _whole manifestation_ of the
mystery opened in the gospel, so there is not in any of these, the most
distant _hint_ given, that the doctrine of a _future state_, was not
as soon, as universally, and constantly known as the fall of man was.
Nor do they any more imply, _such ignorance_, than they imply, the
fall of man not known till Christ came in the flesh.――Now that which
is not taught in, and by the process of Christ, cannot be taught by the
manifestation of the gospel mystery. But in all our Saviour’s process,
there is no possibility of making any part of it prove, that the
_immortality_ of the soul, or its _destination_ to a future life, was
not the common belief, of every age from _Adam_ to Christ.

For this wonderful process of Christ, which is the whole mystery opened
in the gospel, is about quite _another kind_ of life in the soul,
than that which consists in its _bare immortality_. For immortality,
considered in itself, may as well be a curse as a blessing. But this is
not the life and immortality that the gospel boasts of. It leaves such
natural immortality, which belongs as well to devils as men, as wholly
untouched, as it does the original of the alphabet. And for this reason,
because the _one knowledge_ which the former world wanted, and the
Christian world got, is by all the evangelists and apostles confined to
that, which Christ, as God and man, was, did, suffered, purchased, and
obtained, in and through the efficacy and merits of his process, till
as a second _Adam_, he was placed at the right hand of God.

It is the living knowledge, the real participation of all these parts
of our Saviour’s process, as a God incarnate, that contains all that
life and immortality, all the glad tidings of salvation, and light out
of darkness, made known to the world by Christ and his apostles. Nor
do they ever call the attention of mankind to any other new light or
knowledge, but that of seeing and knowing, how every part of Christ’s
process had its particular and joint efficacy, to destroy the works of
the devil, and the power of hell in fallen man.

This was the good news of _life and immortality_ brought to light by a
glorious gospel, which shewed the whole counsel of God towards fallen
men; how they were before the foundation of the world seen in Christ,
_predestinated to be made conformable to his image_, who by all that
he was, did and suffered, from his first coming down, to his ascension
into heaven, was the one, only possible means of their partaking again
of the divine nature.

Every step of our Saviour’s process from first to last, was only so
many necessary steps of our progress out of the eternal death of sin
and misery, into a participation of an heavenly life in Christ Jesus.
And in this process is contained all that Christian theology, which
makes up the whole doctrine of Christ and his apostles.

No power of reasoning, no art of criticism, can force one single
text of the New Testament to speak, or so much as hint at any other
life or immortality but this, _as first_ made known to the world by
the gospel.――The natural immortality of the soul, is no part of its
redemption, but belongs to it as it belongs to all angels, whether
in heaven or in hell, and is an immortality no more purchased by the
incarnation of the Son of God, than the immortality which belongs to
_Lucifer_ and his angels.――Therefore this cannot be that immortality,
which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. And therefore nothing
that is said of that immortality, which comes to fallen man only by
Jesus Christ, can be the least proof, that the belief of the soul’s
perpetual existence in a future state came first, or only by him, and
was not always held by every age, from the beginning of the world.

Natural immortality has its full nature in the fallen angels; but the
one immortality that comes by Jesus Christ, is the glory of the Holy
Trinity, dwelling and manifesting itself in the immortal nature of the
soul.

For this is a certain truth, that all that is divine and God-like in
any creature, dwells as a supernatural gift or operation of God in it;
which may be lost, as it was in angels, and _Adam_; and can be kept by
no other power but that of faith; nor regained, when lost, but by the
return of that same faith, and full resignation to God. So that the
natural immortality of angels or men, is only their capacity to receive
the never-ending, but always increasing manifestation of divine glory
in, and thro’ all the natural powers. And this is the one immortality
made known, and purchased for us through the blessed Jesus, being and
doing what he was and did, in our poor immortal nature, that had lost
its God.

But to consider now the texts of the New Testament, on which this
author has endeavoured to establish Bishop _Warburton_’s opinion. The
first and chief of these is that of St. _Paul_; “God hath saved us,
according to his own purpose, and his grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus, before the world began: but is now made manifest by the
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

Now every word in this passage excludes all regard to the natural
immortality of the soul, and necessarily leads and confines us to that
one life and immortality, to a life and immortality of the heavenly
nature brought forth in our souls.――For the life and immortality
here granted to us, is expressly affirmed to be effected by Christ’s
abolishment of death. Therefore as is the death here abolished, such
must be the life that is brought forth in the stead of it.

The death here abolished is not the natural mortality of body or soul,
but that death, whose destruction is declared in these words of the
apostle, _Christ was manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: and
from that destruction comes forth the one true life and immortality,
which is an eternal union of righteousness in and with Christ, as a
principle of a divine life eternally dwelling in us.

_To be carnally minded_, saith the apostle, is death, this is the one
death that Christ is here said to abolish; but to be spiritually minded
is life and peace; and this is the one life and immortality that Christ
sets up in the stead of death, by making us spiritually minded, or as
St. _Peter_ words it, “partakers of the divine nature, by which we are
made children of God, and if children, then heirs of God, and joint
heirs with Christ.”

Farther, St. _John_ saith, _This is the record, that God hath given
unto us eternal life_; surely this is the one immortality brought to
light by the gospel. But to shew us what, and wherein this immortal, or
eternal life consists, the apostle adds, “and this life is in his Son:
he that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son; hath not
life.”

* Therefore this immortality, or eternal life given unto us of God, not
only has nothing in it concerning the natural immortality of souls, but
is necessarily to be understood of quite another matter.

* For they only can have this eternal life given to them of God, who
have the Son: therefore it has no relation to the natural immortality
of souls, and they can only have the Son, of whom it can be truly
said, “that Christ is of God become wisdom and righteousness, and
sanctification to them.”

* As another full proof of all that has been said, it may be added,
that the life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, is purely
conditional and only offered to mankind, as a gift of God, upon certain
terms. And therefore does not, cannot mean the immortality of the soul,
or its perpetual natural duration in a future state.

Thus, “God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed on him,
should not perish, but have everlasting life. Ye will not come to me,
that ye may have life.” Therefore the immortality of life revealed by
the gospel, is purely conditional, and adventitious to the soul, such
as may be received, or not received, and consequently cannot possibly
be, or mean a natural immortality, for such immortality, it has no
power of freely receiving, or not receiving upon terms.

That blessing of a heavenly immortality, freely given by God, is
nothing else but a celestial holiness, purity and perfection brought
forth in the soul, by its having the eternal WORD and SPIRIT of God
again restored to, and united with it: called immortality, not because
of its eternal duration, but because eternally free from all that,
which is death, or the deadly evil of sin in the soul; called also so,
in opposition to that natural immortality of devils, and damned souls,
which tho’ never ceasing, is only an eternal death. So that no argument,
from what is said of the life and immortality made known by the gospel,
can be drawn into a proof, that the belief of a future state, was
not the general belief of the world before. Because the immortality
preached by the gospel, is a thing quite different from the natural,
perpetual duration of the soul, and means neither more, nor less, than
the _glory and perfection of a divine life_, to which _Adam_ died the
very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree, and which is quickened
again, in and by the whole process of Christ in our nature.

I come now, to my second proposition, namely, to shew, that the
doctrine of a future state, or the immortality of the soul, was not
designedly secreted, or industriously hidden from the eyes of the
people of God by the types and figures of the Mosaic dispensation.――My
reasons for it are as follow. _First_, because it is highly unworthy
of God, to suppose, that it was, the end of those types and figures,
designedly to _secrete_, or _hide_ from the people of God, the
knowledge _of any truth_, much less the knowledge of a truth,
absolutely _necessary_, to the very possibility of any spiritual
relation, or religious communication between God and man, as that of
the immortality of the soul, must be.――For though the Mosaic state, may
be justly called a _region of darkness_, when compared to that _light_
which has arisen from the process of Christ; yet so far as it went, and
with regard to the people under it, it was a degree of _light_, and a
degree of _life_: it was _some progress_ in victory over death, it was
_some opening_ of divine light, an help to such kind of knowledge, as
could be had in such a state, as was only formed to support, and keep
up a faith, and hope, and expectation of such a redemption to come, as
had been promised from the beginning of the world, but could have no
open manifestation, till its _own existence_ manifested itself.――It is
therefore a gross mistaking the _whole nature_ of the law, to consider
its types and figures as _designedly_ hiding any thing from man.――Their
design was quite the contrary, namely, to convey _new_ light and
_farther_ information. And though they may be said to be a _shadowy_,
and imperfect representation, yet its whole intent is, to give some
knowledge of the substance; and by its signs to make the things to come
more expected, than they would have been without such types and figures.

Bishop _Warburton_, speaking of typical representation, saith, _it
necessarily implies the throwing a thing into shade_, or _secreting_
it from _vulgar knowledge_.

Typical representation, in the _law_, is not, cannot be the _throwing a
thing into shade_, or _secreting_ it from _vulgar knowledge_. For this
supposes the thing typified to have been already _in existence_, or
it could not be _thrown_ into shade. But this hath no place in the
Mosaic types and figures; they are not the putting any thing _already
existent_, under a cover, but are a _degree_ of light cast upon such a
matter, as had _never shewn_ itself, and which could therefore only be
typically pointed at, till it came into actual existence.

Again, that typical representation does not _necessarily imply, the
throwing a thing into shade, and secreting it from vulgar knowledge_,
is plain from hence.――Baptism, and bread and wine in the sacrament,
are merely corporeal types and figures of spiritual things; but if it
was _necessarily essential_ to typical representation, _to throw things
into shade, and secrete them from vulgar knowledge_, it would follow,
that these two sacraments could have no other end, but to cast the
spiritual things of the gospel into shade, and secrete them from vulgar
knowledge. Type, figure, and human language, with regard to spiritual
things, have the same kind of imperfection, though not in the same
_degree_; but yet teaching and informing, is the design of both of them.

Of the Mosaic types therefore it may justly be affirmed, that they
were so far from _designedly_ hiding, or covering any truths from man,
that their whole intent was, to _uncover_, and make _less hidden_ such
things as at that time, could not be seen, or known as they were in
themselves.――Nothing could possibly manifest the nature, power, and
efficacy of Christ’s process (the one thing typified) but its own
real nature, come into _actual existence in all its parts_.――Therefore
through every age of the world, from the first promise made to _Adam_,
of _a seed of the woman to bruise the head of the serpent_, to that
time, all the religious goodness of mankind consisted in their _walking
before God_ in an _implicit faith_ of a full redemption, made known
to them under representation of a seed of the woman, overcoming the
mischief that the serpent had done to them. And through this _faith
alone_ it was, that all the holy men of old had their righteousness,
and peace, and union with God. And _God was not ashamed to be called
their God, inasmuch as having received the promises, and seen them afar
off, and embraced them, they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims
on earth, desired a heavenly country, and through faith, looked for a
city whose builder and maker is God_.

Hence are the following great truths undeniably evident, (1.) That
_faith in Christ_, has always been, and always must be, the _only_
ground of salvation possible to man, in any age of the world. (2.) That
_this faith_ itself, and all its power and efficacy, has always, as
fully proceeded from Christ alone, as the faith of those who believed
in him, when come in the flesh. For as then Christ truly said of
himself, _without me ye can do nothing_, so it was equally true of the
first promised seed of the woman, _that without it_, nothing good could
have been done by fallen man.

Therefore, (3) the covenant of God with all mankind through Christ,
is a living, operative covenant of life and immortality, not first
begun, or first made known, when Christ was on earth, and died for us,
but a covenant as antient as our first parents, as universal as their
offspring. And what the apostle saith, that _God was in Christ Jesus
reconciling the world unto himself_, tells us a truth and goodness of
God, that extends itself to every nation, people, and language, that
ever hath been, or ever shall be upon the face of the earth.

* And as an implicit faith in a promised redemption was all the
religion of the old world; all that could be done by the infinite
wisdom of God, was according to the fitness of times, seasons and
occasions (only known to himself) to give forth such typical and
prophetic intimations of this redemption, as should more and more
confirm their faith, and prepare them to see, that the whole process
of Christ, when finished, was that very redemption first promised to
all the world, in the promise made to the common Father of mankind,
through succeeding ages kept constantly in view, by a train of types
and prophecies.

* And as the history and ritual of _Moses_, could not possibly design
to take away the knowledge of any divine truths from the people of
God, so least of all could they designedly hide from them a belief of
the natural immortality of the soul: a truth absolutely necessary and
essential to any spiritual relation, or religious communion between God
and man.

* And indeed, _Moses_, is as free from any such _design_, as the
apostles themselves.

* For to say, that the types of the law have designedly hid, from the
people of God, all sense of the immortality of the soul, is as false,
as bold and extravagant, as to say the same thing of the gospel.

For in the New Testament, not a word is to be found, that expressly
affirms the soul to be naturally immortal; in this respect the law and
the gospel are equally silent; and yet neither of them secrete, or hide
it from the people of God, but both fully prove, and with the same kind
of proof, the absolute necessity of believing it.

For as in the gospel it is never expressly asserted, and yet is fully
proved, because unavoidably supposed, and necessarily implied in and
by the open, and plain doctrines of the gospel: so it is with the books
of _Moses_; they never expressly affirm the natural immortality of the
soul, and yet give one, and the same full proof of it, as the gospel
doth. Because the express doctrines of every dispensation of God, from
_Adam_ to Christ, openly teach doctrines, which not by inference, but
in the plain nature of the thing, unavoidably require, and necessarily
imply, the immortality of the soul, and the common belief of it in all
ages of the church before the coming of Christ.

The obtaining an union with Christ, is the one life and immortality
brought to light by the gospel; but this immortality unavoidably
requires, and necessarily implies the perpetual duration of the soul’s
natural life. For nothing but an ever-enduring creature, is capable of
enjoying an everlasting gift.

Therefore the gospel, tho’ never once expressly asserting, yet
continually demonstrates the natural immortality of the soul.

And this is the whole truth, with regard to the _Mosaic_ history and
types; they hide it, in the same manner as the gospel hides it, that is,
not at all; and they fully prove it in the same manner as the gospel
proves it, by doctrines which necessarily require, and absolutely imply
it, in the first conception of them.

For the history of the creation and the fall of man, contains an
express covenant of a redemption, promised to _Adam_ and his fallen
posterity, in which a seed of the woman should do away the evil which
the serpent had brought into the human nature, that is, should restore
the first, lost, heavenly life to mankind.

But this covenant, and the immediate benefit of it, could neither
be wanted nor received, but by immortal creatures, that believed
themselves to have an immortality, which had lost that glory and
perfection which belonged to it at the first. Nor could such immortal
creatures have any power of entering into this covenant any other way,
than by an implicit faith in God. For it was a covenant of redemption,
or return of their first glory, without the least intimation of the
time, or age, when, or the means, or manner how it was to be brought
to pass. Therefore such a covenant, and such a faith, in the very
first conception of them, without the least reasoning or deduction,
absolutely imply, and necessarily require a full belief of a future
state.

And how could God better keep up a full sense of it, or more fix it
in the hearts of men, than by placing and fixing all their faith and
comfort, in a redemption certainly to come upon all the world, which
yet might not come, till half the world was dead?

Or how could mankind possibly give into this faith, had they had the
least doubt of the certainty of a life to come? For their faith in such
an expected redemption, could not be either more or less, than their
faith in a future state.

Therefore God’s requiring this faith of them, was in the highest
degree his requiring them to believe the ever-enduring life of their
souls. Consequently, in the first revelation of God to man, life and
immortality, as it means an ever-enduring state of the soul, was as
fully, and in the same degree brought to light, as in the revelation of
the gospel.

In the gospel it is proved, because an immortality of a heavenly life
is made known, purchased and given by Christ, which necessarily implies
an immortal nature in man, or he could not partake of it.

In the first revelation, it is equally proved, because a _redemption
to come_, that was to be obtained by an implicit faith, without any
knowledge of the time when it was to appear, whether before or after
many generations of men were dead and gone, necessarily implies a full
belief of a state belonging to man, that is beyond time, and the death
of the body.

This proof of the natural immortality of the soul, thus inseparable
from the first revelation of God, is so strong, that nothing need,
or hardly can be added to it. For how could God more fully assert
the immortality of our nature, than by requiring our faith in such a
redemption? Or how could man more strongly declare his full belief of,
such immortality, than by his faith in a redemption that had nothing to
do with time, or the life, or death of the body in this present world?

_Again_, The murder, or martyrdom of _Abel_, and the translation of
_Enoch_ into heaven, both recorded for the instruction of the people in
this very point, are two examples, and first fruits of the redemption
promised to _Adam_, and all mankind; two invincible proofs, that
this first covenant was a covenant of life and immortality, confirmed
to mankind by facts strong and convincing, like those of Christ’s
resurrection and ascension.

For immediately after a covenant of redemption was made, the first good
man after it, in the very beginning of the world, and the beginning of
his own life, after his first act of divine worship, and as soon as God
had declared his good pleasure in it, was slaughtered like a beast.

Now can there be a fuller demonstration, that the covenant of
redemption was for life and immortality in a future state? Otherwise
the first good man in the world lost all the benefit of God’s covenant,
merely because he was good; merely thro’ the devotion that he shewed
towards God, and the favour which God shewed towards him.

Therefore either _Abel_’s blood cries aloud the absolute certainty of a
future state, or _Abel_ must be said to have been undone, ruined, and
deprived of all good, purely because of a friendship discovered between
God and him.

This fact therefore, recorded by the Spirit of God assures all the
Mosaic generations, that another life belonged to _Abel_ and to them,
besides that which _Abel_ lost by his death. Does it not as directly,
declare this, as when Christ said, his _kingdom was not of this world_?
Does it not say the same thing, as when Christ said to his disciples,
_fear not them that can only kill the body_? The same thing, as the
voice from heaven, which cried, _blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord_?

_Again_, Another proof of the same force, is the translation of _Enoch_.
God saith by _Moses_, _Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God
took him_. Now, could any the most expressive form of words, have told
the ancient world with more certainty than this fact does, that God’s
covenant with man, was for a kingdom of heaven?

Our blessed Lord, when departing out of this world, saith to his
disciples, _I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there ye
may be also_. And does not _Enoch_’s translation say as much, as if he
had been sent again by God to say, _God has taken me from this world
into heaven, to make it manifest to you, that where I am gone, there
are ye to come also_.

Behold here the adorable goodness of God to the first and succeeding
ages of the world! These two great articles of faith, which are now
the comfort of the Christian world, namely, victory over death, and
ascension into heaven, had even then the utmost and most convincing
proof given to them by God.

The old world, from the first man, were all in a covenant of
redemption.――Life and immortality was both by doctrine and example,
made known to them, and nothing remained as a mystery or wisdom hidden
in God, to be revealed in the last times, but that one thing which
could not be manifested, till by its own actual existence it manifested
itself, namely, the wonderful process of Christ in our fallen nature.
By which process alone it was that all the faith, as well before as
after Christ, had all its efficacy.

Hence it is, that the faith and religion of the first world was in
substance, the very Christian faith and Christian religion, one and
the same way, and power of salvation; which oneness consists in this,
that _Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever_, was the same
mediator between God and man from the beginning of the world, one and
the same power of life and salvation to murdered _Abel_, as to martyred
_Stephen_.

This faith from this original, was their peace with God thro’ Jesus
Christ, the very same faith of which Christ saith, _He that believeth
in me shall never die_. The same faith of which he again saith, _If any
man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; he that believeth in me,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water_.

That this was the catholic, saving faith, common to all the
♦patriarchal ages, we are assured by the Spirit of God in the epistles
to the _Corinthians_ and _Hebrews_, telling in express words, “They did
all eat the same spiritual meat, did all drink the same spiritual drink,
for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock
was Christ.”

    ♦ “patriarchial” replaced with “patriarchal”

Are we not told, that very same thing of the patriarchal generations,
which Christ said to those that believed in him, that by eating his
flesh, and drinking his blood, they have eternal life?

In the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, the same
spirit, speaking of the patriarchal ages, saith, “All these died in
faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off,
and were perswaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed they were
strangers and pilgrims on earth,――who desired a better country, that is,
an heavenly.”

Bishop _Warburton_ is so out of humour with this whole chapter, thus
full of patriarchal light and glory, that he gives it the heathenish
name of the _Palladium of the cause_, which he had undertaken to
demolish. And he accordingly attacks it with a number of critical
inventions, that may as truly be called heathenish; for they are in
direct opposition to all Christian theology.

He will have it, that the faith set forth in this whole chapter, is
concerning a faith in the abstract, and not a specific faith in the
Messiah. An invention as little grounded in the gospel, as goodness
in the abstract, in opposition to specific goodness. Goodness in the
abstract, if it hath any meaning, is all goodness, and therefore must
have every species of goodness in it; so faith in the abstract, if it
hath any meaning, is all faith, and therefore must have every species
of faith in it.

His first reason, why this whole chapter is concerning a faith in the
abstract, and not a faith in the Messiah, is taken from that definition
of faith; “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen.”

And yet this very definition, if it had been intended to give the most
distinct idea of the nature of faith in the Messiah, could not have
been better expressed, for there is every thing in it that can fully
set forth that very faith. For if faith in a Messiah to come, must
be a faith in things hoped for, and a reliance upon the certainty of
things not seen; if this, and nothing but this, can be a true faith in
a Messiah to come, how could it be more directly pointed at, than by
making it to be _the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen_?

For in this definition, not only the true object, but the true efficacy
of faith in the Messiah is set forth, in that it is made to be such a
real foretaste, and participation of things hoped for, and not seen, as
is justly called, the very substance and evidence of them.

_Again_, the Doctor appeals to the following words, as proof, that the
faith described in this chapter, is not a faith in the Messiah, “He
that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of all those that diligently seek him.” Which words contain neither
more nor less, than if it had been said, “He that cometh to God, must
believe that he is a fulfiller of his promises to all those that truly
believe in him, and them: for God cannot be considered as a rewarder of
mankind, in any other sense, than as he is a fulfiller of his promises
made to mankind in the covenant of a Messiah.” For God could not give,
nor man receive any rewards or blessings, but in and through the one
Mediator. Therefore to believe in God, as a rewarder, and blesser, is
the very truth, and reality of a right faith in the Messiah.

The Doctor has another proof, which he says, puts the matter out of all
doubt. In this chapter it is said, By faith _Rahab_ the harlot escaped,
by faith the _Israelites_ passed through the red sea, by faith the
walls of _Jericho_ fell down. “But was any of this, a faith in Jesus
the Messiah?”

Now not to rob this argumentation of any of its strength, it must be
allowed to proceed thus.

_Joshua_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, or the promises of God
made to his forefathers. But why so? Because by his faith the walls of
_Jericho_ fell down.

Just as theologically argued, as if it had been said, _Abel_’s faith
could not be a faith in the seed of the woman, promised to his parents;
because by his faith “he offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice
than _Cain_.”

_Enoch_’s faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his faith
he was taken up to God.

_Abraham_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, because by his faith,
“He sojourned in a strange country, chose to dwell in tents, and looked
for a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
His faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his _faith he
offered up_ Isaac, _his only begotten son_.

Having set the Doctor’s argument in its best light, no more need be
said about the worth of it.

At last comes his invincible argument, which if it was as strong, as he
gives out, all that went before might have been spared.

“To evince it impossible, says the Doctor, that faith in the Messiah,
should be meant by the faith in this chapter, the apostle expressly
saith, that all those, to whom he assigns this faith, had not received
the promises; therefore they could not have faith in that, which was
never proposed to their faith. For how should they believe on him, of
whom they had not heard?”

Now if this argument has any good logic in it, it must follow, that no
one, whether patriarch or prophet, before, or after the law, ever had,
or could have faith in the Messiah, for all who died before the birth
of Christ, must have died without receiving the promises, which were
then first received, when good old _Simeon_ could sing, “Lord, now
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy
salvation.”

But St. _Paul_, speaking to the _Jews_, saith, “Behold, we declare unto
you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same to us their children.”

Here, by the Spirit of God himself, is made known to us, the true
difference between receiving, and not receiving the promises. The
fathers, who could only see them afar off, are those who died without
receiving the promises, that is, without receiving the things promised.
And their children who lived to see the promises fulfilled, are they
that received the promises, that is, the things promised.

Farther, the Spirit of God saith, “all these died in the faith, not
having received the promises.”

But how could they die in this faith? It was for this only reason,
because they had not received the promises, that is, the things
promised. For if they had, they could not have died in faith, but in
the enjoyment of things promised.

The Doctor therefore has unluckily pitched upon that, as an argument
against the possibility of their faith in the Messiah, which is the
very reason, why they did die in the faith of him. For the holy Spirit
saith, they all died in the faith; and then the reason is added, why
they did, namely, because not having received the promises; therefore
their not having received the promises, is the reason why they died in
the faith of them. And their faith had this foundation, because they
had seen the things promised, as afar off, that is, long after their
own deaths, and therefore to be fulfilled, or made good in a future
life. Consequently, their faith was in a redemption to come in a life
after this; which surely may be affirmed to be a true faith in the
promised Messiah, or in all that, which had been promised, from the
first joyful notice, which God gave of him, _in a seed of the woman to
bruise the head of the serpent_. Which in gospel language is called,
_destroying the works of the devil_, and bringing all that to life
again, which died in _Adam_’s transgression.

It is added of these holy men dying in the faith of promises _seen
afar off_, that they were _perswaded of them, and embraced them, and
confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth; now they that
say such things, plainly declare, that they seek a better country, that
is, an heavenly_.

What an extravagance is it therefore in the learned Doctor, to say,
_How should they believe in him of whom they have not heard_; as in
the least degree applicable to those saints of the old world? For their
faith was in promises made to them, but not fulfilled before their
deaths, which they beholding as afar off, died in the fullest faith and
expectation of a blessed life and heavenly country in virtue of them.
Therefore they believed in that, of which they had heard, they knew
what it was that they believed, _namely_, a redemption from all the
evil of their pilgrimage on earth, to a life in heaven.

Our blessed Lord said to the _Jews, Your father_ Abraham _rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad_. Surely then _Abraham_ had
faith in the Messiah, and yet he is numbered by the apostle amongst
those, who died not having received the promises.

But now, though _Abraham_’s rejoicing at the sight of that day, was a
sufficient proof, that his faith was in the Messiah, yet the _implicit_
faith of the more antient, patriarchal world in _that_, which they had
not seen, as _Abraham_ had, was as _right_ a faith in the Messiah, as
_Abraham_’s was. This point is determined, in the following words of
Christ. _Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed
are they, which have not seen, and yet have believed._

This, and this alone, is the only real difference between the religion
of the faithful before, and after Christ. _Before Christ_, the living
faith, was in a Messiah to come in some wonderful, but unknown way.
By this faith, they stood under the blessed power of the _seed of the
woman_, and from generation to generation were kept in the one true
covenant of life, and union with God.

_After Christ_, the same living faith, rejoiced in a Messiah made known
by a miraculous birth, in the fallen human nature, redeeming it out of
every evil of life, of death, of sin and hell, till it was placed, as
God and man in one person, at the right hand of God in heaven.

Now when in process of time, the covenant of life between God and man,
had lost much of its effect, and the people of God had greatly fallen
away from the faith and piety of the first patriarchs, (perhaps not
more remarkably than the Christian world is fallen from the truth and
faith of the apostolic ages) it pleased God by _Moses_, to introduce
the descendents of the patriarchs into a new _covenant of care, and
protection over them_.

Which covenant was not a _new progressive state_ of that first one
true religion, that alone unites God and fallen man, nor given for
its own sake, or because of any intrinsic goodness in its washings
and purifications, but granted to the _hardness of their hearts_, as a
_temporal means_ of keeping a fallen people from falling farther under
the blindness and vanity of their earthly minds.

The first covenant was so perfect that nothing could be added to it,
but the manifestations of that which was promised in it. It was a
promise of life and redemption to mankind, to be fulfilled in and by
the seed of the woman. Now the promise, and the fulfilling of it, are
not (as in human matters) two _distant_, _separate_ things, that begin
at different times, nor can the one ever be without the other. They
both began together, and must exist together. The end, that is, the
fulfilling, grows out of the beginning, goes along with it, and has all
its efficacy from it; and the beginning, that is, the promise, is only
so much of the end.

That which Christ did, suffered, and obtained in our flesh, calling all
to turn to God, to deny themselves, to enter into the strictest union
with him, giving all divine graces, and yet only _according to their
faith in him_; that very same, the seed of the woman from the beginning
was always doing, yet solely _according to their faith in it_.

* The loss of _this faith_ in the first ages of mankind, gave birth to
that which is called the _heathen_, or _rational_ world; for they both
began together, and brought forth a race of people, full of blindness,
wickedness, and idolatry. For so far as they departed from faith, so
far they fell from God, under the dominion and government of their
reason, passions, and appetites. And thence began the kingdom of this
world, and the wisdom of this world, which ever must have full power
over every man, as soon as he ceases to live by faith.

* _Reasoning_ instead of faith, brought about the first dreadful change
in human nature, no less than a real death to God. And nothing but
faith instead of reasoning, can give any one fallen man power to become
again a son of God. Now to the end of the world, this will be the
unalterable difference between faith in God, and reasoning about the
things of God: they can never change their place, or effects; that
which they did to the first man, that they will do to the last.

* It _matters_ not, how much the _revelations_ and precepts of God are
increased, since the first single command given to _Adam_; for no more
is offered to our reasoning faculty by the whole bible, than by that
single precept. And the benefit of the whole bible is lost to us, as
soon as we reason about the nature and necessity of its commands, just
as the benefit of that first precept was lost in the same way.

_Hath God indeed said, ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?_
This was the first essay, or beginning of reasoning with God. What it
was, and did then, that it will always be, and do. Its nature, and
fruits will never be any other, to the end of the world. And though
in these last ages, it hath passed through all schools of quibbling,
and is arrived at its utmost height of art, and precision of argument,
yet as to divine matters, it stands just where it stood, when it first
learnt that logic from the serpent, which improved the understanding
of _Eve_. And at this day, it can see no deeper into the things of God;
give no better judgment about them, than _that_ conclusion it at first
made, that _death_ could not be in the tree which was _so good for food,
so pleasant to behold, and to be desired for knowledge_.

In short, these two, faith and reasoning, have, and always will divide
all mankind, from the beginning to the end of the world, into two sorts
of men.

The faithful, thro’ every age, are of the seed of the woman, the
children of God, and heirs of redemption.

The reasoners are of the seed of the serpent, they are the Heathens
thro’ every age, and heirs of that confusion, which happened to the
first builders of the tower of _Babel_.

* To live by faith, is to be in covenant with God; to live by reasoning,
is to be in compact with ourselves, with our own vanity, and blindness.

* To live by faith, is to live with God in the spirit and power
of prayer, in self-denial, in contempt of the world, in divine
love, in foretastes of the world to come, in humility, in patience,
long-suffering, obedience, resignation, absolute dependence upon God,
with all that is temporal and earthly under our feet.

* To live by reasoning, is to be a prey of the old serpent, eating dust
with him, groveling in the mire of all earthly passions, devoured with
pride, imbittered with envy, tools and dupes to ourselves, tossed up
with false hopes, cast down with vain fears, slaves to all the good and
evil things of this world, to-day elated with learned praise, to-morrow
dejected at the loss of it; yet jogging on year after year, defining
words and ideas, dissecting doctrines and opinions, setting all
arguments and all objections upon their best legs, sifting and refining
all notions, conjectures, and criticisms, till death puts the same
full end to _all the wonders_ of the ideal fabric, that the cleansing
broom does to the wonders of the spider’s web, so artfully spun at the
expence of its own vitals.

* This is the unalterable difference between a life of _faith_, and a
life of _reasoning_ in the things of God; the former is from God, works
with God, and therefore all things are possible to it; the latter is
from the serpent, and therefore vain opinions, false judgments, errors
and delusions are inseparable from it.

Every scholar, every disputer of this world, nay every man, has
been where _Eve_ was, and has done what she did, when she sought for
_wisdom_ that did _not come_ from God. All libraries are a full proof
of the remaining power of the first sinful thirst after it: they
are full of a knowledge that comes not from God, but from the first
foundation of subtlety that opened her eyes. For as there cannot be any
goodness in man, but so far as the divine goodness works in him, so
there cannot be any divine truth, or knowledge in man, but so far as
God’s truth and knowledge works in him?

Indeed nothing but the one Spirit of Christ, living and working in man,
from the beginning to the end of the world, can possibly be the source
of any goodness, holiness, or redemption of man.

The scriptures abound with proof of this. What can be more decisive
than the following words? _If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his. If Christ be not in you, ye are reprobates._ And
must not this be equally true of every man in the world? As true of
all men in the patriarchal as in the gospel ages? _If any man_, says
the apostle; therefore no regard is had to time or place, but where
there is _any man_, there this truth is affirmed of him by the apostle,
that unless he hath the Spirit of Christ he is none of his, but is
a reprobate. But if none can be Christ’s, but because they have his
Spirit living in them, and none can be God’s, but because they are
Christ’s, it follows that if Christ was not the Spirit and power of
_that_ first, universal covenant made by God with fallen _Adam_, if he
was not that which was meant by the _seed of the woman_, if his Spirit
was not from that time the real bruiser of the serpent’s head, both
_Adam_, and all his posterity, for much more than three thousand years
lived and died mere reprobates, and that, by an unavoidable necessity,
because they had not the Spirit of Christ living in them.

And now, my Lord, I think I have sufficiently proved not only my
two propositions, but also that the first covenant with _Adam_, by
the seed of the woman, was the one Christian means of salvation, so
wonderfully manifested by the whole process of Christ revealed in the
gospel. Therefore it is a truth of the utmost certainty, that from the
beginning of the world to the end of it, there never was, nor ever will
be any more, or any other, but one and the same true religion of the
gospel, which began with _Adam_ and _Eve_ thro’ Jesus Christ, the one
mediator and reconciler of God to man, who was as certainly the life,
strength, and salvation of the faithful in the old world, as he was in
after-times, when the Son of the Virgin _Mary, the way, the truth, and
the life_, to all that have faith in him.

And indeed a plurality of religions, or means of salvation, is as gross
an imagination as a plurality of gods, and can subsist upon no other
foundation.

A better religion necessarily supposes a better God, and a change
in religion a change in that God that makes it. A partial God,
with-holding the _one true power_ of salvation, till the last ages
of the world, is as atheistical as _Epicurus_’s god.

In sundry times, and in divers manners, it may please the wisdom of God,
to vary that which is only an outward help to the truth of religion;
but the inward spirit and truth of salvation, is as unvariable as God
himself.

The law therefore of _Moses_, as consisting of carnal ordinances,
not only _makes nothing perfect_, but brings nothing new into the one
covenant of redemption, but was only a temporary, provisional help,
_added because of transgressions, till the promised seed should come_;
that is, till the whole process of Christ, should in its last and
highest degree of evidence manifest itself in all its parts.

* _This law_ then no more belonged to the _true religion_ of the
Old Testament, than of the New, neither did it ever stand _between_
these two dispensations, as in their stead. No: it was merely on the
_outside_ of both, had only a temporary relation to the true religion,
either before or after Christ, but was no more a _part_, or _instead_
of them _for a time_, than the hand that stands by the road, directing
the traveller, is itself a part of the road, or instead of it.

Now, tho’ the reason of man ought not to pretend to fathom all the
depths of divine wisdom, in the whole of this _additional covenant_,
yet two ends of it are apparent.

_First_, To bring this corrupted people of _Israel_ into a new state of
such observances, as might preserve them from the gross superstitions
and idolatries to which they were too much inclined. And this, by
a _ritual_ of such condescensions to their carnal minds, as might
nevertheless be a school of restraints and discipline, full of such
purifications, types, and figures, as gave much spiritual light
and instruction, both backwards and forwards. Backwards, as truly
significative of their fallen state, daily memorials of their lost
purity and perfection: _forwards_, as variously pointing at _that
promised_ victory over the serpent, which had been the constant faith
and hope of their forefathers.

_Secondly_, That by a theocracy added to this ritual, which shewed
itself in a covenant of continual _care and protection_, openly
blessing their obedience, and punishing their rebellion, and working
all kinds of miracles in the overthrow of their enemies, not only they
themselves, but all the rest of the world, might be forced to see and
know, that there was no God, that had all power in heaven and on earth,
but the one God of _Israel_.

As to the _Israelites_ themselves, this temporal covenant was a great
instance of God’s goodness towards them. For they were thus called out
of idolatry, separated from the rest of the world, built into an holy
church of God, put under a most amazing theocracy, indulged for a time
with a ritual of carnal institutions, because of the hardness of their
hearts, which ritual was full of every instruction by doctrines, types,
figures and miracles, all shewing in the strongest manner, that they
were to be heirs of the heavenly promises made to their forefathers.

And as to the rest of the world, no particular message or messenger,
tho’ new risen from the dead, proclaims to them in so powerful a manner,
the vanity of their idols, the knowledge of the one true God of all
the world, as this remarkable body of people set up in the midst of
the world did. So that the law, tho’ nothing but a temporal covenant
of _outward care and protection_, was not only most divinely contrived
to preserve the faith of the first holy patriarchs, and guide them to
the time and manner of receiving the promises made to their fathers,
but it was all mercy to the rest of the world, being no less than
one continual, daily, miraculous call to them to receive blessing and
protection, life and salvation in the knowledge and worship of the one
true God of heaven and earth.

Now when the children of the patriarchs, were to be entered into this
new covenant, the utmost care was taken by the Spirit of God, that to
eyes that could see and ears that could hear, enough should be shewn
and said, to prevent all _carnal atheism_ to temporal and outward
things, and bring forth a spiritual _Israel_, full of that faith and
piety, in which their holy ancestors, as pilgrims on earth, had lived
and died devoted to God, in hope of everlasting redemption.

To this end _Moses_, tho’ bringing them under a ritual of bodily
washings and purifications, yet that they might use them only as
outward confessions and memorials of an inward spiritual pollution, and
as types and figures of their being to be delivered from it; is led by
the inspiration of God, not only to insert in the books of the law, the
most sublime doctrines and heavenly precepts of patriarchal holiness,
but to lay before them, for their daily instruction, a history of the
most deep and affecting truths: truths that had every thing in them
fitted to awaken and keep up that strong hope of an eternal redemption,
under the power of which, the holy patriarchs had overlooked every
thing in time for the sake of eternity.

I mean, the most wonderful history of the creation and curse of this
world, of the high origin of man and his dreadful fall from it, his
redemption and covenant of life restored in a seed of the woman, the
lives and deaths of the holy patriarchs, their patience under all
sufferings, their contempt of worldly advantages, their heavenly
visions, revelations and speeches from the invisible God, keeping them
thereby in an holy intercourse with the _invisible world_, full of
faith and hope of the good things of eternity.

To mention one or two of those great doctrines of _Moses_, which set
forth the original perfection and heavenly nature of man.

God said, _Let us make man in our own image and likeness_. Is not
this as high a doctrine of _immortality_, does it not give the same
instruction, raise the same hope, and call for all the same elevation
of the heart to God, as when St. _John_ saith, _Beloved, it does not
yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we
shall be LIKE him_? Just the same truth, and fitted to have the same
effects, as when _Moses_ said, God made man in his own LIKENESS.

St. _Paul_ says, _God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself_. A comfortable doctrine indeed, and full of hope of
immortality; yet only the same comfort and hope of immortality which
had been openly preached by _Moses_.

When _Moses_ bringeth in the Deity, as saying, _The seed of the woman
shall bruise the head of the serpent_; he preaches _that_ very same
gospel, and in the same manner which the apostle did. For his words
plainly teach, _that God was in the seed of the woman reconciling the
world unto himself_; as when St. _Paul_ says, _that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself_; the difference is nothing else, but
in two different names given to our Redeemer.

* Now tho’ _Moses_ was the first _recorder_ of the gospel salvation
in a written book, yet was he not the first _preacher_ of it. For it
was proclaimed in _Adam_’s day, from heaven, as the birth of Christ in
the flesh, in the days of Herod. For when God said, _The seed of the
woman shall bruise the head of the serpent_, the same good tidings
of salvation was _proclaimed from heaven_ by God himself, as when the
angel said to the shepherds, _Unto you is born this day in the city of
David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord_.

* But how can we know this? Only by God’s own teaching. For nothing can
be truly known of God by the creature, but that which God makes known
of himself.――So far as God operates in the creature, and manifests
himself in it, so far it truly knows, and _is taught of God_.――Any
other knowledge of God, however learned, high, or deep it may pretend
to be, is as vain and spurious as _that goodness_ which proceeds from
something else, than God’s good Spirit living in us.

* Genius, parts and literature, however set forth with wit and rhetoric,
have no affinity with divine knowledge; they can no more give it, than
the lust of the eyes and the pride of life can generate humility and
purity of heart. These accomplishments live and act in a sphere of
their own, and have no more power of taking to themselves any living
knowledge of God, than the art of painting to the life, can give the
power of _creating_ life.

* The blindness, and follies which have over-run both the antient and
modern world in matters of religion, are a full proof of the capital
doctrine of divine revelation, _namely_, that man (now the defaced
image of God) is so miserably changed and fallen from his first created
state, that nothing less than a new birth, can bring him again into the
region of divine _truth_.

And hence it is, that tho’ religion has its deepest ground in the
nature of man, tho’ God be _essentially_, present in the souls of all
men, yet from the fall of _Adam_ to the end of the world, it will be
an immutable truth, that _strait is the gate and narrow is the way that
leadeth_ unto divine knowledge; and none but the simple of heart, _the
poor in spirit_, or the real followers of Christ can find it.

* But it is time to have done. I shall only trouble your Lordship with
the few following remarks.――Dr. _Warburton_ says, “He has proved that
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not to
be _found in_, nor did make a _part_ of the Mosaic dispensation.”¹ The
Mosaic dispensation means nothing else, but a _temporary_ ritual, and
a _temporary_ theocracy of worldly blessings and curses to support it.
These are its fixed bounds within which it is confined.――Therefore,
to prove that a state _beyond_ this world, was not to be _found in_,
nor did make a _part_ of a state, that is confined to this world, is
as easily and as vainly done, as to prove that the _garden of Eden_ is
not to be _found in_, nor makes a _part_ of a map that is confined to
_England_. And to infer _that_ the _Israelites_ therefore had no notion
of an immortality, because it was not a _part_ of their ritual, is no
better than to infer, that the people of _England_ can have no notion
of the garden of _Eden_, because nothing of it is to be seen in the
map of this island.――But tho’ not in the _ritual_, yet _Moses_ in other
parts of his books written for the instruction of those to whom he
gave the ritual, has given them the fullest notice and highest proof of
that _godlike_ and _immortal_ nature they received at their creation,
shewing them to be the children of the _patriarchal covenant_, heirs
of all the promises of eternal redemption made to their fathers from
the beginning of the world. Nay, the most heavenly doctrines and
precepts given by the apostles to the redeemed of Christ, as _heirs
of immortality_, are to be found in the books of _Moses_.

    ¹ D. L. Vol. II. page 474.

Dr. _Warburton_ takes much pains to get rid of the only true sense
of the following texts of _Moses_. Thus, _Let us make man in our
own image and likeness_. From these words, he says, _it is inferred,
that the soul is immaterial_. But he thinks _Moses intimated quite
another matter_. And so do I; for to intimate the _immateriality_ of
the soul, by saying, that man was made in the _image and likeness_ of
God, is quite short of the sense of the words: to say, that the soul
is _immaterial_, is saying no more, than that it is not a _circle_
or a piece of _clay_, it is saying nothing at all of it but only of
something that it is not. Therefore _Moses_ cannot be supposed to
intimate such a nothing as this, by the image and likeness of God.
But he asserts a much higher matter, namely, that being created in
the image of God, he was made a partaker of the divine nature, and
therefore had not only immortality, but the riches and perfections
of the Deity grounded and growing up. And this is the true ground of
our eternal happiness, that is, of that _eternal increase_ of union,
perfection and glory, which the redeemed soul will find in God; it
is because the image of God, being as a seed sown into it at its
_creation_, it will to all eternity, after his admission into heaven,
open more and more its divine nature, and spring forth in new and
farther fruits of _glory_, _beatitude_ and _union_ with God.

Every thing that is endless, numberless in the depth of eternity,
is endless and numberless in the silence of the soul; what _seeing_
is, what _hearing_, _feeling_, &c. are in their boundless variety,
and ever increasing newness of delights in eternity, these, with
all their wonders, are the innate birthright and sure inheritance of
every immortal godly soul. And on the other hand, the same boundless,
numberless depth and growth of every tormenting, painful, frightful
sensation, will open itself in every soul, _that_ has lost its God,
and is left to its own immortal life within itself.

Vain therefore, is that principle published to the world, by a
celebrated philosopher of the last century, that the soul in its _first
created state_, is a mere _rasa tabula_, or _blank paper_. A fiction,
that is contradicted by all that we know of every created thing in
nature.

For every creature of this world, animate or inanimate, is in its
degree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers, that are in the great world,
of which it is a part. And nothing through all this universe, has in
its essence, only the nature of a _rasa tabula_, or blank paper, but
is in its kind, full of the riches, and powers of all outward nature.

In like manner must it be with the eternal world; every thing which
comes from it, must be in its degree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers
and glories of eternity.

Let it be said, that the _matter of this world_, was in its first
created state, free from all extension, solidity and parts, and this
would be as grave a saying, and as much founded in nature, as the _rasa
tabula_ of the soul: say again, that by degrees it got a materiality of
length, breadth and parts, from _without_, and this would be no greater
a wonder, than that a soul, created inwardly destitute of any principle
of knowledge, should from outward causes grow up into a profound
philosopher. _Again_, say that the soul was at first, but a _blank
paper_, till the organs of the body began to act upon it; and may not
the enemies of religion, as justly say, that it must be the same blank
paper again at the last, when the body shall be broken off from it?

If therefore the _Essay upon human understanding_ (which the Doctor
calls the most original book that ever was published) has produced
a metaphysicks, in many points dangerous to religion, and greatly
serviceable to false, and superficial reasoning, it is not to be
wondered at, since so eminent an error, is the fundamental principle
on which it proceeds.

But to return to the Doctor: he says, “The divine image and likeness
must consist in something that is peculiar to man,――that the two things
_peculiar_ to man, are his shape, and his reason; that it cannot be in
his shape, therefore it must be in his reason.”¹

    ¹ Page 554.

The divine image and likeness cannot consist in something that is
peculiar to man. It might as well consist in his shape, as in his
faculty of making _syllogisms_; but on the contrary, it must consist in
that, and only that, which is, peculiar to God. Nor could man possibly
be created in the image and likeness of God, unless something peculiar
to God, had been the divine glory and perfection of his creaturely life.
For the creaturely life, and all that is peculiar to it, is at the
utmost distance from God, and can only have a likeness to that, which
is to be found in creatures.――God dwelling in a supernatural way in
the creature, is the only possible image of God that can be in it. The
fallen angels have every thing _that_ was creaturely _left_ in them,
but they are horrible devils, because they have lost their supernatural
image of God, which dwelt in them at their creation. They have still
reason, craft and subtlety; but because they have nothing, but what is
peculiar to the creature, they are all rage, torment and misery.

The Doctor therefore, instead of appealing to two things in man, his
shape and his reason, as his true distinction from beasts, should have
said, by the authority of _Moses_, that only one thing was peculiar
to man, as his glorious distinction both from fallen angels, and
terrestrial animals, and _that_ one thing is, his being created in the
image and likeness of God. As to his outward shape, considered only as
different from other animals, there is but little distinction in it;
because they are as different in shape from one another, as man is from
them all. And if man at his creation had had no higher a guest within
him, than his reason, his shape would have been little better, than
that of a fox, or a serpent. For reason, when not under the government
of a higher principle, is that same craft, and cunning, _that_ is
visible in variety of beasts; and is for the most part, as earthly
an instrument of mischievous passions, and lusts in man, as it is
in beasts. And what is more, it must be so, till it comes under the
government of _that_, which was the _image and likeness_ of God, in
the first creation of man.

* What is the difference between reason in St. _Paul_, a _Spinosa_, a
_Hobbes_, or a _Bolingbroke_? None at all, or no other than in their
outward shape. Therefore if reason be the divine image and likeness
of God in man, a _Hobbes_ and a _Bolingbroke_, had as much of it as
St. _Paul_. And a man that is all his life long reasoning himself into
atheism, and the wisdom of living according to his own lusts, must be
allowed to give daily proof of his having the image and likeness of God,
very powerfully manifested in him.

The Doctor’s great proof, that reason is the image and likeness of
God, is because _Moses_ immediately adds, _Let them rule over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowls of heaven, and over the beasts of the
earth_. “For what, says he, could invest man with this dominion _de
facto_, as well as _de jure_, but his reason?”¹

    ¹ D. L. page 554.

Our blessed Lord, at leaving the world, saith, “These signs shall
follow them that believe; in my name, they shall cast out devils, they
shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.” Now let it be asked,
_what could invest the believers in Christ with this dominion_ de facto,
_as well as_ de jure, _but their reason_? Both this question, and the
solution of it, is just as sound, and theological as the Doctor’s.

For it was not any thing of their own, but solely the name, that is,
power of Christ dwelling, and operating in them, that invested them
with the dominion over devils, serpents, diseases, and all outward
deadly, or hurtful things. Now _that_ which gave this power, to the
believers in Christ, was _that very same_, which gave to the first
perfect man, a _power of ruling_ over all the creatures of this world,
and of living in full superiority and dominion over all that was, or
could be hurtful, and deadly, in fire, or water, heat or cold, or any
elementary things. So _that Adam_ whilst standing in his first state of
glory, and power, had the same reason to say of all _that_ he was, and
did, that which St. _Paul_ said, yet _not I, but Christ that liveth in
me_.

And how the Doctor came to think of any other power, as the _ability_
of man to _rule_ over the creatures, is very strange, since the gospel
has so plainly told him, _that they only are the children of God, who
are led by the Spirit of God_. If therefore the first man, created in
the image and likeness of God, may be supposed by his creation, to have
been a child of God, then sure is it, that he had the _Spirit of God_,
living and working in him. And that surely may be allowed to have been
his _true_ and his only qualification, to have and exercise a dominion
over the rest of the creation.

The Doctor, in order to find out _that_ image, and likeness of God
in man, of which _Moses_ writes, looks into the constitution of that
_two-legged_ animal, who is the _disputer of the world_. As likely to
succeed, as if in order to find out _that paradise_, of which _Moses_
writes, he should search for it in the _hundreds_ of _Essex_, or in the
_wilds_ of _Kent_.

For _Moses_, to prevent the folly of looking for the divine image in
any thing, that is _natural_ to the _present_ state of man, has given
us assurance, that _this first_ man, created in the image of God, died
the very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree. And that nothing
of this divine man remained but terrors within, and such a figure of
himself, as filled him with shame and confusion.

And a greater than _Moses_ has told us, _that_ man, in his present
_natural state_, is so dead to that first divine glory, that he has no
possibility of entering into the kingdom of God till he is born again
from above. This sufficiently shews _that_ he who will find out in what
the image of God in man consisted, must as the apostle saith, _walk by
faith and not by sight_.

The next text of _Moses_, which the Doctor miserably injures, is thus
quoted by him, “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul;
that is, say the objectors, had an immortal soul.”

Who the objectors are, I know not; but the truth of the text requires
us to say, that therefore man had a divine and godlike soul, a true
offspring of the divine nature. Because the breath or Spirit of
the holy triune God, was that breath by which he was made a living
soul.――And therefore the riches of this first life in man, were the
riches of the divine nature manifesting itself in the soul.

But the Doctor will have it, that only an unlearned _English_ reader,
can collect any thing to be divine in the soul, from the words
of _Moses_, as not knowing that what is translated a living soul,
signifies, in the original, only a living animal. But this, every
_English_ reader may know to be a vain criticism; for no stress is laid
upon the expression, a living soul, no more than if it had been said,
a living animal. But the full proof of the divine greatness of the
human soul, lies solely in this, that the breath or spirit of the holy
Trinity was breathed into it, and was that which made it to be a living
soul, and therefore the life that arose in it, was the life of God in
the soul.

The Doctor thus comments upon the words of the text. “God, the great
plastic artist, is here represented, as making and shaping out a figure
of earth and clay, which he afterwards animates or inspires with life.
He breathed into this statue the breath of life, and the lump of clay
became a living creature.”

Had this elegant and most graphical description been only found in
some minor poet, or school declamation, it might have been overlooked;
but in a prose treatise of divinity, it ought not to pass uncensured.
I know of nothing that can equal it, unless it be supposed that some
ingenious anthropomorphite, reading these words, _and the Lord God
did unto Adam and Eve make coats of skins, and cloathed them_; should
thus describe the matter, “Here, God, the great artist, is represented,
as having the skins of beasts before him, and with his divine hands,
cutting, shaping and joining them together in forms of garments, fitted
to the size and distinction of the first man and his wife.”

I may defy any one to shew, that this comment does not pay as great
a regard to the _letter_, and do as much honour to the sense of this
scripture, as the Doctor’s doth to the other text.

The sacred text, _God formed man_ of the dust of _the ground, and
breathed into him the breath of life_, is a short and full declaration
of a most important truth, namely, that man was brought into being,
_in a twofold nature_, having the nature of this outward world, and the
nature of heaven; the former signified by his being formed of the dust
of the ground, the _latter_, by the breath of God breathed into him.
To be formed out of the dust of the ground, is the same thing, as if
it had been said, that he was formed out of all the _riches_, _powers_,
and _virtues_ that are in this whole visible world. For every property
of nature is hidden in the earth. And man, so far as he was designed to
be a creature of this outward world, is therefore said to be formed out
of the earth, because the earth is not only the treasure-house of all
that is in outward nature, but is the _mother_ of all the three other
elements. And as all things of this world, whether animate or inanimate,
are from the earth as their mother, so in the earth is there every
power and blessing of life, to sustain every thing _that_ has its body
from it; as appears by that fruitful power, which is continually giving
forth itself in all kinds of vegetable food, _fitted_ to the wants of
every living creature.

* What therefore can it be called, but a most deplorable blindness
in learned reason, to consider man as making his first entrance into
paradise in no _better a state than that of dust and clay_, formed into
a dead lumpish figure of a man, for this reason, because he was said to
be formed out of the dust of the ground? Blindness indeed! when it is
so evident, _that_ even now, after the curse is in the earth, yet every
thing, even the poorest _weed_ that comes out of the dust of the ground,
is in a much higher state, and enters into this world with a degree of
life from its mother _the_ earth.――Had the Doctor never seen, or heard
of any other things formed out of the earth, but such as our potters,
and dealers in clay can make out of it, there might have been some
sort of excuse for his _Adam_ of dead clay formed out of the earth. But
when every day of his life has shewn him that almost infinite variety,
powers, virtues and wonders in the kingdom of vegetables, all coming
out of the earth, and nourished by it; when the scripture has told him
_that_ the beasts and cattle of all kinds were formed out of the earth,
and their flesh and blood from it, and their daily sustenance from
its fruitful womb: it is strange to a degree of astonishment, that he
should hold, _that_ out of this _rich_ earth, when in its paradisical
state, when man, the glory of the creation, was formed out of it, and
God the former, nothing would come forth, but a dead lump of clay in
the figure of a man.

_Again_, What a total disregard has the Doctor here shewn to the very
letter of scripture? The text saith, _God formed man out of the dust
of the ground_, nothing else is ascribed to God, as his work in this
matter; but the Doctor adds quite another matter as the work of God,
namely, shaping and forming lumpish clay into a dead figure of a man.

And then follows another fiction equally against the letter of
scripture. For he says, that AFTERWARDS, God, breathed life into it.
But in the scripture account, there is not a syllable of any first,
or afterwards.――Two things are spoken of the birth of man, and as they
cannot be spoken both at once, so one must come after the other in the
relation of them. The scripture mentions them as two distinct things;
and the reason of mentioning them thus distinctly, is not to teach us,
they were done at two different times, the one first, and the other
afterwards, but to give us the assurance, that man came into the world
in a twofold nature, the one from the heavenly breath of God, and the
other from this visible world.

But the union of these two natures in the formation of man, was owing
to one, and the same operation of God.――There is no sooner, or later,
in the beginning of the soul, and of the body: the beginning of one, is
the beginning of the other.

To suppose that man was made a dead image, and afterwards had life
breathed into it, is no better philosophy, than to suppose, that God
first created the vegetable creature, and afterwards added a vegetable
life to it; that he first created the globe of the sun, and afterwards
added heat and light to it.

_God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature._ What a folly
to suppose, that the creature, and its life, are two separate things,
that the one came first, and the other afterwards? No better, than
supposing, that a circle and its roundness, are two separate things,
that first comes forth the figure, and afterwards its roundness.

But the general design of the D. L. is to establish this most horrible
doctrine, that _Moses_ designedly and industriously secreted from God’s
chosen people, all thought of any eternal relation that they had with
God; which is the same as saying, that he designedly suppressed the one
only possible foundation of true religion. For the immortality of the
human nature, is the only ground of homage and regard to an invisible
and eternal God. And unless man was by nature essentially related to
God, and the eternal world, it would have been as unreasonable for the
God of the eternal world to call man to an heavenly adoration of him,
as to bid earthly flesh and blood _be_, and _do_ that which angels are,
and do in heaven. Therefore the first notice from an eternal God, given
to man of a religious homage due to him, and the bare capacity of man
to embrace such notice, is the greatest proofs that man has something
of the eternal God in him. For as nothing can hunger, but that which by
nature both wants and has a capacity to eat; so nothing can receive a
religion relating to the eternal God, but that which has within itself,
both a want and capacity to partake of the eternal world. And had not
man an eternal spirit in him, as an offspring of the eternal God, he
could no more want to have any intercourse with the eternal world, than
a fish can want to be out of the water. Nor could any taught adoration
of the one eternal God enter any further into his heart, or be of more
use to him, than so much religion taught to a parrot. For man being,
or believing himself to be, as merely a creature of this world, as the
parrot is, could no more regard any thing, but what his earthly nature
has a fondness for, than the parrot doth. _Let us eat and drink for
to-morrow we die_, would be the highest and truest philosophy, if there
is no more of a divine life, or heavenly nature in man, than in the
chattering sparrow. In this case, worldly craft, whether in a fox or
a man, is the highest use of its natural powers. For if the earthly
life is equally _the all_ of both, earthly wisdom must be _equally_ the
perfection of them both. For it can no more be the duty of an earthly
creature to be heavenly minded, than of a celestial creature to be
carnally minded.

If therefore the _Israelites_ under _Moses_, were by him directed to
consider themselves merely as creatures of this world, having nothing
to enjoy, or hope for, but the good things of this life, it must be
said he did all that well could be done, to make them an _earthly_,
_covetous_, _rapacious_, _stiff-necked_ and _brutal_ people. And all
the complaints which the prophets have brought against them, on that
account, ought to have been made only against _Moses_ himself, and
the religion that was set up by him. For a religion only offering, and
wholly confining people to earthly enjoyments, may surely be said, not
only to make, but even require them to be wholly sensual and earthly
minded. And every hearty believer of such a religion, is by his very
faith called upon, to make the most that he can, of the _lust of the
flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life_.

* _Moses_ saith, “Hear, _O Israel_, the Lord our God is one Lord;
and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy strength.” Now these _Israelites_ looking
backwards to God’s covenant of redemption, made with their forefathers,
of which they were the undoubted heirs; and forwards to this new
covenant of a new theocracy, added, as God’s peculiar mercy to them
in this life, to keep them to himself, to support them under their
afflictions, and to arm them with patience in waiting for that eternal
redemption, in the faith of which, their ancestors had died so full
of joy and comfort: in this double view of their state under God,
which _Moses_ had so fully set before _them_, and with the strongest
injunctions to be daily teaching them to their children, they had the
highest reason to rejoice in God, and to love him with all their heart
and soul and strength.

But to suppose that _Moses_, designedly secreting from them, the
knowledge of that eternal relation they had to God, on which the hopes
of their forefathers were founded, and on which he himself was made
able to chuse the afflictions of Christ, has something very shocking
in it. For if _Moses_ was so good a man, because he had faith in the
eternal redemption promised from the beginning, can there be more
cruelty, than in supposing him, designing by his religious system,
wholly to obliterate all thought and remembrance of God’s unchangeable
covenant of life, and extinguish all sense and hope of a redemption to
come? To what purpose is it to say to such a people, shut up in earthly
hopes, “Thou shalt love the one God of heaven with all thy heart?” For
if he had succeeded in his design, fixed them in the belief, that they
had no treasure but in this world, we have Christ’s word for it, that
the affections of their hearts could go no where else, saying, as an
eternal truth, _that where our treasure is, there must be the heart
also_. So that in this case, no love of God, and therefore no other
divine virtue, could have any place in those who conformed to the
design of _Moses_.

The Doctor, with some indignation, tries to evade this unavoidable
consequence. “The true foundation of morality is the will of God. But
is not the distinction between right and wrong, perpetually enforced
by the law of _Moses_ on this principle? This then is the spring of all
virtue, and to give it the greatest efficacy, the love and fear of God
is there incessantly inculcated. But how does a long or short existence,
a life here, or elsewhere, affect at all the practice of virtue so
founded?”¹

    ¹ _D. L._ page 587.

All this is quite beside the point, and leaves the _Jews_ under the
same incapacity of every divine virtue, as has been above asserted. For
a short or long existence, is here never thought of, as a reason, why
we should, or should not be morally good. For duration, considered in
itself, whether short or long, is only a natural consequence of _that
kind_ of life, which the creature hath. For, such as is its _internal_
nature, such is the good, and evil _that_ belongs to it, without any
regard to its longer or shorter duration.

Now it is the internal nature of man, not considered as short, but as
wholly earthly, and created for only _earthly goods_, _that_ is the
reason, why such a kind of life is incapable of any divine virtue,
and cannot possibly have any other love, affections or tempers, but
such as are confined to this world: and also, why every kind of envy,
greediness, craft, and contrivance how to get the most of every earthly
thing, must govern every man, that has only the earthly nature in him,
as unavoidably, as they govern birds, and beasts. And to tell such a
people of a goodness, to which their earthly nature does not lead them,
as it leads every other animal to _that_ which it likes, is as vain, as
to preach to the sparks, not to fly upwards. Nor can a nature, wholly
earthly, any more sin by coveting only earthly things, than the _lion_
sins, by having all his heart set upon his prey.

But the Doctor has a maxim, by which he proves, that the _Jews_, though
wholly confined to earthly hopes, and enjoyments, yet might and ought
to have been heavenly minded, _namely_, because _the true foundation
of morality, is the will of God_. And yet this very maxim is itself
a sufficient proof, than an earthly people, created only for earthly
goods, are by the very will of God, directed to be earthly minded. For
the will of God, in every creature, is manifested by _that kind_ of
nature, which it hath only from God. Therefore earthly creatures, by
being earthly minded, pay as full obedience to the will of God, as pure
heavenly spirits by their being heavenly minded. Therefore if man is
only an animal of this world, by the will of God, distinguished only
from other creatures, by superior skill, subtlety, and contrivances,
(as they are from one another) he neither is, nor can be, under any
other law, relating to his good and evil, but that which is the law of
all other animals, that have all their good and evil from this world.
And as it is as good in the wolf, to be ravening, as in the lamb to
be harmless, because they both follow their created nature; so if man
is as merely a creature of this world, as they are, when he, by his
superior subtlety, in order to make the most of his worldly life,
either feigns the innocence of the lamb, or puts on the ravening wolf,
he follows his nature, as they do theirs, and is just as good and as
bad as they are. And to tell such a man of the beauty of holiness, or
call him to the denial of his own will, for this reason, because the
true foundation of virtue, is the will of God, would be to as much
purpose, as if you was only to require him never to sleep any more,
because holy angels never sleep in heaven. For what can a creature that
can have no good, all its life, but that which is like the good of milk
and honey, have to do with any divine virtue?――If therefore _Moses_
designedly, fixed the _Israelites_ in a belief, that they had no good
to hope for, but that which flesh and blood could find in earthly
things, they were by him taken out of the sphere of every virtue, that
can be called godly or divine, and could have no fear of God, but like
that, which they might have towards him, or the giants, nor any love of
God, but that which they had to their bellies.

Farther, that the Doctor has not entered into any right conception
of the subject, he is upon, is plain from his asking, “But how does a
short or long existence, a life here, or elsewhere, at all affect the
practice of virtue so founded?”――It just so much affects it, as place,
or space affects the existence of bodies. They are not brought forth by
place or space, but they could have no existence but in place or space.
And thus it is, that duration affects the practice of all divine virtue,
it could have no possibility of existence, but in a nature incapable
of dying.――Corruptibility, and divine goodness, are as impossible to
be united, as life and death.――Death may as well exert the functions of
life, as a mortal creature breathe heavenly tempers and affections. For
though the duration of the creature is not the ground, or reason of any
divine virtue, yet no creature can be capable of it, but that, which by
the divinity of its birth, is born immortal.

What an inconsistency, to say of a creature of a short existence,
or whose life is vanishing away, that its true father is in heaven,
and that it ought therefore “to be perfect as its heavenly Father
is perfect?” Can that which is daily tending to non-existence, be
daily growing up in the perfection of God, or that which is always
approaching towards death, be a child of the ever-living God? As well
might it be said of the mushroom, that it has the angels in heaven for
its brethren, as of man, beginning to exist to-day, and ending his
existence to-morrow, that he is a child of his everlasting Father in
heaven.

There are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked,
but I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.――But holy
_David_’s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred
the Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this
sweet finger of _Israel_ amongst those, who had not the least thought
of any eternal relation to God. This holy _David_, the type of Christ,
“who knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of
his loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:” this great
prophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ, _that his soul was
not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption_; this _David_,
thus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article
of the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesying _David_, is,
for the sake of the Doctor’s project, crowded amongst those, who were
not allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to
hope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life,
till death had put the same end, to all of _David_, as it did to those
few sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the same _David_
is made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping
for any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his
assistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness,
but that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as
setting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like
that of rotten sheep, in a death _that_ brings him into the dark land
of forgetfulness; singing gloriously, “the dead praise not the Lord,
neither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance
of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?”

Thus it is, that _David_, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against
a future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been
worse in _David_ than it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But
the truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only
calling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the
blessings of _that_ temporal theocracy, which could only be given
by God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And the
_darkness_, _silence_, or _insensibility_ affirmed of death, has no
relation to a _total end_ of life and sensibility, but solely to an end
of all _enjoyment_, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy.
_David_, as _son_ of _Abraham_, _Isaac_ and _Jacob_, had their faith
and piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and
flaming with divine love. But _David_, as a _son_ of the covenant
made with _Moses_, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the
theocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say, _Why do the wicked
prosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?_ That is, canst thou
give thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all
possibility of receiving them?

But if it could be supposed, that _David_ by the foregoing expressions,
meant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his
forefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they
could get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the
Christian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish
songs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may
be justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget
and fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen
poets.

I must yet add a word, upon the Doctor’s most theological account of
man’s first ability to speak articulate words.

“In judging, says he, only from the _nature of things_, one should be
apt to embrace the opinion of _Diodorus Siculus_, that first the men
lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts,
uttering only _confused sounds_.”¹ And yet it is hardly possible for a
man to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does
not the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that
they have a natural untaught language, not consisting of _confused
sounds_, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to
every one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will
allow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as
the animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the
first of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to
the ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves,
as that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now
it must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion of
_Diodorus_, tho’ so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of
things; for he has given up that of man’s living _in woods and caves_,
and has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of
it, namely, his natural inability to utter any thing _but confused
sounds_.――However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in
which man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it
soon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, “we find that
God taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the
same time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman
for his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the
use of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of
the _forlorn condition of brutality_ as they could?”²――Shocking and
even blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say,
that man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in
a _forlorn condition of brutality_? Can any infidel more despise and
ridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning
man’s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption,
than is here done?

    ¹ D. L. Vol. II. page 81.

    ² D. L. ibid.

In the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of
his creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect
God; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above
all other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over
them. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to
hold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in a _forlorn
brutal condition_, unable to utter any thing, but _confused sounds_?
Or what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse
such a paltry notion from the authority of a pagan _Greek_, in full
contradiction to all that _Moses_, Christ and his apostles have said
of the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of
man? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which
supposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union
with God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen
man, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a
folly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in
a forlorn condition of brutality?

But the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no
articulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God;
“God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air unto
_Adam_, to see what he would call them.”

And yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher
proof, that _Adam_ had not only an articulate speech, but in such a
degree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe
of linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly
have. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times
more knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls his _enigmatic_,
_curiologic_, _hierogliphic_, _emblematic_, _symbolic_ profundities,
yet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air,
were to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another,
by articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal
to the task, as a _Tom Thumb_. And of all the absurdities, _that_ ever
were heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, that _Adam_
had not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was
called to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely,
to distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different
articulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose
eyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another,
should on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought
before him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure,
that belonged to them.

The Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed
together no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines,
as well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which,
the Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his
thoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say, _What must I do to be
saved?_――This collection of decisions, he calls his _projected defence
of Christianity_, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but
poorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no
doubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence
of Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility.
The nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To
be a defender of Christianity, is to be a defender of Christ, but none
can defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower.
To be with Christ, is _to walk as he walked_, and he _that_ is not so
with him, is _against him_.

There are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as a _sinner_,
the other as a _scholar_; the former is the way taught by Christ
and his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from
the Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal
learning.――Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one
better than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong,
true and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of
taking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand
but to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive
it, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own
sin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most
logically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of
his soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth,
lies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are
inseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his
application to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which
stands at the door of every man’s heart, and is the only ground of
Christian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for their
souls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than
by all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For
like begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love
and seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards
unbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the
love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can
only do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in
whose arms, he longs to see them embraced.

But as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy
laden with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to
his soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to
Christ, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and
corruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in
others the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars,
never suffered them to feel before.

Our Lord’s parable of the _prodigal_ son, contains the whole matter
between God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or
that person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man’s state, with
regard to his heavenly Father. For every son of _Adam_ has every thing
in him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is
wandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and
wasted his Father’s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving
husks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his
Father’s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly
said, _Thou art the man_. And no son of _Adam_, do what he will, can
possibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state,
♦till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart,
all that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.

    ♦ “tell” replaced with “till”

I should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross
errors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor’s books, did not
my heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect
towards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be
regarded, has directed my pen.


                     The End of the SIXTH VOLUME.