a dialogue between dr. sherlock, the king of france, the great turk, and dr. oates 1691 approx. 9 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 2 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a35872 wing d1307 estc r362 12264660 ocm 12264660 57971 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a35872) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 57971) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 180:16) a dialogue between dr. sherlock, the king of france, the great turk, and dr. oates sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. oates, titus, 1649-1705. mehmed iv, sultan of the turks, 1642-1693. louis xiv, king of france, 1638-1715. 2 p. s.n., [s.l. : 1691] caption title. date of publication from wing. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng political satire, english. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 angela lea sampled and proofread 2004-01 angela lea text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a dialogue between dr. sherlock , the king of france , the great tvrk , and dr. oates . dr . oates . what a parcel of rogues are assembled together here ? i 'll call the mobb to gut them . king of france . pray dr. hold ; here 's a thousand louis d'ors for thee . great turk . come , thou lookst like a true musullman ; here 's twenty purses more . dr. oates . you rascals and scoundrels , i scorn your money ; but oh ! there 's whiping dr. sherlock . king of france . i and my ally sultan , are both come in propriis personis , to thank the master of the christian temple for his late book , which perhaps may do us more service than all the mercenary pens of france , or than all our dragoons and janizaries . i have now god almighty's authority , and an irresistable power in lorrain , franch comte , strasburgh , treves , flanders and savoy ; though i confess , i ravish'd them away from their legal owners , contrary to my own oaths and sacred treaties ; yet heaven justifies me by her oracle dr. sherlock , who proclaims to all the world , that providence brought these things to pass , and that god has deputed me his vicegerent with an uncontroulable commission . the lorrainers and savoyards must now fight against god , if they fight against me or for their lawful dukes . great turk . my case is the same ; this christian priest has pleaded my divine authority over the holy land , and christ's sepulchre : if the vizier had taken vienna in the year 1683 , and had swallowed all the roman empire , where could have been the perfidy , and the treachery , which christendom brands us mahometans with , and which our mufti has often thrown in our faces ; seeing the great english apostle attributes all to providence , and seals all success with the finger of god almighty ? upon our settlement in germany , the natives had been oblig'd to bear allegiance to us , and never to restore their emperor and electors . dr. oates . pox , catzo ; my brother dr. stole that school-boy's notion out of lucan ; victrix causa dijs placuit : but yet the great cato ( whom sir william temple might have plac'd in his immortal essay of heroick vertue ) was of another opinion , and could by no flattery nor promise , be brought to call caesar a ruler . if his priests had told him , that the gods had brought all that about , and that heaven had ordain'd and commission'd caesar to be irresistible emperor of rome , how would his vertue , and his constancy , seated on the true brow of majesty , have thrown disdain upon those vile sycophants , and betrayers of their country ? si quis potestatem populi romani laeserit , is morte puniendus . dr. sherlock . methinks , gentlemen , you are very merry , and familiar , considering you are god's representatives . how came that impudent dr. of divinity into your company ? they are asham'd of him at dick's , and the temple club , as mr. ph. informs me . et cum nemini obtrudi potest , itur ad deos. dr. oates . i do not trouble god almighty half so much as thou dost ; i never call him down upon the stage , to act in all scenes and revolutions of state , as thou dost every day : thou makest him always the harlequin and scaramouchi of thy farces ; a king cannot tread the carpet , but all the host of heaven must be summon'd ; though thy king is one day noakes , the next day lee ; one day christian , another day turk , sometimes neither . now , brother doctor , i never fill my head with these chimerical , fairy fancies of things done in heaven , i look only upon men and things , upon laws and compacts ; whilst thou , poor man , dream'st in thy study , all vapour'd with hypocondriack enthusiasm , tickled with visions , or else swell'd with envy , pride or ambition ; i drink coffee amongst the beaux esprits , mores hominum video & urbes , and hear more truth in one day from those fellows you call atheists , than from a 130 pulpits in a year ; they all believe in one god , are of no sect , or cabal , under no prejudice of education or interest , are neither jews , turks , nor christians , but all tamerlanes . french king. this pillory-doctor has the most wit of the two ; i perceive he has had better education : however brother sultan , the visionary doctor is for our purpose ; for he damns the huguenots now in arms against me , all the vaudoies , and all the prince of orang's friends , who took up arms against god's authority ; but the devil is in this doctor , who at the same time runs down my dear ally teckely , and sets up my mortal enemy frederick william with god's commission ; tho' that's my comfort the doctor unmans the people of england , puts them all into hell , takes away their arms of laws , and the weapons of their senate , destroys the basis of their state , acts of convention and parliament , and sets the prince up in a floating enchanted castle in the air , built by centaurs , hobgoblin's , bo's , nick , &c. as for the doctor 's new commission from heaven that he fastens to the prince of orange whether he will or no , i care not a rush for it ; my friend james will soon cancel that , for he still retains his right , and wants nothing but possession . i 'le see next summer what 120 men of war , and 30000 land-men will do ; but then this divelish doctor robs me of all the glory , and of all the power ; for providence must do the feat , and james derive all his authority from god ; no thanks to my arms , or money ; and the doctor curses the people that shall offer to assist his rightful legal james ; so that in the main he breaks our heads , and then gives us a plaister , and seems resolv'd to fall like a cat upon his feet : sometimes he plays the williamite , but in a fools coat , sometimes the jacobite under a vizard ; sometimes he tells the people 't is damnation to fight for the prince of orange ; then a little while after 't is damnation to fight against him : 't was damnation in the year 88 , to fight against jemmy ; and now 't is the same sin to fight for him ; so that this famous doctor plays the merry andrew with the world , and like the powder of pimper le pimp , turns up what trump the knave of clubs calls for . dr. sherlock . you kings being heavens brats , may rail and do what you please ; i 'le swear to obey you all , if you were ten thousand ; mount the throne , and you are as much jure divino as i am in the pulpit ; however take heed how you disgust me ; for at one stroke i can utterly destroy both your selves and your governments . alamanzor , scanderbeg , and all sir william temple's hero's are but pigmies to me ; i can command god almighty to be of what side i please ; heaven is my foot-stool . i 'le undertake to make captain tom , the most dreadful , the most soveraign , and the most divine thing upon earth . dr. oates . i would only know which way you would confer that power upon him ; for why should not i convey it as well as you ? will you send it in a basket as a token of your pure love to absolute soveraignty , or in a billet dieu , or in a poulet as i us'd to do to the nuns at salamanca ? dr. sherlock . the two sultans are gone ; sirrah oates avoid the room , i 'le have no further conference with an anti-athanasian doctor . dr. oates . i 'le go when i think fit ; i believe all creeds more than your new coin'd one of allegiance ; so i dismiss thee with a speque metuque procul hinc , procul ito , hoque finis . printed in the year , 1691. a letter to a friend, containing some quæries about the new commission for making alterations in the liturgy, canons, &c. of the church of england jane, william, 1645-1707. 1689 approx. 13 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 4 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a46648 wing j453 estc r3439 12892125 ocm 12892125 95121 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a46648) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 95121) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 716:15) a letter to a friend, containing some quæries about the new commission for making alterations in the liturgy, canons, &c. of the church of england jane, william, 1645-1707. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 6 p. s.n., [london : 1689] caption title. by william jane. also ascribed to william sherlock.--cf. halkett and laing. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -liturgy. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-01 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a letter to a friend , containing some quaeries about the new commission for making alterations in the liturgy , canons , &c. of the church of england . sir , in your last you seem much concerned about the new commission , and desire my opinion of it : i am very unfit to resolve your doubts in this matter , having many of my own ; which i shall reduce into some quaeries , hoping that you may have opportunity of consulting with some of the commissioners , who may be able to give you a more satisfactory answer than i can . first , concerning the nature of these intended alterations . q. i. whether there be any necessity of such alterations in the liturgy , or as some say of it ; ( whatever may be pretended as to canons and ecclesiastical courts : ) if there be any , for the satisfaction of the members of our church , who generally believe there is none , why is not this necessity made appear , and the reasons to the contrary confuted ? if there be none , enquire whether it be for the reputation and establishment of the church , or for the encrease of reverence and devotion in the people to be so frequently meditating unnecessary alterations . q. ii. if these alterations be not pretended to be necessary , enquire what the fitness and expediency of them is ? whether they are intended for the sake of the church , or , for the satisfaction of dissenters , or to serve both these ends together ? 1. if for the sake of the church , should it not be first enquired whether the church desire it , and what alterations she desires ? ought she not to be consulted in such matters as are intended for her advantage ? should not the convocation then have first met and considered , whether any alterations at this time were expedient , before the commissioners had troubled themselves to make such alterations , and become bound in honour to defend them ? or is it for the peace and unity and edification of the church , for some few assuming men to alter the established worship , to make it comply with their own private conceits , or to serve their own private ends ? 2. if for the sake of the church , why should any thing be altered which hath the general approbation of the true members of the church ? why should such ceremonies be taken away , or which is much worse , left indifferent , which they approved as useful to the external decency and solemnity of worship ? why should such prayers and forms of worship be altered , which they find such great helps to devotion , that they desire no material change , and believe they cannot be altered for the better by any meer humane compositions . 3. if it be for the sake of the church , will our commissioners keep their eye upon the primitive pattern which was the original rule of our reformation ? if they can alter our worship and discipline into a nearer and more exact conformity to the ancient primitive and apostolick churches ; this i grant would be for the advantage of the church ; but ask them , whether it will be for the advantage of the church to change the ancient rules and forms of worship for some new modern inventions ? how shall we justifie our selves against the charge of novelty and innovation , if we reform away all the remains and characters of a primitive and apostolick church . 2. if these alterations be intended for the satisfaction of dissenters , and to unite them in the communion of our church . q. i. do they know what will satisfie dissenters ? whether they find any greater inclinations in them now to return to our communion , then they have formerly had ? or whether after the fruitless tryals by the commissioners at the savoy in 61. and at the l. k. bridgman's , where some of these gentlemen were concerned , it be expedient to make a new and more dangerous experiment . 2. whether it be possible in the nature of the thing , to give such satisfaction to dissenters as shall restore them to the communion of the church without destroying the fundamental constitution of the church of england ? as for instance , can any alterations in our collects and prayers ( while we retain a form ) satisfie those who declare against all forms of prayer as a quenching of the spirit ? and then it is not altering the liturgy , but taking it away , that must satisfie dissenters . and not to multiply quaeries , will the dissenting preachers , who have been ordained by schismatical presbyters , submit to episcopal ordinations ? or if they will not , will the people come into the church without their preachers ? or if the commissioners should think fit to admit them as presbyters of the church without a solemn ordination , is it not a subversion of the constitution , not only of the church of england , but of the catholick church ? and are they sure that the members of the church of england will own such presbyters ? 3. inquire you whether it be reasonable at this time to make such alterations in our worship in favour of dissenters , without reasonable assurance of gaining them to our communion ? and whether the temper and practises of our dissenters at this time give any such assurance ? especially if the story of northampton be true , that like novatianus of old , they oblige their communicants to vow or swear upon the sacrament that they will never return to the communion of the church of england , which is said also to be a general practice . after this i suppose it will be needless to say , that these alterations can be intended both for the advantage of the church and satisfaction of dissenters , since from what has been said it seems impracticable to make such alterations as shall satisfie dissenters , and not give just scandal to the members of our church , and therefore here you are to inquire , i. whether they ought not to have as tender a regard to the members of our own church , as to dissenters ? as for instance : if many of our communion will be offended to see others receive the lord's supper sitting , and it may be through the weakness of humane nature may forsake our communion for it , whether it be reasonable to drive these men from our communion out of meer hope to gain worse men in the room of them ? ii. ask if such alterations should make a schism in the church , would it not prove of more fatal consequence than this present schism ? second , some queries concerning the commission and commissioners . q ▪ i. whether since the k. himself , besides his solemn oath at his coronation , has so often declared his resolution to maintain the church of england as by law established , it be not more probable some of these commissioners have procured this commission from the k. to make such alterations , then that it proceeded from the k.'s own inclination ? ii. whether the known character of some of the leading men in this commission be not reason enough to suspect the event ? whether men who conformed with difficulty themselves , or upon principles which wise men fore-saw would destroy the church in time , who have a latitude to conform to a church de facto , which has power on its side , and to conceal their own inclinations till it is time to show them , are not likely to do the church of england a good turn when opportunity serves , and which perhaps they imagine now they have ? iii. whether when the house of commons addressed to the king for a convocation , it was not to prevent such a commission as this ? which was then moved in the house of lords by an eminent person in this commission , and a zealous promoter of it . iv. whether there was any such hast of altering the best constituted church in the world ( which honourable title some of these commissioners in a good mood have in their writings bestowed upon the church of england ) that they could not expect the calling of a convocation , but must have these alterations ready prepared for them by commissioners ? v. whether the effect of this will not be to check all freedom of debate in the convocation , when these alterations shall be proposed to them as the judgment of the commissioners , who will themselves be men of the greatest authority in the convocation ? and who will be so hardy as to oppose what the commissioners have done ? and thus ( as it may prove ) our church may be changed and altered and transformed by nine men , who may have tenderness and moderation enough to part with any thing but their church-preferments : and what an imposition would this be thought on the two houses of parliament , were as many persons of as great authority and interest , and who had the disposal of state preferments in their hands , commissionated to prepare all bills for their approbation ? vi. it should be inquired whether the convocation , when it meets , will have authority to offer any new alterations , or to do any thing but approve what is so offered ? for the convocation can go no farther than the king gives them authority , and that is expressed in the commission only to approve . vii . if the convocation have any authority , it should be considered of what dangerous consequence it may be , should the convocation dissent from the commissioners ? and whether to prevent this , it may not occasion as much closeting for the choice of convocation men , as was lately practiced to pack a house of commons ? third , some queries concerning the fitness of the time for such alterations . q i. can it be thought a convenient time for such alterations as these , when the a. b. the metropolitan of all england , and the head of the convocation , and several other bishops ( not to mention those of the inferiour clergy ) who are as eminent for a prudent and well tempered zeal for the church of england , as for their constant loyalty , are now under suspension ? will not some be apt to question the ecclesiastical authority of such proceedings , when the convocation is without its proper head , and deprived of the advice and counsel of so many principal members of it ? will not others be apt to suspect , that this time is chose on purpose , because the a. b. and those other bishops are now suspended , whose presence and authority in the convocation they were afraid of , as sure and fast friends to the church ? and if they are afraid of those reverend persons who had before declared their readiness ( in their address to k. i. against their publishing his declaration for liberty of conscience ) to come to such a temper with reference to dissenters , as shall be thought fit by a parliament and convocation , it is very suspicious that they intend something very unreasonable , which they feared would not pass a free convocation , when those reverend and judicious prelates were present . q. ii. can it be thought a proper season to make any alterations in a well constituted and established church , when the passions of men are in such a vehement fermentation ? when there are such struglings between the different parties in religion , and such different interests of state to serve by them ? can we expect such fair dealing , such sedate and unbiassed councels , as ( if ever ) are necessary to alter or new-lay the foundations of a church ? the reigns of constantius and valens will satisfie any man what may be expected from councels and convocations , when reasons of state must govern , and the late example of scotland gives us no great reason to expect much better . q. iii. is it a proper time to make alterations , and unsettle the foundations of the church , when there are so many powerful enemies , who watch an opportunity to pull it down ? i think it is not prudent , when a city is besieged to make a breach in the walls , tho' it be to mend them : the church of england will stand firm if we let it alone , but under a pretence of mending it , it will be an easie matter , when its strength and interest is divided , to raze its foundations . for a conclusion , sir , what the parliament will think of this affair , i will not pretend to guess , but i shall only add , that upon the whole matter there seems to be great reason to have a jealous eye upon this commission , and i hope the friends of the church of england , in both houses of parliament , will be upon their guard ; especially it behoves the clergy to be very careful what members they choose for the convocation , which is not now as formerly a matter of meer ceremony and form , since the present and future safety of the church depends on it , and it is seldom seen that there are any considerable innovations in the church , but have a proportionable influence on the state. i am , sir , yours . finis . humble and modest proposals tender'd to the consideration of both houses of parliament, for uniting the protestant interest in the nation for the present age, and preventing our divisions for future 1680 approx. 19 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 6 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59823 wing s3294a estc r37545 16970937 ocm 16970937 105557 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59823) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 105557) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1159:3) humble and modest proposals tender'd to the consideration of both houses of parliament, for uniting the protestant interest in the nation for the present age, and preventing our divisions for future sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 9 p. printed for c.p. and are to be sold in the strand, london : 1680. attributed by wing to william sherlock. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -government. church and state -england. dissenters, religious -england. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-11 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2003-12 judith siefring sampled and proofread 2003-12 judith siefring text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion humble and modest proposals tender'd to the consideration of both houses of parliament , for uniting the protestant interest in this nation for the present age , and preventing our divisions for future . london : printed for c. p. and are to be sold in the strand . 1680. humble and modest proposals for uniting the protestant interest in this nation . i doubt not but every pious and sober protestant of this nation is now in great grief and anguish of heart to observe the passionate differences and unchristian dissentions , which dayly increase amongst christians united in one and the same doctrine of their religion , and reformed from the errours and superstition of the church of rome ; which cannot but oblige every serious man who wisheth peace and prosperity to the kingdom he lives in , to consider what should be the occasion of those unhappy and ruinous divisions we have so long suffered under , and to offer probable means for the composing of them . as to their first rise , i doubt not but they owe their original to the different manner of the reformation , and the establishing of the orders which each church did think fit and convenient for it self , ( as the reverend and pious mr. hooker acquaints us ) which were so peremptorily established under that high commanding form , which rendered them to the people as things everlastingly required by the law of that lord of lords , against whose statutes there is no exception to be taken ; by which means it came to pass , that one church could not but accuse and condemn another of disobedience to the will of christ , in those things where manifest difference was between them : whereas the self-same orders allowed , but yet established in more wary and suspense manner , as being to stand in force till god should give the opportunity of some general conference what might be best for them afterwards to do ; this , i say , had both prevented all occasion of just dislike which others might take , and reserved a greater liberty unto the authors themselves of entering into farther consultation afterwards ; which , though never so necessary , they could not easily now admit , without some fear of derogation from their credit : and therefore that which once they had done , they became for ever after resolute to maintain . now if we consider the shortness of that time wherein our first reformation continued under edward the sixth , and the necessity of many learned and pious ministers of the church of england to flee into foreign countries ( as strasburgh , geneva , &c. ) in queen mary's reign , for the preservation of their lives , where they frequently conversed with those eminent divines , who were the great reformers there ; 't is no wonder that some of them should return better pleased with their discipline than their own , especially considering that several of them had intimate acquaintance and conversation with one of the reformers , whom the reverend mr. hooker thought incomparably the wisest man that ever the french church did enjoy since the hour it enjoyed him . in queen elizabeth's , king iames , and our late soveraign's reigns , 't is well known how our differences still increased , until that unhappy war broke out , by which the non-conforming interest prevailed , so that the presbyterian discipline was endeavoured to be fixed as the established form of government in this nation ; our universities , preachers , writings , education , &c. were generally modelled thereto : by which means the greatest number of the trading part of the kingdom , many of the gentry , and some few of the nobility ( observing the precepts and practices , lifes and deaths of most of that clergy to be pious and exemplary ) joyned with men of this or the like perswasion . since which time it pleased god to restore our present soveraign to his throne , and the wisdom of the nation thought it convenient to establish the same discipline which our first reformers judged prudential ; not abating or leaving indifferent those ceremonies , which unhappily have occasioned those hither-to-irreconcilable differences between the church of england and the dissenters in it , and have been matter of dispute between the reformers , even from the first reformation from popery : upon which account many of the non-conforming divines laid down their livings , and the old disputes began afresh to be revived ; and so are like to be continued , until we be either ruined by popery , or healed by moderation , which is the onely salve to cure the churches wounds , and that admirable weapon-salve formerly proposed to the wisdom of superiours by the reverend dr. stillingfleet ; who having highly commended the prudence and temper of the french churches in composing their publick forms of prayer , that they were so far from inserting any thing controversial into them , that papists themselves would use them . and saith he , the same temper was used by our reformers in the composing our liturgie in reference to the papists , to whom they had an especial eye , as being the onely party then appearing , whom they desired to draw into their communion , by coming as near them as they well and safely could . and certainly those holy men who did seek by any means to draw in others at such a distance from their principles as the papists were , did never intend by what they did for that end to exclude any truly tender consciences from their communion . that which they had laid as a bait for them , was never intended by them as a hook for those of their own prefession ; but the same or greater reason which made them at that time yield so far to them then , would now have perswaded them to alter and lay aside those things which yield matter of offence to any of the same profession with themselves now : for surely none will be so uncharitable toward those of his own profession , as not to think there is as much reason to yield in compliance with them , as with the papists . and it cannot but be looked upon as a token of god's severe displeasure against us , if any , though unreasonable proposals of peace between us and the papists , should meet with such entertainment among many , and yet any fair offers of vnion and accommodation among our selves be so coldly embraced and entertained . thus far our reverend and learned dean of pauls . upon these and some other like considerations , i should humbly propose to the wisdom of this present parliament , some probable means to put an end to our present differences , and to unite us for the future ; that so we may become a flourishing nation , free from the factions and divisions of former ages . for the first . 1. i humbly propose , that the ceremonies at present enjoyned by law , might be left to the liberty of the clergy to use or lay aside ; and that because the dissenters on the one hand do declare that their conformity to them would be sinful , and the church of england on the other hand hath not onely declared upon our first reformation in the account she hath given of ceremonies , why some be abolished and some retained , that as those ceremonies were taken away which were most abused , and did burden mens consciences without any cause ; so the other that remain are retained for a discipline and order , which ( upon just cause ) may be altered and changed . but since his majesties restauration , the church of england hath again declared in her preface to the common-prayer , that the particular forms of divine worship , and the rites and ceremonies appointed to be used , being things in their own nature indifferent and alterable , and so acknowledged ; it is but reasonable that upon weighty and important considerations , according to the various exigency of times and occasions , such changes should be made therein , as to those that are in place of authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient . accordingly we finde that in the reigns of several princes of blessed memory since the reformation , the church upon just and weighty consideration her thereunto moving , hath yielded to make such alterations in some particulars , as in their respective times were thought convenient . thus far the church of england . and of late i finde , that a very eminent member thereof , the reverend dean of canterbury , hath acquainted us in a publick sermon preached by him at the york-shire feast , that though it was not for private persons to undertake in matters of publick concernment , yet he thought he had no cause to doubt but the governours of our church ( notwithstanding all the advantages of authority and reason too , as they thought , on their side ) were persons of that piety and prudence , that for peace sake , and in order to a firm vnion amongst protestants , they would be content , if that would do it , not to insist upon little things , but to yield them up , whether to the infirmity or importunity , or , perhaps , in some very few things , to the plausible exceptions of those that differed from them . now seeing the church of england hath once and again declared her excellent temper and moderation for the preservation of peace and unity in the church , the great end and designe of all church-government , we have little reason to question her readiness ( at such a time as this is ) to comply with so modest a proposal as a liberty of using or refusing those ceremonies , which she saith , in their own nature are indifferent and alterable , and upon weighty and important considerations , may be changed , &c. especially considering that by this condescention of hers , she will certainly bring into her communion a great number of the pious , moderate , and more considerative non-conformists : which will not onely adde strength to her self , but give a great joy and content to all those who have wish'd well to the peace , unity , and prosperity of this our church and nation ; and have long made it the subject of their prayers , that they might live to see those days in england , wherein iudah might not vex ephraim , nor ephraim envy iudah . 2. i would likewise humbly propose , that the rest of the protestant dissenters from the church of england , might be indulged by act of parliament , provided they neither preach'd , wrote , nor discours'd against the doctrine or government of the church as by law established ; and that , because charity , which is kinde , and thinks no evil , would oblige a sober and indifferent person to believe that the reason of their separation from our church , did onely proceed from a tenderness of conscience ( impressed upon them by the force of their education , study , conversation , &c. ) lest in complying with the present established form of worship , they should sin against god , and wound the peace of their own souls : for otherwise their own present quiet and interest must necessarily have obliged them to a different practice , they having been under a continual danger and hazard of the execution of the laws at present established against them ; whereby they have been not onely deprived of that maintenance which by the countenance of authority they might otherwise have expected and publickly enjoyed , but exposed to many wants , difficulties , and sufferings . as to the vniting of us for the future , i humbly propose to the wisdom of this present parliament , that an act might be passed , whereby every person ( after a limited term of years ) intending to take holy orders , should be incapacitated for any church-preferment , or for a license to preach in private congregations , who could not give a satisfactory account of his proficiency and ability in church-history and primitive learning , whereby he might be able to give a clear and plain account of what discipline and order were used in the church of god nearest our saviour's and the apostles days , when differences and errours in doctrine or church-government began first to spring up ; with the authors , occasion , and effects thereof . the advantages which must necessarily attend the making of such a law , would be very great both to our interest in church and state ; amongst which i beg leave to name the following . 1. we might hereby ( for the future ) more assuredly hope for , and expect peace and union amongst our ecclesiasticks ; they having been all well acquainted with primitive practice , and therein with the rise and growth of all heresies , schisms , and divisions in the church , and with the fatal consequences that have attended them ; whereby in all probability they would not more rationally than unanimously make choice of one and the same form of worship and discipline , but most heartily unite in their affections to one another , endeavouring with all their united strength to maintain the church in peace and purity . 2. by this means we might be assured to enjoy the most learned clergy that ever this nation brought forth , who would not onely prove a greater bulwark against popery on the one hand , but schism and faction on the other ; and being so well accomplished for the ministerial function ( before they enter into it ) might much more assuredly engage the affection and hearts of their people , by spending in private the greatest part of the week in instructing them in the principles , and encouraging them in the practice of the christian religion ; a duty , alas , too much neglected in our days . 3. by this means we might be sure of preferments to answer every mans merit , especially if the parliament should think it prudential to raise a sum of money for the purchasing all impropriations and advowsons , the latter of which to be annexed to the several colledges in both universities ; one of the principal reasons we can give at present why we have more clergy-men than livings , being this , that a great number of ordinary country-men and trades-men , out of an ambitious designe to make their children gentlemen , do send them to the universities , though they be not able to maintain them above three or four years : whereas were there such a law ( as i proposed ) once established , they would be willing to bring them up to honest professions and trades , much more suitable for them ; and persons of better estate and quality would be encouraged to bring up their children in the universities , and continue them there until they were arrived to that pitch of learning , which would not onely render them honourable to foreign nations , and highly serviceable to their own , but would capacitate them for the enjoyment of a preferment suitable to their parents charge , and their own pains and industry . in short , i heartily wish that we might often and seriously remember our blessed saviours prediction , that a kingdom divided against it self , cannot stand ; and likewise consider that fate which attended the faction and division of the iews ; which grew to that height , that they could not forbear destroying each other , even when their declared enemies the romans were coming to besiege their city . from which , good lord deliver us . postscript . upon some considerations , i thought it would not be unacceptable to print the speech of that wise and great general and emperor vespasian , to his roman officers ; who seeing the iews at great variance and civil discord amongst themselves , pressed vespasian their general not to lose this opportunity , affirming that it was gods providence ( who fought for them ) that the iews should be at civil discord among themselves ; and that therefore he should not over-slip so good an occasion , lest the iews should quickly be friends again one with another , either by the weariness of civil wars , or else repenting themselves of that which they had done . to whom vespasian thus answered : that they were ignorant what was to be done , and desirous rather , as it were in a theatre to shew their forces and strength , than with him to consider what was profitable and expedient . for ( said he ) if we presently assault them , our coming will make concord amongst our enemies , and so we shall bring upon our selves their forces yet firm and strong ; but by expecting a little while , we shall have less ado to conquer them , their chiefest forces being destroyed by their own civil war. god is more our friend than you are aware of , who without any labour and pain will deliver the jews into our hands , and will give us the victory without endangering our army . wherefore it is rather our part to be beholders of the tragedy , than to fight against men desirous of death , and troubled with the greatest evil possible , to wit , domestical sedition and civil war. and if any think that the victory is not so glorious , because gotten without fight , let him know and consider the uncertain events of war ; and that it is better , if it be possible , to get a victory without bloodshed , than therewith to hazard a defeat : for they who by counsel and advice do any act , deserve no less praise than they who by force of arms atchieve a victory . moreover , in the mean time that the enemies destroy one another , our souldiers may take rest , and so be stronger and better able to fight when need shall require . besides , it seems not that there is much haste required to get the victory ; for the jews neither prepare arms nor engines of war , nor levie any forces , nor seek for aid ; and so by delay no damage can ensue , but they will plague one another more by civil war , than our army by attacquing their city . and therefore whether we consider prudence or glory , we have nothing to do but let them ruine themselves ; for in case we should even at this present make our selves masters of that great city , so it would be justly said , that the victory was not to be imputed to us , but to their discord . foelix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum . finis . a sermon preach'd at the temple-church, december 30, 1694, upon the sad occasion of the death of our gracious queen by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1694 approx. 26 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59887 wing s3358 estc r20741 12564611 ocm 12564611 63307 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59887) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63307) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:19) a sermon preach'd at the temple-church, december 30, 1694, upon the sad occasion of the death of our gracious queen by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. the second edition. [4], 27, [1] p. printed for will. rogers ..., london : 1694. half title: the dean of st. pavl's sermon at the temple-church, december 30, 1694. running title: a sermon preach'd at the temple-church. advertisement: p. [1] at end. "and published at the earnest request of several masters of the bench of both societies". reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng mary -ii, -queen of england, 1662-1694 -death and burial. church of england -sermons. bible. -o.t. -psalms xxxix, 9 -sermons. funeral sermons. sermons, english. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-08 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-08 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the dean of st. pavl's sermon at the temple-church , december 30. 1694. a sermon preach'd at the temple-church , december 30. 1694. upon the sad occasion of the death of our gracious queen . and published at the earnest request of several masters of the bench of both societies . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . the second edition . london : printed for will. rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxciv . xxxix . psalm 9. i was dumb , and opened not my mouth , because thou didst it . this may be thought a very improper text for the feast of our saviour's birth , when our mouths ought to be filled with the praises of god , and sing with the whole quire of angels , glory be to god in the highest , on earth peace , good will towards men . this indeed is that peace , which the world cannot give , and which the world cannot take away ; whatever the external appearances of providence are , here we find a safe retreat , and a never-failing spring of joy : for he that spared not his own son , but delivered him up for us all , how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ? who then shall jeparate us from the love of christ ? shall tribulation , or distress , or persecution , or famine , or nakedness , or peril , or sword ? — nay , in all these we are more than conquerors through him that loved us . for i am perswaded , that neither death , nor life , nor angels , nor principalities , nor powers , nor things present , nor things to come , nor height , nor depth , nor any other creature , shall he able to separate us from the love of god , which is in christ jesus our lord , 8. rom. 32 , 35 , 37 , &c. while our minds are warmed with such thoughts as these , we shall be able to bear up under the greatest trials , if not with chearfulness , yet at least with patience and a quiet submission to the will of god. and if ever there were occasion for such comfortable and supporting thoughts , the divine providence has made it too necessary at this time , to bear the loss of an incomparable lady , our most gracious queen ; whose death all good subjects must lament , and i pray god forgive those that do not . such severe providences as these , will teach the greatest and most unbroken minds , to serve the lord with fear , and to rejoice with trembling . but how severe soever providence is in some particular instances , the sense of the divine goodness in the redemption of mankind by the incarnation and death of his own son ; should teach us to be dumb , and not open our mouths , because it is his doings . in speaking to which words , i shall inquire , what may be called the doings of the lord ? 2. what it is to be dumb , and not to open our mouths ? 3. the force of this argument to oblige us to a quiet and patient submission under the greatest sufferings , that it is god's doing . 1. what may be called the doing of the lord ? this may be thought a very needless question ; for are there any events , good or evil , which are not god●s doing ? if we believe a particular providence , we must answer , no ; and yet some things are more peculiarly god's doings , than others are , with respect to this present argument , as god's doing it , is a reason for a quiet and patient submission to the divine will. in many cases men bring ruine and misery upon themselves by their own sin and folly , and then they may thank themselves for it ; but have no reason to complain of providence ; and when they cannot charge providence with their misfortunes , patience it self is not properly a submission to god ; because their sufferings are no more god●s will , than their sin and folly is . if men destroy their estates by profuseness and prodigality , and their bodies by intemperance and lust ; if ill-contracted friendships , indiscreet bargains , or an ungovernable tongue , perplex their affairs , and prove very troublesome or dangerous , all this is owing not merely to providence , but to themselves ; and they must be contented to reap the fruit of their own doings , and to implore the divine goodness and providence to deliver them from the evil consequences of their own sin and folly . whatever evils we suffer , which are not the natural or moral effects of our own sin or folly , they are properly god's doings , as inflicted by god , either for the punishment of our sins , or for the trial and exercise of our virtues , or to serve the wise ends of his providence in the world . those evils which we do not immediately bring upon our selves , god inflicts on us , either by the ministry of wicked and injurious men , or by the disorders of natural causes , or by some seeming casual and fortuitous events ; for the actions of men , the powers of nature , and what we call chance and fortune , are all in the hands of god , and therefore are more or less his doings . but if we may say , that some things are more peculiarly the care of providence , than others , life and death are certainly so ; no man can be born or die , without the particular order and appointment of god : our saviour tells us , not a sparrow falls to the ground without our father , much less men ; and assures his disciples , that all the hairs of their head are numbred ; and their lives are more sacred than their hairs . some men are of opinion , that god has absolutely decreed the certain term and period of every man's life ; but i know no foundation for this , neither in scripture nor reason ; nor does any man believe it , but those who subject all mankind , and all the things of this world , to irreversible necessity and fate , which is the strength of the atheistick hypothesis ; though incautiously espoused by some men , who are so far from being atheists , that i hope they are very good christians . and therefore , i suppose , these christian fatalists , if i may so call them , mean no more than what we all own , that no sparrow , much less a man , falls to the ground without our father ; that god not only foreknows the period of every man's life , and by what means he shall die , but with infinite wisdom and justice , orders and appoints it ; not by an absolute and unconditional decree , but as the wise determination of a free and just providence . and if god have any more concernment for nations and common-wealths , than he has for particular men ( as we , who can attend but a few things at once , and therefore make the matters of greatest importance our more particular care , are apt to conceive ) then the lives and deaths of princes must be more particularly ordered and determined by god ; because nations , it may be many nations and countries , more than their own , are concerned in the consequence of it ; and of the more universal concernment any thing is , the more we are apt to think it belongs to the care of god. for this reason some philosophers have confined the providence of god to the heavens , and heavenly bodies , which have such a universal influence on things below ; or to nations and publick societies , and to the several kinds and species of beings , not to particular men or creatures . and so far they were in the right , that if the divine providence could not equally take care of the whole world , and of every particular creature in it ; it would certainly in the first place take care of the great springs of motion . but though this be no reason for god's peculiar care of one thing more than another , because his all-seeing eye , and almighty arm , can equally take care of all ; yet our saviour has taught us from the worth and value of things , that god will certainly take the more care of them , and in case of any competition give the preference to things of the greatest moment . behold the fowls of the air , for they sow not , neither do they reap , nor gather into barns , yet your heavenly father feedeth them ; are ye not much better than they ? and if god so clothe the grass of the field , which to day is , and to morrow is cast into the oven , shall he not much more clothe you , o ye of little faith ? 6. matth. 26 , 30. where from god's care of mean inferior creatures , the fowls of the air , and the grass of the field , he more strongly concludes his care of men ; and by the same reason from his care of particular men , we may more strongly conclude his care of kingdoms and nations , and therefore of the lives of princes , who are the great ministers of his government and providence , and whose lives or deaths make such a mighty change in the affairs of the world . so that when , or by what means soever princes dye , this is god's doings ; and how severe soever we may feel it , we must be dumb , and not open our mouths , because he has done it ; which is the 2. thing to be explained , what is meant by being dumb , and not opening our mouths . for this seems a very hard saying in the strict literal sense , that we must not complain of our sufferings , when we feel 'em smart : humane nature can't bear this , we must feel our sufferings , and when we feel them , we must complain : to have no sense of what we suffer , is stupidity , not submission ; it is irreverence for the judgments of god , and in some cases the most unpardonable baseness and ingratitude to men. to be unconcerned for the death of our dearest friends , or greatest patrons and benefactors , not to pay natures tribute to their memories in a sigh and a tear ; not to long after them , and send some vain wishes to call them back ; not to preserve their idea fresh in our minds , and to think with some uneasiness of those happy hours which their conversation sweetned ; to part with our friends , as if we suffered nothing by their loss , and were as well without them , is so far from being a virtue , that such a man is uncapable of ever being a friend , and never deserves to have any ; much more then , when we lose a publick friend and benefactor , the greatest of friends and benefactors , which is a good prince . let us briefly consider , what we have lost in the loss of our gracious queen , and try if we can bear the thoughts of it without complaining . she was the glory of her sex , and an ornament to the crown she wore ; made truly great by nature , birth , and education . she had a large and capacious mind , a quick and lively apprehension , and a piercing and solid judgment : she had a strength and firmness of mind beyond her sex , and such a dexterity in managing the greatest affairs , as would have become the greatest and most experienced ministers . never was there greater skill in government with less fondness for it , which she could take up and lay down , with the same equality and indifferency of mind : though , i doubt , i must unsay that ; for she was always grieved at the occasion of taking the government , and as glad to resign it . never was majesty better tempered with easiness and sweetness . she knew how to be familiar , without making her self cheap , and to condescend without meanness she had all the greatness of majesty , with all the vertues of conversation ; and knew very well , what became her table , and what became the council-board . she understood her religion , and loved it , and practised it ; and was the greatest example of the age , of a constant , regular , unaffected devotion , and of all the eminent vertues of a christian life . in the midst of all the great affairs of state , she would rather spare time from her sleep , than from her prayers , where she always appeared with that great composure and seriousness of mind , as if her court had been a nunnery , and she had had nothing else to do in the world. in all the ease and prosperity of fortune she had that tenderness and compassion for those , who suffered , which sufferings themselves cannot teach meaner persons . she was charitable to the utmost of her power , amidst all the expences of war and government , and when a proper object was presented to her , was always pleased , when she could grant their requests , and very uneasie to deny . in short , her greatest and most implacable enemies , ( for vertue it self will meet with enemies in this world ) had no other fault to charge her with , but her throne ; which is the only thing , for which most other princes are valuable . she ascended the throne indeed before she desired it , but was thrust into it , not by an hasty ambition , but to save a sinking church and kingdom : and i hope england will always have reason to say , that an empty throne could never have been filled with a nobler pair . but though the necessary absence of the king , to give check to the progress of a powerful and insulting monarch , engaged her more than she desired in state affairs , yet the promoting of true religion , and the service of the church of england , [ the greatest and best nursery of it , since the apostolick age , ] was her constant and natural care. this her thoughts were full of , and she had formed great and noble designs , had she out-lived the difficulties and expences of war ; and been at leisure to attend the peaceful arts of government . i have reason to say this , from those frequent intimations i have had from our late admirable primate , who had great designs himself to serve the christian religion , and the church of england , in its truest interests ; and had inspired their majesties ; and particularly the queen , who had more leisure for such thoughts , with the same great and pious designs : it may be no church-man ever had , i am sure not more deservedly , a greater interest in his prince's favour ; and the great use he made of it , was to do publick service to reliligion ; and , whatever some men might suspect , to the church of england , though it may be not perfectly in their way : and the greatest fault i know he had , was , that some envious and ambitious men could not bear his greatness , which he himself never courted , nay , which he industriously avoided . before this , all england knew and owned his worth ; and had it been put to the poll , there had been vast odds on his side , that he would have been voted into the see of canterbury ; for no man had ever a clearer and brighter reason , a truer judgment , a more easie and happy expression , nor a more inflexible , fearless honesty : he was a true and hearty friend , and was a true friend where-ever he professed to be so : though he had many enemies at last , he took care to make none . he was obliging to all men ; and though he could not easily part with a friend , he could easily forgive an enemy , as that bundel of libels witnesses , which was found among his other papers , with this inscription : these are libels ; i pray god forgive them ; w i do . but i cannot give you the just character of this great man now ; what i have already said , i confess , is an excursion , which i hope you will pardon to the passion of an old friend ; and learn from two great examples , that neither the greatest innocence , vertue , or merit , can defend , either crowned or mitred heads , from the lash of spiteful and envenomed tongues . but what a loss has religion and church of england , in such a critical time , in the death of such a queen , and such a prelate ! i pray god make up this loss . in a word , that great passion which afflicts and oppresses our good king , gives an unexceptionable testimony to the incomparable worth of our deceased queen : the too severe and visible effects of it , shew , that it is not an ordinary , nor a dissembled passion : nor is it an ordinary thing , for a prince of so great a mind , who can look the most formidable dangers , and death it self , in the face , without fear ; whom all the powers of france cannot make look pale or tremble , to sink and faint , and to feel all the agonies of death in the dying looks of a beloved consort . all story cannot furnish us with many examples of such soft and tender passions , in such a warlike and fearless mind ; and what but a mighty vertue could so charm a prince , as to forget his natural constancy and resolution ? i 'm sure , though we pay very dear for the experiment in the loss of an excellent queen , we have so much the more reason to think our selves happy in a king ; for a due mixture and temperament of such fearless courage and bravery , and such tender passions , is the most perfect composition of an excellent prince . and now it may be , you will tell me , that i have taken great pains to conhute my text , and that i have done it effectually ; for we ought not to be dumb , but may very justly complain of such a loss as this . this i readily grant , that we may complain of such a loss ; but this is no confutation of my text. we may complain , and give ease and vent to our sorrows by such complaints , while we do not complain against god , and accuse him foolishly . to submit to the will of god , which is here exprest by being dumb , and not opening our mouths , does not signifie , not to feel our losses and sufferings , or not to complain of them ; but not to reproach the divine providence , nor to cast off our hope and trust in god. job felt his sufferings , and complained of them in as moving and tragical expressions , as any other man could , and yet is proposed to us , as an example , of admirable patience , because he did not charge god folishly , nor cast off his hope in him . this we never can have any reason for ; for whatever we suffer , it is a wise and merciful providence which inflicts it : but yet mankind are very apt , when they suffer hard things , either to deny a providence , or which is more absurd , and unreasonable , to reproach it ; for if there be a god , he is wise , and good , and merciful , and just , which is the notion all mankind have of god ; and if this god governs the world , all events are ordered with wisdom , justice , and goodness ; and all thinking men , in cool and sober thoughts , will be ashamed to quarrel with such a providence . but yet we are very apt to ask questions , which we cannot easily answer , and then to make our own ignorance an objection against the divine providence . as in the case before us , the sudden and untimely death of an excellent princess , who had strength and vigour of age , which promised a much longer life , and who would certainly have done great good to the world , as long as she had lived ; but is cut off in the vigour and strength of age , and all her thoughts , even all her great and excellent designs of doing good to the world , perish with her ; while tyrants and oppressors live to be the plagues and scourges of mankind . now though we do not know the particular reasons of such providences , yet it is easie to frame some general answers , which may satisfie all the friends of providence . if the objection relates to our selves , who suffer by this loss , there is a very plain answer to it , but a very terrible one ; that god is angry with us , and by the untimely death of an excellent princess , who made it her whole study and design to do us good , threatens his judgments against us , if we do not take care to prevent them by a timely repentance . if the objection relates only to the untimely death of an excellent princess , that the should so suddenly be snatched away from the joys and pleasures of a throne ; this is no objection at all ; at least not an objection fit for christians to make : for can we think , that the greatest and most happy monarch , loses any thing by the exchange , if he be translated from earth to heaven ? that the joys of paradise are not greater than a crown ? our good queen did not think so , who knew what an earthly crown meant , but was willing to part with it for heaven ; who saw death approaching without fear , and prepared to receive its stroke with that calmness and sedateness of mind , as nothing could give but an innocent conscience , and much greater hopes but as for our selves , though we must acknowledge that we have received a very great loss , in the death of an excellent queen , yet we have no reason to quarrel at providence , while god preserves our king to go in and out before us . we had indeed perpetual day ; and no sooner was one sun withdrawn , but another ascended our horizon , with equal lustre and brightness : this was a peculiar happiness which we never had before , and which the necessity of our affairs required now ; but though god has cut us short in this , we have a king still , the terror of france , and the protector of europe ; a king , whom affection as well as blood has naturalized to us ; who loves our nation and our church , which he has once delivered , and god grant he may live long to settle and protect both . we have no reason to fear our enemies , either at home or abroad , while a prince is at the helm , who wants neither counsel nor courage ; especially if we follow that noble example , which the two houses of parliament have set us , to give him such fresh assurances of our fidelity , as may strengthen his hands against his and our enemies abroad , and make him easie and safe at home . to conclude , this is god's doing , and it becomes us to be dumb , and not to open our mouthes , because he has done it : he is the sovereign and unaccountable lord of the world ; who shall say unto him , what dost thou ? life and death are in his hands ; the fates of princes and kingdoms . that he has done it , should be a sufficient reason to us to submit , because though he does things great and wonderful , and beyond our understanding , yet he never does any thing but what is wise and good : this i 'm sure is the most effectual way to turn even the severest judgments into blessings , to reerence god , and to humble our selves under his mighty hand , and to implore his mercy , to repair those breaches he has made upon us . we must not complain of providence ; but we may make our complaints to god , and be the more importunate in our prayers for the preservation of our king. the death of our excellent queen both calls for , and will justifie and recommend such humble importunities ; and the preservation of our king , will , in a great measure , make up this loss to us ; which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord jesus christ ; to whom with the father , and the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and for ever , amen . finis . books lately printed for william rogers . sermons and discourses in four volumes . 8vo . sermons concerning the divinity of our blessed saviour . 8vo . six sermons : 1. of stedfastness in religion . 2. of family-religion . 3 , 4 , 5. of the education of children . 6. of the advantages of an early piety . preached in the church of st. lawrence jury . 8vo . these by his grace john lord arch-bishop of canterbury . a commentary on the five books of moses , with a dissertation concerning the author or writer of the said books , with a general argument to each of them : by richard lord bishop of bath and wells . in a vol. 8vo . a practical discourse concerning death , 8vo . eighth edition , price 3 s. in 12 mo . price 2 s. a practical discourse concerning future judgment . third edition . 8vo . a discourse concerning the divine providence : second edition . 4to . these by the reverend dr. sherlock dean of st. pauls . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity , in answer to the animadversions upon his vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity . 4to . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians , in answer to the antapologist . 4to . a discourse of religion , shewing its truth and reality ; or the suitableness of religion to humane nature . 8vo . a discourse of the resurrection , shewing the import and certainty of it . 8vo . these two by the reverend mr. wilson rector of morly in derbyshire . a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend richard meggot d.d. and late dean of winchester, decemb. 10th, 1692 at twickenham by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1693 approx. 28 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59884 wing s3355 estc r11116 12032317 ocm 12032317 52770 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59884) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52770) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:18) a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend richard meggot d.d. and late dean of winchester, decemb. 10th, 1692 at twickenham by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [3], 26, [2] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1693. reproduction of original in huntington library. advertisement: p. [1]-[2] created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng meggott, richard, d. 1692. church of england -sermons. bible. -n.t. -philippians i, 23-24 -sermons. funeral sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-08 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-08 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend richard meggot d. d. and late dean of winchester , decemb. 10 th . 1692. at twickenham . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. pauls , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . imprimatur , geo. royse r. r mo . in christo patri ac dom. dom. johanni archiep. cantuar. à sacris domest . decemb. 18. 1692. london : printed for w. rogers at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleetsteet . 1693. a sermon preached at the funeral of dr. meggot , decemb. 10. 1692. i phil. 23 , 24. for i am in a strait betwixt two , having a desire to depart , and to be with christ , which is far better . nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you . st . paul wrote this epistle to philippi from rome , where he was in bonds for the gospel ; but though his body was confined to a prison , his soul , his great divine soul was at liberty to visit the churches he had planted , to advise and counsel and comfort them , to encrease their knowledge , and to confirm their faith , to inflame their zeal , and to spur them forward to more perfect attainments in all piety and vertue . the philippians seem greatly concerned least the progress of the gospel should be hindred by st. paul's imprisonment , and least they and the whole church should be deprived of the labours and ministry of so great an apostle , should this persecution extend to life , as they had reason to fear it would . as for the first , st. paul assures them , that his bonds were for the furtherance of the gospel ; for his imprisonment was taken notice of both in the court and city , which made men curious to know , what that doctrine was , which he preached , and for which he suffered bonds , and this published the gospel more effectually than his preaching could have done , v. 12 , 13 , &c. as for the second , he tells them , he was no farther concerned either about life or death , but that christ might be magnified in his body . if he lived , his life was wholly devoted to the service of christ , and of his church ; if he died , it would be for his own great advantage . to me to live is christ , and to die is gain ; vers . 20 , 21. and this made it a hard choice to him , whether he should desire to live or die : whether he should get rid of his bonds , and make his escape out of a troublesom world into the regions of ease and rest , to reap the fruit of his labours here in the eternal enjoyment of his lord , whom he had so faithfully served ; or whether he should live to encounter with a thousand difficulties and deaths in the service of christ , and of the souls of men. what i should chose i wot not : for i am in a strait betwixt two , having a desire to depart and to be with christ , which is far better : nevertheless , to abide in the flesh is more needful for you . was there ever such a dispute as this before , that a man , who was as certain to go to heaven , as he was to die ; who had himself been snatch'd up into the third heavens , and had his mind possest with strong and vigorous and lively idea's of the glories of that place , who had seen and heard such things as could not be expressed ; who saw a crown , a glorious immarcessible crown prepared for him ; i say , that such a man should make any question what he should chose , whether immediately to take possession of this crown and kingdom , or to live longer in this world to suffer bonds and imprisonments , hunger , and cold , and stripes , and all the ill usage , which he had so often met with , for no other reason but still to preach the gospel , and to enlarge the borders of christ's church . what a contempt is this , not only of the little pleasures and satisfactions , but even of all the miseries of life ! what a triumph is this over the world , over all the frowns and terrours of it ! what a triumph is this over self ! such a degree of self-denial as the gospel it self does not command , which is in some sence to deny heaven , to deny all the joys of christ's presence for the sake of doing good ! for it is to delay , to put off heaven , to adjourn his own happiness , that he may live the longer to serve his great master , though with great difficulties and labours . what love was this to his lord ! what love was this to the souls of men ! it is certainly the most perfect imitation of the love of christ , that is possible to man ; christ so loved us as to come down from heaven to live a laborious life , and to die an accursed death for us ; this great apostle so loved his lord , and so loved the souls of men , that he made it his choice to stay some time out of heaven , and to encounter all the miseries and terrours of this life , to serve christ and his church . where is this divine spirit now to be found ! let us , my beloved brethren , who are entrusted also with the care of souls by the great shepherd and bishop of our souls , blush to think how far short we fall of this example : let this inspire us with a flaming love and zeal for the souls of men , for whom christ died , and make us at least contented to deny our selves some of the ease and security and pleasures of life , to serve the church of christ , which he hath purchased with his own blood . but to keep my self within some bounds , i shall briefly discourse on these two heads , which are very proper for this occasion , and very proper to my text. first , the great rewards of faithful pastors and ministers of christ , and how much it is for their advantage to be removed out of this world. st. paul was very sensible of this , which made him desire to depart , and to be with christ , which is far better . secondly , how necessary the lives of such men are to the church , and what a great loss it is , when god removes them out of it . nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you . 1. let us then consider in the first place the great rewards of the faithful ministers of christ , and how much it is for their advantage to depart , and to be with christ. now i do not here intend a comparison between heaven and earth : good god! what different things are these ? and what christian doubts , whether heaven be a happier place than this world ? heaven ! whither no troubles or sorrows can follow us ; no persecuting sword , no persecuting tongue : where we shall be delivered from all the wants , necessities , and infirmities of the body , from hunger and cold and nakedness , from wracking pains and languishing sicknesses ; where there is eternal ease and rest and joy , without labour , without discontents , without quarrels ; where our souls shall be perfected in knowledge and in love ; where we shall dwell in the presence of god , see him as he is , and know him even as we are known ; where we shall dwell with christ , adore his love , behold his glory , and be transformed our selves into the likeness and image of his glory . we have but obscure imperfect conceptions of these things now ; heaven will out-do our highest expectations , as much as the most perfect state of happiness in this world , always falls short of what we expected ; and this is the case of all good men , it is a mighty happy change they make , when they remove from earth to heaven . but there are different degrees of glory in the next world , proportioned not only to our different attainments in vertue , but to those different trusts and services which we have been employed in , and have faithfully discharged here . we read of the reward of a prophet , that he who gives a cup of cold water to a prophet in the name of a prophet , shall have a prophets reward , which must signifie some peculiar reward that shall be bestowed on prophets : we know so little of the other world , that we cannot conceive , what these different rewards shall be : the prophet daniel represents it by an external glory , 12 dan. 3. and they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament , and they that turn many to righteousness , as the stars for ever and ever . but our saviour represents this by a different degree of rule and empire , 12 luke 42. 43 , 44. and the lord said , who then is that faithful and wise steward , whom his lord shall make ruler over his houshold , to give them their meat in due season : this is the honourable character of gospel ministers in this world , that they are rulers in god's houshold , to instruct and feed them with the word of life ; and their reward is proportioned to their work ; blessed is that servant , whom his lord , when he cometh shall find so doing . of a truth i say unto you , that he will make him ruler over all that he hath . what this rule signifies in the other world is a mystery to us , especially since we have fancied the other world to be only a state of contemplation , not of action , where we shall have nothing to do but to see god , and to love and to praise him , but no service to do for him ; but we know there are different orders of angels , who are imployed in great trusts and offices , arch-angels , angels , thrones , dominions , principalities and powers , which are names of rule and government , though we know not what their power and authority is nor how they govern ; in like manner our saviour promises his apostles , verily i say unto you , that ye which have followed me in the regeneration , when the son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory , ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of israel , 19 matth. 28. the like we may see in the parable of the pounds and talents ; he who had gained ten pounds had rule over ten cities ; and he who gained five pounds had rule over five cities : for these servants to whom the lord gave these pounds and talents to improve , plainly signifie his stewards , and the ministers of his spiritual kingdom : for no other persons have in so peculiar a manner , this honourable character of the servants of christ throughout the gospel . and if there be order and government among the angels themselves , why should we think that there is nothing like this among glorified saints ? if angels are the ministers of god , there is no reason to think that heaven is a state of meer rest and contemplation , especially when happiness consists in action . and if christ have any ministers of his spiritual kingdom in the next world , it is most reasonable to think , that those shall have the greatest authority , and be employed in the noblest services , who have been his faithful stewards and ministers in this world. for the church on earth and in heaven is the same church , though their state be very different ; and therefore they do not lose their relation to christ , nor their station in his church by removing to heaven . it is a sacerdotal kingdom , our high priest is king , and therefore a priest of jesus , how mean soever this be thought now , will be one of the highest characters in heaven . what the happiness of this is we cannot tell ; but we know that there are no empty titles in heaven , but every degree of dignity there signifies a peculiar degree of happiness , and what an advantageous exchange then is it for a faithful minister of jesus to be removed from earth to heaven . for let us consider what the state of christ's ministers is in this world ; what it was in st. paul ' s days he tells us , 2 cor. 6. 4 — 10. in all things approving our selves as the ministers of god , in much patience , in afflictions , in necessities , in distresses , in stripes , in imprisonments , in tumults , in labours , in watchings , in fasting ; by pureness , by knowledge , by long suffering , by kindnesses , by the holy ghost , by love unfeigned , by the word of truth , by the power of god , by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left ; by honour and dishonour , by evil report and good report , as deceivers and yet true ; as unknown and yet well known ; as dying and behold we live , as chastened and not killed ; as sorrowful , yet always rejoycing ; as poor , yet making many rich ; as having nothing , and yet possessing all things . which describes a most laborious life , a scene of wants , of difficulties , of sufferings ; a perpetual exercise of passive vertues , to reconcile the most appearing contradictions , to live and struggle and contend in this world , and to fetch their comforts and supports from heaven . this indeed is not always the state of the christian church , nor of the ministers of it ; but yet in the greatest external prosperity of the church , the ministers of religion , who discharged their trust with diligence and faithfulness , find many difficulties to encounter . the care of mens souls is itself a mighty trust , and who is sufficient for these things ? consider but the charge st. paul gives to timothy 1 epist. 4. 11 , &c. let no man despise thy youth , but be thou an example of the believers , in word , in conversation , in charity , in spirit , in faith , in purity ; give attendance to reading , to exhortation , to doctrine , neglect not the gift that is in thee , which was given thee by prophesie , by laying on of the hands of the presbytery : meditate upon these things , give thy self wholly to them , that thy profiting may appear to all ; take heed to thy self , and to thy doctrine ; continue in them , for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self , and then that hear thee . here is work enough to employ the whole man , and our utmost care and diligence and prudence ; work for the study , for the closet , for the pulpit , as the same apostle exhorts and charges timothy , to preach the word , to be instant in season , out of season , to reprove , rebuke , exhort , with all long-suffering and doctrine , 2 tim 4. 2. but yet though there be labour and diligence in this , it would be a delightful work , were our labours always blessed with success ; could we rescue the souls of men from the dominion of their lusts , and from the power of the devil , could we turn them from darkness to light , and from the power of satan unto god , but we must often expect to labour all might and catch nothing , we must contend with the lusts and vices of men , must bear their folly , their frowardness , their reproaches , and censures , and injuries , be thought troublesome , pragmatical , and busie-bodies , for our charitable exhortations and reproofs , and watchfulness over their souls . and when the church is at ease and rest from without , how often is it rent and torn in pieces with schisms and heresies ? as st. paul fore-warned timothy , the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine , but after their own lusts , shall they heap to themselves teachers , having itching ears , and they shall turn away their ears from the truth , and be turned unto fables , 3 , 4. ver . and what infinite labours and difficulties does this create to the ministers of the gospel , to heal the breaches of the church , to confute heresies , atheism , infidelity , and to be scorned and persecuted for it with a bitter rage and zeal . that st. paul might well add , but watch thou in all things , endure afflictions , do the work of an evangelist , make full proof of thy ministry , 5 verse . we ought not indeed to be discouraged by such difficulties as these , because our reward will be great in heaven , but it will be a happy day , when our warfare shall be accomplished , when we shall cease from our labours , and our works shall follow us : when we can say with st. paul , i have fought a good fight , i finished my course , i have kept the faith , henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness . 2. thus to die is their gain , nevertheless , it is more needful for the church , that they should abide in the flesh : and a great loss it is to the church , when they die . i need not use many words about this , for the case is plain . the death of every good man who is very useful to the world , in what way soever he be useful , is a very great loss ; for death puts an end to his doing any more good in this world : but as to take care of the souls of men , is to do the greatest good to mankind , because the happiness of our souls is of the greatest concernment to us , so to lose a faithful and a prudent guide must be the greatest loss . we indeed of this church , have great reason to bless god , that he has sent forth so many able and painful labourers into his harvest , that it is not the loss of every good man that can much affect us at ordinary times : for there are great numbers of wise and good men to perpetuate a succession of able and faithful guides : but a st. paul is at any time , and in any age of the church a great loss : nay , men who are much inferiour to st. paul , but yet fitted with peculiar abilities to serve the church at some certain seasons , and in some difficult circumstances , are a very sensible loss at such a time , when their service is most needful . a man of council and conduct , who is fit to sit at the helm , and knows how to steer in a storm , is a great loss , in times of difficulty and trouble , when the church is assaulted on all hands , and it is hard to avoid one mischief or inconvenience without running into another . a man of goodness and temper , who knows how to govern his own passions , and how to soften and manage the passions of other men , is a very sensible loss , when the passions of men are broke loose , and disturb the peace of the church , and even threaten the ruine of it . a man of learning and sound judgment , who can distinguish between truth and errour in all its most artificial and flattering disguises , is a great loss , when old errours are revived , and new ones broached ; when we must dispute over again the very being of a god , the truth of the scriptures , and articles of the christian faith. a man of great diligence and industry , courage and resolution , to defend the truth , to oppose heresies and schisms , to preserve the unity of the church , and the integrity of the christian faith , is a very great loss , when the church is encompassed and assaulted with busie and restless enemies . a man of an exemplary life , and untainted vertue , who shines like a light in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation , who maintains the declining honour and repuration of religion and true vertue , is a mighty loss in a profligate age , when men are grown such strangers to the sincere practice of vertue and religion , that they begin to think there is no such thing . but i can go on no farther , the very mentioning of these things brings the fresh idea of our deceased brother to mind , and the afflicting sense of that great loss , which we suffer by his death . it becomes us to reverence and adore the wisdom of the divine providence , even when we cannot understand the reasons of it . we are certain god is never wanting in his care of his church , and yet had we been made judges of this case , we should have thought it a very ill time to have spared him . he was abundantly furnished with all good learning , both for use and ornament ; he was an accomplished scholar , and a well studied divine ; he knew books and read them , and judged of them : he was a scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven , who like a housholder could bring forth out of his treasure things new and old , 13 matth. 52. he had carefully perus'd the ancient philosophers , orators and poets , to discover what nature taught , which gave him a truer knowledge and greater value for the excellency and perfection of the gospel-revelation . he had true and clear notions of religion , and he was master of them ; he knew why he believed any thing , and was neither prejudiced nor imposed on by popular opinions ; he was a hearty and zealously assertor of the doctrine , worship , government and discipline of the church of england ; he saw nothing material , which could be changed for the better , which made him jealous of innovations , as not knowing where they would end . he was a friend to all sincere christians , pittied their mistakes , and bore with their frowardness , but did not think that christian charity required him to sacrifice truth , or good order and government to the pretences of peace and unity . he was for several years a very diligent and constant preacher to a numerous auditory , till his own diocesan who knew his worth , and the weakness of his constitution , and was desirous to preserve him for the service of the church , provided this place where we now are , for his ease and health , and retirement ; where he lived many years a constant preacher , though his labours were then divided between his two cures , which did not lessen his preaching , but made the benefit of it the more diffusive . for indeed he was an admirable preacher , not for noise and lungs , but for well digested useful pious discourses , delivered with all that becoming gravity , seriousness , and a commanding elocution , as made them sink deep into the minds of his hearers , and made them hear . this i speak with assurance and confidence in this place , which was so long blessed with his labours , with what fineness of thought , perspicuity and easiness of expression instructing and entertaining images of things , he expounded the doctrines , and inculcated the laws of our saviour ; how plainly he taught , with what vehemence and passion he exhorted , with what tender sharpness he reproved : remember how he used both to please and instruct , to chide and shame you without making you angry , how he has warmed and chaffed your minds into the most pious and serious resolutions , and sent you home from this place wiser and better then you came ; and if you grew cold , and suffered your good resolutions to die again , consider i beseech you , what account you have to give . as he grew in years , it was necessary by degrees to ease his labours , he could not preach so often , but yet continued to preach . and yet had he not preached at all , or much less then he did , he had not ceased to be a very useful pastor to the church ; for he was a man of great experience , and great prudence and fore-sight ; fit for government and counsel ; who knew men and things ; was dexterous in his applications , zealous without passion or peevishness , steady and resolved without violent oppositions , and needless provocations ; who served the church and the truth with little noise , and without making many enemies : and i am sure at such a time as this , there is more need of such men , and a much greater scarcity of them , than of good preachers but he was not only a good preacher and a prudent guide , but a very good man : he preached continually by his life and example : his conversation was innocent , entertaining , and useful ; he was a true sincere friend , very courteous , affable , civil to all men , but never pretend friendship where he had none : he was ready to do all good offices , was liberal , generous , and charitable ; a man of a true publick spirit , who scorned to serve himself to the injury of others , who hated little arts and tricks , mean and servile compliances : he was an open and generous enemy , if we may ever call him an enemy , who never wished , never intended any hurt to any man ; but my meaning is , that when any dispute and quarrel happened , as such things will sometimes happen , he was open and undisguised , any man might know what he disliked , and had no reason to fear any thing worse from him , than what he would tell them . in a word , he was a very good christian , and that made him good in all relations , and that crowned all his other labours ; he took care as st. paul did , lest while he preached to others , he himself should become a cast-away . and now he is gone to rest , and we must all shortly follow him ; god grant that we may all so run our race , and finish our course , that when we depart this life we may rest in him , as our hope in this our brother doth , and may receive that crown of righteousness , which god the righteous judge , will at that day bestow on all his faithful servants , and on all those who love his appearing . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. pauls , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . second edition , 4to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and answerer . 4to . a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend b. calamy , d. d. 4to . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . 4to . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts with the vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . 4to . a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. 4to . a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor , and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday nov. 4th . 1688. 4to . a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god , &c. the second edition . 4to . the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers stated and resolved according to scripture , reason , and the principles of the church of england . sixth edition . 4to . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers , &c. 4to . a sermon preach'd at white-hall before the queen , on the 17th of june , 1691. being the fast-day . 4to . a practical discourse concerning death . the fifth edition . 8vo . a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . third edition . 8vo . a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons at st. margarets westminster , january 30th . 1691 / 92 4to . a sermon preached before the queen at whitehall , febr. 12th . 1691 / 92. 4to . the charity of lending without usury , and the true notion of usury stated , in a sermon preach'd before the right hounourable the lord mayor at st. bridget's church , on tuesday in easter-week , 1692. 4to . a sermon preach'd at the temple-church , may 29. 1692. and printed at the desire of the bench-table of the honourable society of the inner temple . 4to . a sermon preached before the queen at white-hall , june 26th . 1692. 4to . printed for w. rogers . a sermon preached at st. margarets westminster, may 29, 1685, before the honourable house of commons by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1685 approx. 30 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59874 wing s3345 estc r21741 12568035 ocm 12568035 63398 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59874) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63398) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:15) a sermon preached at st. margarets westminster, may 29, 1685, before the honourable house of commons by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 32, [2] p. printed for j. amery ..., and a. swalle ..., london : 1685. running title: a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -o.t. -ecclesiastes x, 17 -sermons. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-02 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached at st. margarets westminster , may 29. 1685. before the honourable house of commons . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for i. amery , at the peacock in fleetstreet ; and a. swalle , at the unicorn at the west-end of st. pauls church-yard . 1685. 10 eccles . 17. blessed art thou , o land , when thy king is the son of nobles . when the lord turned again the captivity of zion , we were like them that dream . then was our mouth filled with laughter , and our tongue with singing : then said they among the heathen , the lord hath done great things for them . which the psalmist spoke of the deliverance of the jews from the babylonish captivity ; but is very easily and naturally applied to the occasion of this present solemnity . for i hope we have not so soon forgot with what surprizing joy we beheld our banished prince return again to his throne , who brought back with him our laws ; our liberties , and our religion ; that is , brought england into england again , which was banished with its prince , without changing its place and climate . and though that beloved and admired prince , who gave the first lustre and glory to this day , now sleeps with his fathers , and has onely left us the memory of his princely vertues to adorn the records of time , and the succession of english kings , yet this day ought not to be forgot , which restored to us not onely a mortal prince , whom we could not expect should live for ever , but the royal family , which we hope and pray may be immortal . though the great charles be dead , the king lives still in his royal brother , who was the rightful heir of his crown , and the partner of all his joys and sorrows , who was banished with him , and who returned with him , and augmented the brightness of this day by his united beams ; a prince who equals the greatest examples of former kings , and , as we have reason to hope , will leave a greater to those who follow . it was not the throngs and crowds of people , which met their returning prince , nor those loud and joyful acclamations wherewith they welcomed him to his country and throne ; it was not the external pomp and splendour of the show , though as magnificent as art and nature could make it ; nay , it was not meerly the transporting sight of a prince , who was now endeared by long absence , and by the oppressions and injuries of usurpers , who after ten thousand indignities returned with all the expressions of a princely goodness and indemnity : i say , though these were all very affecting circumstances , and added much to raise and heighten a present passion , yet they were not the true glory of this day , which consisted in restoring the english monarchy in the royal line : for this we bless god , and for the continuance of this we pray this day ; and if we believe king solomon , there is great reason for both ; for it is as great a blessing as any nation can enjoy : blessed art thou , o land , when thy king is the son of nobles . the words are so plain , that i cannot think of any plainer to express their sence by ; and therefore not to loose time in a needless explication , there are three things observable in them . 1. that kingly government is a great blessing : for it cannot be a blessing to have our king the son of nobles , if it be not a blessing to have a king. 2. that the noble descent and extraction of a king is a great blessing to a nation , as my text expresly says , blessed art thou , o land , &c. and the natural inference from this is , 3. that an hereditary monarchy is a great blessing : for we are secure , that our kings are the sons of nobles , when the son inherits the fathers crown . 1. that kingly government is a great blessing . as for that dispute , whether kingly government be by divine right , if by divine right we mean a positive law and institution of god , that all nations shall be governed by kings , i find no such thing in scripture , which is the onely revelation of the divine will ; but if by divine right , we mean onely such an intimation of the will of god , as we can learn from the appearances of nature and providence , i dare boldly affirm , that kingly government is by divine right ; that is , is most agreeable to all those notices we have of the will of god from the original frame and constitution of nature , and from the dispensations of providence ; which though it be not sufficient to condemn all other governments as unlawful , yet it advances monarchy above all other forms of government , when it appears , that god himself has at least given the preference to it . the history of the creation is a plain proof of this ; for god made but one man , to whom he gave the dominion and empire of the world , who was the natural lord as well as father of all his posterity ; which is as good an argument for the natural institution of monarchy , as gods creating but one man and one woman is against divorce , which yet is our saviours argument , 10 mark 7 , 8 , 9. thus it was at the new peopling of the world after the floud ; god left but one independent head of a family , noah , who had a paternal and regal authority over his sons and their posterity : so that mankind were born under a monarchical government , which therefore is the first and the most natural government , instituted by god by the very laws of our creation ; for when god made but one man , who by the law of nature has a right to govern his own children , ( who then were all mankind ) he made him a natural monarch . we have no histories of those times to acquaint us how the government descended ; but we have all the reason in the world to believe , that as adam and noah govern'd by a paternal right , so when mankind increased , and grew too numerous to dwell together , they were formed into distinct kingdoms , under the government of the heads and princes of their several families ; for in those days they knew no other right of government but what was natural and paternal . i urge this onely to prove that monarchy is the original form of government instituted by god himself ; not that every monarch must have the same right to government which adam and noah had ; for then there is no prince in the world can make good his title to the crown : but these are very distinct questions , what is that form of government which god appointed ? and by what right a particular prince can challenge this authority ? in the first ages of the world , while the lineal descent of families was known , there could be no dispute about the succession ; but when the numbers of men increased , and families were divided and sub-divided , and intermixt with each other , when these little independent princes invaded their neighbours , and enlarged their dominions by force and power , the right of government altered , but the form of government was the same still . and though a prince now governs not by a paternal right as adam and noah did , but by the election of the people , or by the right of conquest , or by a succession from ancient kings , who have been long possest of the throne , the monarchy is the same , though the claim to soveraign power varies . gods original institution of monarchy in a paternal government justifies the form , whatever dispute there may be about the right of succession . and therefore we find , when this original title of paternal authority failed either by force and usurpation , or for want of knowing the true heir , yet monarchy continued , and all the world was governed by kings , and knew no other government , till greece and rome set the example , who changed the regal power into aristocracies and common-wealths . and to satisfie us , that god still approved of kingly government , even after the distinction made between paternal and regal authority , we may observe , that by a positive institution god erected a monarchy , but never set up a common-wealth . the jewish government was properly a theocracy , god was their king in a more peculiar manner than he was the king of other nations : he dwelt among them in the tabernacle or temple , gave them a body of laws , appointed officers under him to administer the affairs of his kingdom , and in all emergent difficulties gave immediate orders and directions what to do ; but yet he appointed a single person to be his vice-roy , and invested him with the soveraign power . thus moses while he lived was king of ieshurun , and after him ioshua , and the judges succeeded him , whom god raised up in an extraordinary manner , as occasion required , to fight their battels , and to rescue them out of the hands of their enemies ; and when there was no extraordinary judge , the high priest was their ordinary ruler , who governed with a soveraign authority . and when in time they grew weary of this , and affected the external pomp and splendor of a court , and a visible soveraign prince like their neighbour-nations ; though god was angry with them for rejecting his government , yet he himself chose them a king ; and after saul , invested david with the regal power , and entailed it on his family . all this was done by the immediate order and appointment of god , which cannot be said of any other form of government . aristocracies and democracies were a defection from regal power occasioned by the ill government of princes , or by the giddiness and licentious humour of the people , who are fond of liberty , power , and innovations : but though god by his providence permitted such changes of government , he never by a visible authority and direction formed and modelled a commonwealth as he did the jewish monarchy . but whatever be determined as to the original of monarchy , that which i am at present concerned for are the advantages of it , that it is the most happy government we can live under . supposing our prince to be wise and vertuous , there can be no competition between the government of one and of many . soveraign power in one hand lies more ready for action , because it has but one will , and needs not number votes , nor wait the consent of different inclinations and interests , which many times le ts slip the proper seasons of action , and defeats the best designs . a soveraign prince may have what advice he pleases , and follow what he likes best without delay : he may have a multitude of counsellours without danger of faction , while he judges for himself . but in popular governments , where there is no one soveraign will and reason , but all have equal authority , how unequal soever their skill and their honesty be , when power is thus parcelled out into several hands , it is usually divided against it self too , and grows weak by intestine factions . though there is great safety in a multitude of counsellours , when there is one commanding and soveraign will , yet there is no great likelihood of agreement between a multitude of petty soveraigns , where every man has an equal power , and every man judges his own reason the best , or at least as good as his neighbours . this is just as if the same body should be animated by several souls , which have all of them distinct wills and appetites , and do not always consent in the same thing . there is not a greater plague to humane societies than state-factions , and it is hardly possible that a popular government should be freed from them . the ambition of some , the jealousies and emulations of others , private quarrels , or private interests , perfidiousness and treachery , or an affection of popularity , some or all of which are the natural and almost necessary effects of a popular government , are the very seeds of faction and sedition , and though the major vote determines all , yet the quarrel does not end there , especially if the prevailing counsels want success . the people must be made judges of what the senators do , and the nation is presently divided into as many parties and factions as the senate is . the roman commonwealth it self , though the most flourishing that we read of in any story , has too many examples of this , witness marius and sylla , caesar and pompey . there is seldom any peace and order long preserved in such governments , but when some one or a few great men have got the ascendant , and by their interest and authority give laws to all the rest ; that is , where there is a kind of regal power under the name and appearance of a commonwealth . as for the publick good , i cannot but think it more secure in one hand than in many . a soveraign prince is the father of his country , and can reasonably have no distinct interest from the publick : for his kingdom is his inheritance , and his glory and power consists in the happy and flourishing state of his people . when his kingdom is well govern'd , his subjects pleased and easie , this makes him beloved at home , and feared abroad . the glory is intirely his own , as the shame and dishonour of a misgovernment is ; which are very powerful passions in great minds , but lose their effect in popular governments , where the glory and the shame is divided among so many , that it is despised by all . we may expect a more impartial administration of justice from a soveraign prince , who is equally concerned in all his subjects , than when the power is divided among a great many , who have their several friends , relations , and dependants to serve , and whose fortune does not set them above the temptations of bribery and injustice . there is more apparent danger of oppression , when there are so many to raise their fortunes by the government , who have private interests and designes , and must be paid well for their publick service . whereas no prince ought to think himself poor , while his subjects are rich ; and nothing can reasonably tempt an hereditary monarch to drain his subjects to fill his own exchequer , but their factious or sparing humour ; then indeed it concerns a prince to get and to keep money by him , when he finds so much occasion for it , and sees it so hard to come by . but this is the fault of the subject , not of the prince : for were subjects dutiful and obedient , quiet and peaceable , and ready at all times to grant supplies , as the support of the government needed , without difficulty or dishonourable terms , he must be a strange prince , who would oppress his subjects , when he knows he may have what he can reasonably desire , without oppression ; when his subjects pockets are as open , and a more increasing exchequer than his own . but the most fatal cheat in popular governments , is the name of liberty , though the power be as absolute and dispotical , as can be exercised by any prince ; and the onely pretence of liberty is this , that they are slaves to their equals , and enslave one another by turns . but i shall say nothing to this , since our late dear-bought experience has taught us the difference between the new-modelled government of our fellow-subjects , and of a natural prince . so that though we can have no mathematical certainty in these cases , yet all the fair appearances of reason give the advantages for a happy government on the side of monarchy ; the onely danger is , if our prince should happen to prove a tyrant , and then he may do almost as much mischief as a tyrannical commonwealth : for it is probable , that five hundred tyrants would do more mischief than one . but that which may equally happen under all forms of government , is an argument against none . the divine providence will rectifie such miscarriages , as cannot be prevented by any humane care . and yet this , which is the onely possible objection against monarchy , is in a great measure prevented by the noble extraction , and the generous education of princes ; which is the second thing observable in my text. 2. that the noble descent and extraction of a king , is a great blessing to a nation . blessed art thou , o land , when thy king is the son of nobles . and there are two things , wherein this blessedness consists . 1. that the sons of nobles are usually better qualified for government than mean persons . 2. that nobility of birth gives lustre and authority to their government . 1. that the sons of nobles ( especially the sons of kings , not to meddle at present with other nobles ) are usually better qualified for government than meaner persons : i say usually ; for in moral causes , and free agents there can be no rule without exception . persons nobly descended may degenerate from the vertues of their ancestors , and men of mean birth and fortune may have great and generous minds , as if they had been made for rule and empire : but usually the fortune of mens birth and education fashions their minds , and fits them for a peculiar state of life , above or below which they are out of their natural sphere , and cannot observe a just decorum in acting a part , which does not properly belong to them . there are some princely vertues , which are necessary to a happy government , which cannot be easily learnt by mean persons ; a certain inbred greatness and generosity of mind , a sense of honour without pride or insolence , a love of justice without cruelty or revenge , a just esteem for riches without covetousness , a natural care of the publick good , and a delight and pleasure in generous actions , a steadiness of mind , which does not grow giddy with its own height ; courage and boldness in danger , prudence in council , dexterity in business , and a peculiar art and skill in knowing , and governing men . these are god-like dispositions of mind , which ( in that perfection , which is necessary to government ) seem to be originally owing to nature , though they may be cultivated by the happy circumstances of a noble birth and education . it has been often observed both of men and beasts , that they beget their like , not only as to their kind and species , but as to their peculiar qualities and natural vertues . a child very often resembles his father as much in the natural endowments and perfections of mind , as in external shape ; which is so certainly true , ( what ever the philosophy of it be ) that upon this account , the sons of nobles have the advantage of meaner births . a great and generous prince begets princes qualified to sway the scepter , and born with a kind of natural instinct of government . and besides this , the glory of their birth does early inspire them with great thoughts , and they are trained up betimes in the arts of government . those universal courtships and addresses they receive , teach them greatness of mind , mixt with affability , and a decent respect to inferiors ; for those who have been always accustomed to be treated with ceremony and awful regards , have a due sense of honour , but are not proud . for honour seldom swells mens minds , but when it is new . a plentiful fortune , to which they are born without their care and industry , is the best preservative against covetousness , which is an ignoble vice , and seldom possesses any man , but him who has known , what it is to want , and what it is to get an estate . and those who stand almost upon an even level with the throne ( as the sons of kings do ) have so easie an ascent thither , that it does not turn their heads with an unusual height , which is the common effect , that a great and sudden advancement has upon mean men , that they forget themselves and their just respects to mankind , which makes them proud and insolen tyrants when they are possest of sovereign power ; which shows us , what a happiness it is to live under the government of a prince , who is nobly descended ; for such persons , whatever other faults they may have ; have such royal vertues , as qualify them for excellent governours . 2. nobility of birth gives a luster and authority to such a prince's government . men do not love to submit to their equals or inferiors ; when such ascend the throne , they are despised and envied , and nothing but force and power can keep them there . but a high-born prince is the pride and the desire of a nation : he inherits the glory of his ancestors ; and the world presages great things of him , who descends from a race of kings ; no man thinks much to submit to him , who was born to govern , but those , who are impatient of any government , or ambitious of government themselves . we are contented to yield to those , whose glory we cannot rival , for competition is only among equals ; and since the government must be in some hand , it is most reasonable to consent in him , who by birth and fortune is advanced above all ; and that must make any government happy , which makes subjects willing to obey ; and nothing can so universally dispose people to a chearful obedience as this . 3. and this shows us the advantages of an hereditary monarchy . for the royal family is certainly the most noble : a king , who is the son of kings , to be sure is the son of nobles . and it is the highest and greatest nobility of which solomon speaks ; to be sure , what he says must be eminently true of the most noble bloud . a king's son , especially if he descend from an ancient race of kings , has as much the advantage of inferiour nobles , as they have of the gentry , or the gentry of meaner people . it is royal bloud , which inspires a princely mind , which is more noble still the further it is removed from its original . i cannot now discourse to you concerning the right of succession ; it seems most natural for a son to be heir to his father , and therefore to succeed to the crown of which he dyed possessed : for power descends as well as an estate , as the government of the family was the birth-right of the eldest son , as his fathers heir . but however that be , if it be so great a happiness to a nation to have a king the son of nobles , there is no such way to secure this as by a succession of kings of the same royal stock and family , whose glory and nobility increases with every succession , and gives a new greatness and authority to its government . but to hasten to a conclusion , the proper use of this discourse consists of two parts . 1. to bless god for the mercy of this day . 2. to be loyal to our king. 1. to bless god for the mercy of this day . it would be too melancholy a thought at this time to reflect on the sad face of things in these kingdoms , when an excellent prince was murdered by his own subjects ; the natural heir of the crown , and the whole royal family forced into banishment ; the ancient and loyal nobility and gentry under imprisonments and sequestrations ; the church of england robbed of its bishops and clergy , its worship and revenues , while some mean and ignoble persons trampled upon crowns and mitres , enriched themselves with the spoils of church and state , usurped the royal power , but governed like slaves . but this blessed day put an end to all these miseries and confusions ; god by a wonderful providence restored to us our king and royal family in peace and triumph , without the noise and alarms of war , without drawing the sword , or shedding english blood. he was driven out by victorious rebels , at the expence of a vast treasure , and more blood ; but was invited home again by a wearied and distracted people , who now felt the difference between the government of mean usurpers , and of a natural and high-born prince . and thus the nation recovered its ancient glory , and every subject their just rights ; and which is more valuable than all civil rights , the free profession and exercise of their religion , according to the doctrine and worship of the apostolick church of england , though some possibly may think it too late to glory in this now ; and it would be too late indeed , and would lessen the glory of this day , were the most holy religion of the church of england in any danger . but next to having our king of the communion of the church of england , we can desire no more , than to have a king , who will defend it ; which i am sure the primitive christians would have thought a great blessing ; and therefore this is a joyful day still , which brought back one prince to restore the church of england , and another to protect it ; for far be it from me , and from all loyal subjects to distrust those solemn and repeated assurances , which our king has given us of this matter . a prince , whose mind is as great and noble as his birth , who abhors all mean arts and equivocal reserves , and scorns either to dissemble what he believes himself , or to speak what be does not think . 2. as for loyalty , were it decent to conclude a discourse of kingly government without an exhortation to loyalty and obedience , it might be very well spared at this time , in such a presence , whose example preaches loyalty to the whole nation . and therefore i shall not run over all the topicks of obedience , but only urge some few things , which are proper to this argument , and to this present solemnity . it is a great happiness to a nation to have a king , who is the son of nobles . this happiness we at this day enjoy ; we live under the government of a king , who has royal bloud in his veins , and discovers a great and princely mind in all his actions , and this secures us of as much happiness as we can expect under any government ; but it is not meerly the wise conduct of a prince , but the governable temper of subjects too , which is necessary to make a nation happy . no government neither of god nor men can make those happy , who will not be governed . discontents and jealousies , and seditions turn the court into a camp , and exchange the civil government for military force and power ; and the best prince in the world can never govern to so great advantage , who is forced to govern by the sword. but when subjects love and reverence their king , and always believe well of him ; when they obey his laws , and comply with all reasonable intimations of his will , that is , when they may be governed like subjects , not like slaves , then a king has a fair occasion to exercise all the princely vertues and peaceful arts of government , to make his reign prosperous , and his subjects happy . i know no prince in any age , under whom an obedient and governable people might have lived more happily , than our late martyred sovereign ; and yet , what miseries and confusions did a factious and turbulent zeal create , which ended in as doleful a tragedy as ever the sun saw ? and when we remember those times , and consider how little a nation gains by seditions and rebellions ; unless men love rebellion for rebellions sake , there can be no great temptation in it though it were no sin. nay we may observe , that as an ungovernable temper will disturb the best and wisest governments ; so loyalty and obedience is a powerful obligation on princes to rule well ; for princes must value obedience and subjection as they do their crowns . to this we owe the present security and protection of the church of england ; for if there were nothing else to be liked in it , yet a generous prince cannot but like and reward its loyalty ; and it would seem very harsh for any prince to desire that religion should be turned out of the church , which secures him in a quiet possession of his throne . and therefore to conclude , i would desire you to observe , that it is a church of england-loyalty i perswade you to : this our king approves , commends , relies on , as a tried and experienced loyalty , which has suffered with its prince , but never yet rebelled against him ; a loyalty upon firm and steady principles , and without reserve . and therefore to keep us true to our prince , we must be true to our church and to our religion . it is no act of loyalty to accommodate or complement away our religion and its legal securities ; for if we change our religion , we must change the principles of our loyalty too , and i am sure the king and the crown will gain nothing by that ; for there is no such lasting and immoveable loyalty , as that of the church of england . i deny not , but some , who are papists , in some junctures of affairs may and have been very loyal ; but i am sure the popish religion is not ; the english man may be loyal , but not the papist ; and yet there can be no security of those mens loyalty , whose religion in any case teaches them to rebel . god grant the whole nation may follow the example of this honourable senate , to be loyal to their prince , zealous for the service of the crown , and true to the religion of the church of england , as dearer to them than their lives . to god the father , god the son , and god the holy ghost , three persons , and one eternal god , be honour , glory , and power , now and ever . amen . finis . sabbati 30 die maii , 1685. ordered , that the thanks of this house be given to dr. sherlock , for his excellent sermon yesterday preached before this house : and that he be desired by this house to print the same : and that mr. dolben do present him with the thanks , and acquaint him with the desire of the house . paul iodrell , cler. dom. com. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59874-e190 126 psal. 1 , 2. a sermon preach'd at st. paul's cathedral, november 22, 1699 being the anniversary meeting of the lovers of musick / by w. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1699 approx. 31 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 16 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59892 wing s3363 estc r4275 12019048 ocm 12019048 52602 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59892) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52602) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:19) a sermon preach'd at st. paul's cathedral, november 22, 1699 being the anniversary meeting of the lovers of musick / by w. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 27, [1] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1699. reproduction of original in huntington library. advertisement: p. [1] at end. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -liturgy. bible. -o.t. -psalms lxxxi, 12 -sermons. music in churches -early works to 1800. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preach'd at st. paul's cathedral , november 22. 1699. being the anniversary meeting of the lovers of musick . by w. sherlock , d.d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . published at the request of the stewards . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcix . psalm lxxxi . 1 , 2. sing aloud unto god our strength , make a joyful noise unto the god of iacob . take a psalm , and bring hither the timbrel , the pleasant harp , with the psaltery . to praise god is acknowledged by all men to be the most excellent part of divine worship ; it is the religion of happy creatures , and the natural homage due to infinite goodness , which is the most glorious perfection of the deity . it exercises the best passions of our souls in the most perfect manner , love , ioy , reverence , admiration , which are the proper passions of devotion , made for god , who is their last object ; and made for the praise of god , which is their most perfect exercise . we cannot well conceive , what other acts of religion can be proper for heaven ; when we shall be advanced to the utmost perfection of our natures ; when we shall have put off mortality and corruption , and all other wants with them ; when a complete and consummate happiness shall leave no more place for desire ; when we shall have nothing more to ask of god , nothing more to expect , but the secure possession and enjoyment of those pleasures which fill , but never satiate ; which are eternally repeated , and are eternally new and fresh : i say , in such a state as this , as faith will be turned into sight , and hope into enjoyment ; so prayer also , which is so great a part of the worship of sinners , and indigent creatures , will be all turned into thanksgiving and praise . now as for this reason st. paul prefers charity before faith and hope ; because , though they are admirable graces for the state of christians in this world , and absolutely necessary to carry us to heaven ; yet they cannot enter into heaven themselves , where charity attains its greatest glory and perfection ; so by the same reason it appears , that praise and thanksgiving is the most excellent part of worship , because this is the religion of heaven , and therefore ought to be the chief delight and entertainment of those who hope to go to heaven . but what is it to praise god ? is it only to sing aloud , and to make a joyful noise to god ? does it consist merely in the harmonious melody of voices , and musical instruments ? does he praise god best , who composes the best anthems , or sings them best ? or do we think , that we then praise god best , when we feel our selves the most transported and ravished with excellent musick , performed by the best voices , the choicest instruments , and the greatest masters ? this is a very easy and a pleasant way of praising god , if this would carry us to heaven ; but this is only to praise the musick , the composition , or the performance , when we think of nothing else , come for no other end , and mean no more by it . i would not have you mistake me ; i do not appear in this place at this time to decry or disparage the use of musick in the worship of god , which would neither become this presence , nor my own character ; but to persuade and direct you to turn the delights and charms of musick , into the raptures of devotion , which would the most effectually silence all the enemies of church-musick , and cathedral-worship , while as a divine poet of our own sings , this would visibly turn delight into a sacrifice . now since musick , whatever it be , and how well soever performed , is of no use or value in religion , but as it serves the true ends of devotion ; we must enquire , what that harmony and melody is , which is so acceptable to god ; how fit external and sensible melody is to promote this ; and how it may and ought to be improved to that purpose . 1. as for the first , i need not tell any man , who understands the nature of christian worship , that it is only the melody of the heart , as st. paul speaks , that pleases god ; all true christian worship , whatever the externals of it are , is the worship of the mind and spirit . this alone is that worship which it becomes a reasonable creature to pay to his maker , his sovereign lord and saviour , as the blessed virgin sang , my soul doth magnify the lord , and my spirit hath rejoiced in god my saviour . for it is the mind only that can praise god , though the tongue must sing his praises . the best composed hymns , the most musical instruments , the most charming voices , are but lifeless mechanical sounds , till they are animated and inspired by the devotion of the heart ; and god takes no more pleasure in the best voices , than in bodily strength or beauty . now the melody of the heart , is the consent and harmony of all the powers and passions of our souls in the praises of god. when love , and joy , and admiration , and the profoundest reverence bear their several parts , and offer up our whole souls as a living vocal hymn of praise : then we sing aloud in our hearts to god , when we feel the greatest transports and extasies of these divine passions , which swallow us up in god , and unite us to the heavenly quire : then we sing with true melody in our hearts to god , when these divine passions , which are essential to praise and thanksgiving , charm all our earthly passions into a calm ; quiet all their storms and tumults ; leave no jarring discords , no discontents , no solicitous cares , no jealousies , no envyings , to discompose the harmony of our souls , which must be all peace , all love , all joy , to sing with a true divine melody the praises of god. this , and nothing else , is the true praise of god , when our minds are filled with such bright ideas of his glory and perfections , with such a lively sense of his majesty , wisdom , goodness , power , discover'd in his great and wonderful works of creation , providence , and the redemption of the world by our lord jesus christ , as transport us with love , admiration , and joy. a heart thus full of god , will break forth into songs of praise ; when the fire is kindled within , as the psalmist observes from his own experience , we shall then speak with our tongues ; here our praises ought to begin , to be sure here they must always end , in the heat and fervour of our affections , and an inward feeling of the divine praises , if we would have them an acceptable worship of god. as far as the harmony of voices or musical instruments serve this end , they are excellent helps to devotion ; but it is only their subserviency to the devotion of the mind , which gives them any value , or allows them any place in religious worship . 2 dly . let us then consider of what use musick is to excite and quicken our affections , and to give a new life and spirit to devotion . man is not all soul and spirit , but a compound creature , consisting of soul and body ; and while our souls are vitally united to bodies , they receive most of their passions from them ; at least feel the most strong and vigorous motions from those impressions which our senses make ; and sight it self does not more variously affect our minds than hearing does ; words and sounds have very powerful charms , and give as quick a turn to our thoughts and passions , as sight it self ; and not only words , but even a diversity of sounds , are fitted by nature to express , and to excite very different passions . love , joy , admiration , desire , fear , sorrow , indignation , revenge , give some distinguishing notes and accents to the very voice , which no art , but nature teaches , and which betrays the passion without speaking a word ; and such different notes will also as forcibly imprint such passions on our minds , as they naturally represent , and that many times whether we will or no ; which is a great secret in nature , and shows an unaccountable sympathy between sounds and passions , which are by turns the natural effects and causes of each other : and there needs no other proof what the natural power of musick must be , to raise and to calm our passions ; and the experience of all mankind tells us , that thus it is ; when the composer knows how to fit notes to passions , which the knowledge of human nature , not the meer proportion of sounds must teach him . without this , a fine piece of musick is like a company of fine words put together , without any great sense or meaning ; they make a fine sound , and that is all . now if there be a natural sympathy , and mutual causality between sounds and passions , there is no doubt , but true devotional musick will excite or heighten our devotional passions , as we daily see and complain , that wanton and amorous aires are apt to kindle wanton fires ; for nature will act like it self , whether you apply it to good or to bad purposes . if there be no force in musick to give a good or bad tincture to the mind , why do any men complain of wanton songs ? they may then blame the poet , but neither the composer nor singer ; for the musick , it seems , does no hurt : if there be , why do they condemn church-musick , which will have as good an influence upon a devout mind , as the other has a bad one ? why then should any man think musick improper for the worship of god ? it is a natural power , though improved by art , as most other natural powers are ; and all natural powers are made for the worship and service of god , as far as they are capable of serving him ; which musick is in a very high degree , if it have such a natural power over our passions , as to increase and actuate , though it can't create devotion . both poetry and musick were originally used to celebrate the praises of god ; lost their glory , when they descended to meaner subjects , but were prophaned by a prostitution to mens lusts and vices . the first account we have of singing , is the song of moses , exod. 15. when god had made the children of israel to pass through the red-sea on dry ground , and had drowned the aegyptians ; and we can't have a more ancient account than this , which is the most ancient history in the world. and throughout the old testament , both vocal and instrumental musick , was not only used in the worship of god ; but this was the chief , if not the only use of it . this is acknowledged by all ; but some will not allow it to be a pattern for christian worship . they reckon musick among the ceremonies of the iewish law , sitted to the carnal state of that people , and abrogated with the other legal ceremonies , by the more perfect dispensation of the gospel , which requires a more spiritual worship . but a few words will shew , how unreasonable this pretence is . the song of moses and miriam was before the giving of the law , and therefore no part of it ; and though this is the first time we read of singing , there is no reason to think , that this was the first beginning of it . we read of no institution of singing , though we do of singers ; that singing seems as ancient and natural , as publick worship . but suppose singing had been part of the mosaical law ; the gospel of our saviour abrogates nothing of that law , but such types as receive their accomplishment in christ , or such appendant ceremonies as were meer signs and figures of an evangelical righteousness : but what is singing a type of , any more than speaking ? for it is only a more harmonious and emphatical way of speaking ; and i see no reason , why men may not reject vocal prayer , as well as vocal musick , because they were both used by the iews . whatever objections are now made against church-musick , which i have not now time particularly to examine , were as good objections in david's time , as they are now ; and yet then prophets composed hymns , and prophets set the tunes ; for so the chief musicians to whom david directs his psalms , as the titles of some of them express , were prophets as well as musicians ; and methinks men should speak more favourably of such practices as were under the direction and government of inspired men . in the vision of the prophet isaiah , 6 ch. 1 , 2 , 3 , v. the scraphims are represented crying one to another , holy , holy , holy , is the lord of hosts , heaven and earth are full of his glory . this is acknowledged to be a great example of antiphonal singing , in which one answers another . but then they say , this plainly refers to the ancient temple-worship , and must not be admitted a precedent for christian practice . but if the temple-worship be a fit precedent for the worship of angels , why may it not be a precedent for the worship of christians ? whose worship , as pure and spiritual as it is , falls vastly short of angelical worship . but do not the angels then thus worship god in heaven ? this would be a new objection against our liturgy , never thought of before , which in the te deum teaches us to sing , to thee all angels cry aloud , the heavens and all the powers therein . to thee cherubin and seraphin continually do cry , holy , holy , holy , lord god of sabbaoth . heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory . and if the angels thus sing in heaven , surely the precedent is not unworthy of the christian church on earth . the like representation we meet with of the four beasts , and twenty four elders , rev. 4. and the same answer is given to it , that the images in the apocalyptick visions are fetched from the law , and not from the gospel . but whence soever these images were originally taken , this book was directed to the christian churches , and therefore was a rule and precedent for them . it all along describes the state of the christian , not of the iewish church , and therefore their worship too : and if we look into the fifth chapter , we shall find these four beasts , and twenty four elders were christians , who were redeemed by the blood of the lamb , and sung the song of the lamb ; thou art worthy to take the book , and to open the seals thereof ; for thou wast slain , and hast redeemed us to god , out of every kindred , and tongue , and people , and nation , and hast made us unto our god kings and priests , and we shall reign upon the earth , ver. 9 , 10. this i take to be a christian hymn , and therefore a pattern for christian worship . and as much as some smile at the conceit , i can't but think , that the general exhortations in the new testament , to sing to god , to admonish one another in psalms , and hymns , and spiritual songs , singing and making melody in our hearts to the lord ; though they are not an apostolical institution of a quire , nor do prescribe the particular forms of cathedral worship ; yet they justify it all , as far as it is fitted to the true ends of devotion ; for the apostles knew after what manner they sung in the iewish church ; and had this been so unfit , as is pretended for christian worship , they would not have exhorted christians to sing , without giving them a caution against iewish singing . and now it does not seem to me much to the purpose , to enquire whether this practice was for any time intermitted in the christian church ; and when , and upon what occasion it was restored ; for if what i have now discoursed hold good , it justifies the use of musick in religious worship , whenever it can be had ; though there may be some times and circumstances , which will not allow it . though it could be certainly proved , that this was disused for the first three centuries in the christian church , while they were under a state of persecution : this would be no greater argument to me against cathedral-worship , than it is against cathedral-churches : the poverty and afflicted state of the church at that time would allow neither ; but prosperity by degrees restored them to both . we may as well argue against the use of musick in the iewish church , because under the babylonish captivity they hung their harps upon the willows , and refused to sing the songs of sion in a strange land , to those who carried them away captives . the primitive christians in those days never declared their dislike of this way of worship , but their condition would not bear it . no christian will deny , that singing the praises of god and their saviour , was always a principal part of christian worship , and therefore was the worship of the primitive christians , unless they were defective in a principal part of worship ; so that the only dispute can be about the manner of singing ; and the chief thing objected , is the antiphonal way of singing ; which is acknowledged to have been used in the iewish church , and therefore has the same authority that singing has : but yet i will yield the cause , if any man can give me a good reason , why it should be very lawful , and an excellent part of religion , for a hundred men , suppose , to sing a whole psalm together ; but very unlawful and a corruption of religion , to sing it alternately ; fifty to sing one verse , and fifty the next ; when by their answering each other , they mutually excite each other's devotion , and signify the consent and union of their prayers and praises in the whole . but setting aside the afflicted state of the christian church , the profess'd enemies of cathedral-worship allow us as great and early authorities as we desire . st. basil , st. ambrose , and st. chrysostom , always will be venerable names . the church was restored to peace but in the fourth century , and then this worship revived , and that by the authority and example of as great and good men as any the church had . that erasmus himself , and many reformers , were great enemies to this way of worship , as it was then practised in the church of rome , is no great wonder , when their hymns , as well as their prayers , being performed in an unknown tongue , all their singing was meer noise , which could contribute nothing to devotion . but this is no greater argument against our english hymns and anthems , than against our english prayers . if they meant any thing more , we must demand their reasons ; for as for authority , our own reformers , and reformation have , and that deservedly , a much greater authority in the world. but i must hasten to a conclusion , which brings me to the third thing i proposed , how musick may and ought to be improved to the purposes of devotion : and here i must beg leave to speak something briefly to three sorts of men ; composers , singers , and hearers ; which will serve for the application of the whole . first , as for composers , those who set our hymns and anthems to musical notes . i do not pretend to skill in musick , much less to be able to teach such great masters as this age hath bred ; but i hope in some measure i do , and may be allowed to understand and teach devotion , which is all i intend in this ; for that which according to all the rules of art must be allowed for excellent musick , may not always be proper for devotion . it is a great mistake in composing hymns , and anthems , to consider only what notes are musical , and will delight and entertain the hearers ; the true rule is , what notes are most proper to excite or quicken such passions of devotion , as the words of the hymn or anthem express . this indeed can't be done without skill in musick , but true devotion is the best directer of that skill ; for a devout mind will judge of the devotion , as a skilful ear does of the musick of sounds : that the most certain way for the greatest masters to compose such hymns and anthems as are fit for the worship of god , and may best serve the devotions of christians , is to work their own minds first into all those heights and flames of devotion , which they are to express in sounds : which they will find a double advantage in ; it will make them good christians , and admirable composers of church-musick . a devout ear without any great skill in musick , soon finds the want of this . a grave , serious mind , which is the true temper of devotion , is disturbed by light and airy compositions , which disperse the thoughts , and give a gay and frisking motion to the spirits , and call the mind off from the praises of god , to attend meerly to the agreeable variety of sounds , which is all that can be expected from such sounds as have nothing of devotion in them : which is so much the worse still , when , ( as is now grown very common in such compositions ) they are clogged with needless and endless repetitions . a repetition serves only to give an emphasis , and it requires a great judgment to place it right ; and is very absurd , when it is placed wrong ; but we often see , that there is too little regard had to this ; the skill of altering notes is the whole design , which , when there is not very great occasion for it , is like school-boys , varying phrases , or like ringing the changes ; which how entertaining soever it be , when we have nothing to do but to attend to sounds , is yet very nauseous and offensive to devout minds in religious worship . i thank god , the ordinary service of our church is very grave and solemn , and well fitted to devotion : and as for more modern compositions , the governors of churches ought to take care to receive nothing into the worship of god , but what is fitted to serve devotion ; and this would effectually answer the greatest objections against church-musick . secondly , as for those who are employed in singing the church-service and anthems , to assist the devotions of the congregation , it certainly becomes them to behave themselves very devoutly in it . musical instruments , which have no life and sense , may minister to our devotions , though they are capable of none themselves ; but it gives great offence and scandal , to see those who are daily employed in the singing praises to god , to shew no signs of devotion in themselves , much more by an irreverent behaviour to betray great symptoms of want of devotion . i thank god we have no great reason to make this complaint in this church , and , i hope , shall every day have less ; but this is a good occasion to mind all such persons , how devout they ought to be , ( if musick be a help to devotion ) ; who have this advantage from art and nature , first to excite their own devotions , and then to assist the devotions of others ; which last must be a very tasteless uneasy employment , if they have no devotion of their own . and a great reproach also to their art , when they themselves are witnesses , how little devotion it teaches . but there is one thing , which i believe is not so well considered , which yet is just matter of scandal ; for those who sing divine hymns and anthems at church , and whose profession it is to do so , to sing wanton and amorous , lewd , atheistical songs out of it . men , who have enter'd themselves into the service of the church , have consecrated their voices to god ; not so , as never to sing any thing else but hymns and anthems , but yet so as never to sing any thing to the reproach of god , religion , or virtue . this unbecomes any man , who calls himself a christian , much more those whose peculiar employment it is to sing the praises of god. thirdly , as for hearers , they ought also to consider , that their business at church is , not meerly to be entertained with musick , but to exercise their devotions , which is the true end of church-musick ; to praise god with the more fervent passions . it is a contempt of religion , and of the house of god , to come only to please our ears , to hear better voices , and more curious compositions , and more artful singing than we can meet with in other places . this i have reason to fear is the case of very many who resort hither ; who , especially on the lord's-day , crowd into the church to hear the anthem , and when that is over , to the great disturbance of the worship of god , and the scandal of all good christians , crowd as fast out again . though there is this good in it , that they make room for devouter people , who immediately fill up their places , to attend the instructions of god's word . but i hope this will not be charged upon the service of our church , that men who have no devotion , come only for musick : for church-musick can't create devotion , tho' it may improve it where it is . but indeed we ought all to be aware that the musick does not emply our thoughts more than our devotions ; which it can never do , if as common sense teaches us it ought to be , our minds be in the first place fixt and intent upon the praises of god , which are express'd in the hymn or anthem ; which when conveyed unto us in musical sounds , will give life and quickness to our devotions ; not first fixed on the musick , which most probably will leave the devotion of the anthem behind it . those who find that musick does not assist , but stifle their devotion , and many such there may be , had much better keep to their parish-churches , and prefer devotion before musick . for to come to church without any intention to worship god in his own house , or to pretend to worship him without devotion , are great affronts to the divine majesty . in a word ; those who profess themselves lovers of musick , ought to consider , what the true end of musick is ; and to improve it to the noblest purposes . the meer harmony of sounds is a very pleasant and innocent entertainment : of all the delights of sense , this is in it self the least sensual , when it is not abused to recommend vice , and to convey impure images to our minds : but yet meerly to be delighted with charming and musical aires , does not answer the true character of a lover of musick : for it is the least thing in musick to please the ear ; its proper , natural use , and the great advantage and pleasure of it , relates to our passions : to compose , soften , to inflame them ; and the diviner passions it inspires us with , the more it is to be admired and valued ; and then musick must attain its greatest glory and perfection in true devotion ; that the lovers of musick ought to be very devout men , if they love musick for that which is most valuable in it , and its last and noblest end. to conclude ; it concerns the lovers of musick to vindicate it from all prophane abuses ; not to suffer so divine a thing to be prostituted to mens lusts : to discountenance all lewd , prophane , atheistical songs , how admirable soever the composition be : to preserve musick in its virgin modesty , and without confining her always to the temple , make the praises of god her chief employment , as it is her greatest glory . thus i have spoke my mind very freely ; showed you the use , and the abuses of musick , which was one great inducement to me to comply with the desires of those honourable and worthy persons , who imposed this office on me ; that i might have an opportunity of saying that which i thought fit should be said at one time or other , and for saying of which , there could not be a more proper occasion than this . and i hope this may plead my excuse with all good christians , if it have drawn my sermon out to too great a length , and given too long an interruption to the entertainment of those , the least part of whose business it was to hear a sermon . to god the father , god the son , and god the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and ever . amen . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. paul ' s , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . printed for w. rogers . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting ●gainst protestant popery . 2d edit . quarto . an answer to the amic●ble accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . thirteen sermons preach'd on several occasions . quarto . a vindication of some protestant principles of church unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . quarto . a preservative against popery , in two parts ; with the vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . quarto . a discourse of the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. quarto . case of allegi●nce due to sovereign powers , stated and resolved , according to scripture and reason , and the principles of the church of england . quarto . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to sovereign powers . 4 to . a discourse concerning the divine providence . quarto . second edition . price 5 s. a vindication of the doctrine of the trinity . 3d edit . 4 to . a modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of oxford , and some heads of colleges and halls , concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the holy and ever blessed trinity . apology for writing against socinians . quarto . a vindication of the sermon of the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy ; in answer to some socinian remarks . quarto . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of the trinity . quarto . the distinction between the real and nominal trinitarians examined , in answer to a socinian pamphlet . quarto . a practical discourse concerning death . in octavo . tenth edition . price 3 s. a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . the fifth edition . octavo . price 3 s. 6 d. the present state of the socinian controversy , and the doctrine of the catholick fathers concerning a trinity in unity . 4 to . price 5 s. an answer to the animadversions on the dean of st. paul's vindication of the trinity . by i. b. a. m. quarto . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against socinians . quarto . an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 35 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 9 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59787 wing s3261 estc r10173 12385594 ocm 12385594 60835 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59787) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 60835) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 877:45) an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 14 p. printed for thomas bassett ..., london : 1687. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. trinity -early works to 1800. transubstantiation. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant , to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation . by way of short notes on the said dialogue . licensed december 7th . 1686. london , printed for thomas bassett at the george near st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . 1687. a dialogue between a new catholick convert , and a protestant . concerning the doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation . ( a ) this new catholick convert begins well , for the first thing he learns , is to believe the trinity to be a groundless , absurd , and unreasonable doctrine ; and then to believe whatever the church teaches , if it be not more absurd than the doctrine of the trinity ; this is a great improvement of faith , which we protestants can never attain to , for we cannot perswade our understandings or our faith to digest absurdities : but let us hear their dialogue . a. you cannot imagine how much i am overjoy'd to see you . i have been big with discourse these three days for want of utterance . you may remember , when we talk'd together last , ( b ) we parted in a dispute concerning transubstantiation and the holy trinity , of their equal reasonableness and authority . i must confess i was not at that time so thorowly arm'd with reasons to shew you the parallel : but since i have given my self a little leisure to consider of it , and i am perswaded i shall be able to give you satisfaction . ( b ) this is a little mistake , if we may guess at their last discourse by this dialogue ; for the design is not to prove , that transubstantiation and the holy trinity have equal reasonableness and authority , but that neither of them are reasonable , or have any authority . now though we may allow them to make as bold with transubstantiation as they please , yet we cannot but be sensible of that dishonour which is done to common christianity , by exposing the most sacred and venerable mystery of it to the scorn and derision of infidels and hereticks . for sure they cannot think it any great credit to the doctrine of the trinity ; that it cannot be proved , either by tradition , scripture , or reason , b. sir , you know i am always glad of any opportunity to gain your good company , but especially upon so good an occasion . i 'le assure you , i am not , nor ever was , an enemy to catholick communion ; and if i had not too just a cause , i should never suffer my self in that which without reasonable grounds might be call'd a wilful schism . a. i have no reason to doubt your integrity , and therefore shall not question that : i shall only desire the liberty to press my old argument , ( c ) that you would rely on the authority of the church . i must confess , you have often question'd the doing of it ; but i am sure , when you shall consider there are mysteries as well as doctrines in the christian religion , and when you know that ( d ) mysteries are not to be fathom'd by natural reason , you must needs conclude , that in some cases your ( e ) safest way is to trust tradition . now certainly no one can give us so good an account of that , as the church . ( c ) this opens the scene , and shews the whole design of this dialogue , to bring men to rely on the authority of the church ; and it is worth the while to consider , what a notable way this is . the new convert perswades his protestant friend to fling away sense , and reason , and scripture , and his own private judgment , and to rely wholly on the authority of the church ; for when these are out of the way , we may believe the church in any thing . no , saies the protestant , i can't believe that which is unreasonable and absurd , whoever tells it me . convert , don't you believe the doctrine of the trinity ? protest . yes , very heartily . convert . why then transubstantiation it self , which you protestants make such a noise about , is not more unreasonable , and has as good foundation in tradition and scripture , as the doctrine of the trinity . protest . say you so , my friend , then why must i believe the trinity ? conv. because the church teaches it , and for the same reason you must believe transubstantiation . protest . hold there , sir ! what if i will believe neither ? then i hope i need not rely upon the authority of the church . conv. but you confess you must believe the trinity . protest . yes , if it be founded on scripture and tradition , and do not contradict the reason of mankind , as i have thought hitherto ; but if you can perswade me otherwise , i will believe it no longer ; unless you can tell me for what reason i must believe that , which i have no reason to believe . wretched men ! who care not what becomes of christian religion , if they can but establish the authority of their church ! nay , care not how much they dishonour the church itself ; for it is no great commendation of church-authority in matters of faith , that the only use of it is to make men believe without reason , or in contradiction to it . for it seems , were the christian faith reasonable , there were no need of relying on the churches authority , at least they would want one of the best arguments to prove it . ( d ) there are some mysteries above reason , none contrary to it , as transubstantiation is . ( e ) the universal tradition of the church , in conjunction with scripture , i grant is a very good foundation for our faith ; but what shall we do , when there is no certain tradition , as he proves there is not for the doctrine of the trinity ; for though we should allow , that the safest way is to receive these traditions from the church , yet we cannot receive them from her , if she have them not ; and she cannot have them , if there be none ; and we must conclude there are none , if they be not visible . for the churches word ; whatever authority it have , is not tradition . b. but , sir , to be short , what relation has this to the present parallel of the trinity and transubstantiation ? the authority of the church is another point as disputable as that . a. very much : for as ( f ) these two doctrines have equal ground from scripture , reason , and tradition ; so ' is there the same obligation of your receiving one , as well as the other . and indeed i have since wonder'd at my own profession , ( g ) while a protestant , to think how blind and partial i was : but i must confess , because we are in a dispute , it is better laying by such aggravating circumstances ; and indeed i cannot but be sensible what prejudices such discourses always make , and therefore i shall speak nothing more of that nature . ( f ) that is none at all , as he attempts to prove ; and if the trinity have no better then transubstantiation it has none , and then let him show how we are obliged to believe either , as i observed before . ( g ) for what ? for not believing transubstantiation as well as the trinity ? did he then , while a protestant , believe the doctrine of the trinity to be as unreasonable , and to have no better foundation in scripture and tradition then transubstantiation ? for otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other , and if he did , he never understood his religion , and then no wonder that he takes sanctuary in a church which requires no use of his understanding . b. but to return to the main point ; i must tell you , i do not think them equally grounded on scripture , reason , or tradition ; and indeed you may remember that was the old point in dispute with us . a. ( b ) well , sir , to shew you your error , i shall begin with the several particulars in their order ; and so , first , as to the tradition of transubstantiation . now 't is evident that has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : that mystery was question'd in the very infancy of the church ; nay , not only so , but the arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the fourth age. on the other side , transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time ; and when it came to debate , there was no such opposition as that of arius , to call in question the authority of its tradition ; the church receiv'd it unanimously , and in that sense continu'd , till rash reason attempted to fathom the unlimited miracles and mysteries of god. ( h ) here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy : confidence is asserting what is false , that transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : for none of the ancient fathers make the least mention of it , neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after christ. he himself modestly grants , that the fathers are not half so express in the doctrine of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity : and when he grants half , you may safely conclude they say nothing of it : but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the fathers about transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the tradition , when it was wholly owing to the ignorance of the doctrine : it was not opposed in those days , because they never heard of transubstantiation , not because it was universally believed ; which is a reason indeed , why it should not be opposed , but not why it should never be mentioned . whereas from that opposition . arius and his followers made to the doctrine of the trinity , in the beginning of the fourth century , and that great alarum it gave immediately to the christian church ; it is evident that it was the received faith at and before that time ; for otherwise arius would not have opposed it , nor catholick bishops so zealously have defended it . b. but the fathers are not half so express in the doctrin of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity . a. that 's true , and there 's very good reason for it : transubstantiation has not been a doctrine so long in dispute , and 't is not customary for men to argue unquestionable truths . and whereas you may think that transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd repulses by your books , i 'le assure you , you forget how much the true catholick zeal destroys the seeds of heresies . do you think that so many bishops , not only of the eastern , but of the western church also , could be arians , and yet suppose that that opinion wanted ( i ) as plausible a pretence of tradition ? certainly if you consider that , you cannot think to establish the doctrine of the trinity by tradition more than transubstantiation ; especially considering the strong footsteps of that : sect even in the fathers now extant . i would cite you some of them , but that they are not so much to my main design , and indeed my aim is brevity . ( i ) arius did not set up upon tradition , but upon a pretence of scripture and reason , and if arianism had had so good a pretence to tradition , it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a doctrine at that time . it was never heard of before arius , and that is proof enough that it was no tradition of the church , though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the writings of the antient fathers as well as of the scriptures , to countenance that heresie ▪ b. well , sir , 't is true , we cannot so well plead tradition to what you have urg'd ; and especially when i call to mind , ( k ) that arianism was confirm'd by a general council : but we alledge an higher ground ; we stand upon the authority of the scriptures , and indeed that is the true thuchtone of all doctrine . ( k ) i hope he does not mean the council of nice , which was the first general council ; and assembled on purpose to establish the catholick faith in this point , and to condemn arius , a●d does the church of rome own any for a general council , which confirmed arianism ? the council of syrmium indeed , where liberius bishop of rome subcribe● the arian confession , may bid fair for it , if a council of eastern and western bishops confirmed by the pope , may pass for a general council ; but what then becomes of the infallibility of popes , and councils , and tradition ? this is a desperate man , who will not spare the church of rome her self , nor general councils if they stand in his way , rather than allow any tradition for the doctrine of the trinity . a. 't is true , if you will follow the catholick church , ( l ) and take the scriptures literally , you may discover the mystery of the holy trinity in them ; but if you once yield to figurative allusions and interpretations , the arians will be as much too hard for you , as you imagin your selves to be for the catholick church . ( m ) in short , both doctrines will be at a loss , and both equally require the authority of the church to support them . ( l ) if the trinity can be prov'd by scripture , that is all we desire , for i am sure transubstantiation cannot ; and as for literal or figurative expositions of scripture , neither of them must be always used , but as the subject matter and circumstances of the place require . ( m ) i thought the christian church had been built upon the faith of the holy trinity , not that supported by the authority of the church , unless the church can support her own foundation ; if there can be no christian church without baptism in the name of the father , the son , and the holy ghost , that is , without professing the faith and worship of the ever blessed trinity ; this doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any church , on whose authority we must believe it ; and therefore he has chose the unfittest doctrine to build on church authority that he could have thought on . b. o no , surely the doctrine of the holy trinity is more express in scriptures than so . a. to satisfie you that what i say is truth , because i may represent the parallel the clearer , ( n ) i will personate an arian , that sect so often condemn'd by the ancient church , and you shall see his plea against the trinity is as fair as yours against transubstantiation . and because this is the main parallel , i shall be somewhat the longer , that i may give you the greater satisfaction . ( n ) an excellent part for a roman catholick to act . we read that the devil sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light , but never that an angel of light transformed himself into a devil . to dispute seriously , and in good earnest against the scripture proofs of the trinity , as he here does , though with no great understanding , i should think little better then blasphemy ; it is what would have never been endured in the primitive church , and which i think no christians of any communion ought to endure ; for this is not the concernment of any particular church , but of common christianity . but though he can personate an arian so well , he should consider how he can dispute against him . he yields him all the scripture proofs for the trinity , as not sufficient without the authority of the church ; the arian thanks him for giving the scripture on his side , and is contented he should make the best he can of his church authority , and so continues an arian still . b. i shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter . a. ( o ) first then , i say , 't is highly unreasonable to interpret that text , 1 john 5. 7. that there be three in heaven that bear record , and those three are one ; as likewise john 10. 30. i and my father are one , literally ; for if we do , we not only oppose sense and reason , but we make construction directly against the very scripture , john 10. 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38. and john 17. 21 , 22 , 23. 1 cor. 3. 8. and what can be urg'd more against us in respect of transubstantiation ? b. very right , sir , that interpretation carries a forcible reasonableness , but the doctrine of the trinity do's not wholly depend upon those two proofs . a. right , it do's not ; but i can give you further demonstration in this parellel . a principal ground of the trinity is because the son is so often call'd god in scripture , as john 1. 1 , 2. rom. 9. 5. &c. now if we did not comply with the catholick church , and make a literal construction in this case likewise , how strangely should we be confounded by those texts ( 1 ) where this godhead in christ is declar'd to be no more than lordship , and subordinate to the father , as heb. 1. 8. 9. 1 cor. 8. 4 , 5. 1 cor. 15. 27 , 28. rev. 3. 12. and john 10. 35 , 36. b. but , sir , our saviour forgave sins too . a. that 's true , but ( 2 ) only by a deputed authority . you see when the sons of zebbedee petition'd him , he could not grant the final accomplishment of our spiritual warfare , that was the father's prerogative , matth. 2c . 23. and tho' he is to be our judge , yet he knows not the time , mark. 13. 31. 1 tim. 6. 15. b. i must confess , these things a little surprize me ; but however , i cannot think these neither the only grounds that support that mystery of the trinity . a. no , you are in the right ; there is one strong proof more ; the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the son , and that expresly , john. 1. 3 heb. 1. 10 and particularly , col. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. but yet for all that , if we do not adhere with the catholick church to the literal interpretation , we are at a loss there too : for , first , 't is plain by the rest of scripture , ( 3 ) that the son is not our only maker , as appears by our creation attributed to the father ; and then if we compare those texts to heb. 1. 2 , 9 , 10. 1 cor. 8. 6. eph. 3. 9. eph. 4. 5 , 6. 1 cor. 15. 27 , 28. we cannot reasonably attribute more to the son , than his being god's instrument in the creation . b. but are these the true and only grounds of the doctrine of that holy mystery ? a. yes verily ; for , ( 4 ) that we are baptiz'd in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost , is no argument . that were as reasonable , if understood of christ and the holy ghost , as our spiritual governours , as under the supposal of their being co-equal with the father , 1 cor. 10. 2. 1 cor. 12. 12 , 13. ( o ) i do not think this a proper place , nor a just occasion to enter into the dispute of the trinity . what he here alledges , has been answered a hundred times over , both by the ancient fathers and modern writers , both romanist and protestants ; and if he dare say , when he has taken off his arian vizard , that they are not well , and sufficiently answered , i will be bound to defend catholick christianity against this new kind of liberian roman catholick . but it would move the indignation of any good christian , though a roman-catholick , to see so sacred a mystery made the subject of wit and criticism , and little better then drollery , ( 1 ) that christ cannot be god , because he is lord , as if he could not be god and lord too ; that he is not the second person in the trinity , because he is not the first , and therefore as a son , especially as a mediator subordinate to his father . ( 2 ) that he forgives sins only as priests do by a deputed authority . ( 3 ) that he did not make the world , because the father made it , and therefore he is but gods instrument in the creation ; as if in creation , which is the immediate effect of divine and almighty power , there could be any created instrument . ( 4 ) that we may be baptized into the name of the son and holy ghost , as spiritual governours , when the ancient church thought this form of baptism to be the foundation of the creed , and there is no other difference expressed in the form between baptising in the name of the father , and of the son and holy ghost , but the order of persons . b. but surely , sir , the arians should have other grounds to establish their opinions , besides those , or else your parellel with transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive . pray inform me a little further , i have a mighty desire to understand a little better their fundamental principles . a. to satisfie you , i shall . ( p ) first , they alledge christ represented under the law altogether as an angel ; for eminency call'd the angel of the presence , isa. 63.9 . eccl. 5.6 . gen. 48.16 . num. 20.16 . exod. 23.20 , 21 , 22. refer'd to 1 cor. 10. 4 , 5 , 9. further , they collect him to be a created being , from col. 1.15 . rev. 3.14 . psal. 118.23 . isa. 45.8 . ecclus. 1.4 , 9. ecclus. 24.9 . sa● . 6.22 , 23. ( q ) and they interpret that scripture , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee , by acts 13.33 . and 2 pet. 1.17 . as to ( r ) the h●ly ghost , they prove a vast distance between him a●d the son , by john 16.12 , 13 , 14 , 15. and john 15.26 . besides , they say , he is no where call'd god ; and urge for the probability of their opinion , rev. 12.9 . rev. 20.8 . 2 cor. 4.4 . for as there is an universal tempting evil power , so we may reasonably conclude , there may be a good assisting power , without any necessity of his being god. and further , where-ever in the scriptures there is made any mention of the three persons , there is always declar'd an express gradation ; as 1 cor. 12.3 , 4 , 5. 2 cor. 13. 14. gift and communion from the fellowship of the holy ghost , grace and administration from the lordship and kingship of christ , and love and operation from the father , the supreme god , the original fountain , according to ephes. 4.4 , 5 , 6. ( p ) that christ is called in the old testament the angel of the presence , i grant , but affirm also , that the angel of the presence was no created angel , but the lord jehovah , who spake to moses in the bush , as the ancient fathers grant . ( q ) to be the first born of every creature , does not prove that he is a creature , but that he was begotten of god before any creatures were made , that is , before the creation of the world , and that signifies an eternal generation ; for nothing was before the creation of the world , but that which is eternal and uncreated , as is sufficiently intimated in this very text , 1 col. 16.17 , 18. and then it is no injury to the eternal generation of christ ; though we grant that he was begotten again at his resurrection from the dead . ( r ) as for the holy spirit , he is indeed called the spirit of christ , and is said to be sent by christ , as he is by his father ; but this proves only that he is the third person in the trinity , and in the aeconomy of mans salvation , acts as a vicarious power to christ the redeemer . but his very office to inspire and sanctifie , and dwell in the whole christian church , and every christian proves him to be god ; not only because the christian church and christians are his temple , but because no created spirit can dwell in all christians . for what this convert alledges of an universal tempting evil power , is no better than manichism , or to assert an evil god. for an universal power is god ; and did one devil tempt and poss●ss all bad men , as one and the same holy spirit dwells in all good men , he would b● an omnipresent and infinite devil , which is what the manichees call an evil god , and sure this is not the doctrine of the church of rome , which is a sign that our author is but a new convert . b. i must confess , sir , these opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that doctrine too , to trust to the authority of the catholick church , and i shall take time to consider a little upon them : but pray , sir , what say you to the reasons of the two doctrines ▪ a. really , ( s ) sir , i must tell you , i think that parellel much the easiest . 't is strange new arithmetick to a man , to tell him , three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature , and then to call such a one the most pure and simple being ; and that especially when they are declar'd to have various intellectual powers , as appears by john 16.12 , 13 , 14 , 15. and mark 13.31 . 1 tim. 6.15 . acts 1.7 . for my part , i cannot tell well how the prejudice of education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable , were it not a divine mystery . i am sure , ( t ) to my carnal reason , there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three ; and i know not what can be said of transubstantiation , that is seemingly more absurd than that . b. i must confess , sir , i have had strange , confus'd , and surprizing thoughts of it my self ; but i always apprehended the christian church a sufficient guide . a. if you did , sir , pray consider who that catholick mother is you so obey'd ; and as you have receiv'd the trinity , so receive a doctrine equally as reasonable , and deliver'd by her , transubstantiation . i know the ingenuousness of your temper , and you promis'd me at first not to be a wilful schismatick ; and therefore i have hopes my reasons , and your consideration , will be sufficient to reduce you to catholick communion . b. sir , i shall consider of it ; but as yet you only talk'd to me at large : i shall desire one favour of you before we part ; pray state the parallel a little shorter , i shall the better remember it . a. well , sir , i shall . first , the tradition of one doctrine cannot be stronger than another , where both have been at least equally question'd . secondly , 't is as reasonable to take this is my body , literally , as it is to take these texts , i and my father are one god over all blessed for ever ; and by him all things were made , without reference to other scriptures , and a figurative interpretation . and lastly , i think to human reason 't is as equally unreasonable , and as seemingly repugnant , to say one is three , as it is to say a body is not what it appears . b. very well , i shall desire no more of you now : i 'le only takea little time to consider , and then you shall know my mind more freely . a. farewel ; and god give you his holy spirit to instruct you . ( s ) and now we are come to the main point , whether the doctrine of the trinity be as absurd and contradictious as the doctrine of transubstantiation , which god forbid it should be ▪ i am sure the arithmetick is very good ; for three persons and one nature , is no bad arithmetick . to say , that there are three persons and but one person , and but one nature , and yet three natures , had been no good arithmetick , but a plain contradiction , that three are one , and one three in the same respect , which god himself cannot make true ; but three persons and one nature is no contradiction , how incomprehensible soever it may be . he has made it a contradiction indeed by saying , that three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature ; but whoever before said , that the person is the nature , or that the divine nature is an individual nature , or a nature appropriated to one person , which is the signification of an individual nature . i suppose he had heard somewhere of individua trinitas , and this he mistook for an individual nature . these are indeed contradictions , and new invented heresies , but this is not the catholick doctrine of the trinity . ( t ) we cannot indeed comprehend how three distinct persons should subsist in one nature , for we see no example of it in nature ; for in finite creatures , one finite nature is confined to one person ; but a finite nature , i hope , is no rule for an infinite nature , and therefore an infinite nature may be common to more persons than one , though a finite nature cannot ; and it may be , it is as intelligible how three distinct persons may subsist in one infinite nature , as how three distinct faculties can be in the same finite soul ; by which comparison the ancients explain'd the doctrine of the trinity . the omnipresence , omniscience , omnipotence , eternity of god , are as much above our comprehension , as a plurality of persons in the deity ; and if men will but allow , that god is incomprehensible , this can be no objection against the doctrine of the trinity . natural reason indeed cannot discover the plurality of persons in the godhead , and therefore i can give no reason why there should be three persons , and neither more nor less ; as the plurality of persons , so the number of them depends wholly upon revelation ; and the scripture assures me , there are but three , and therefore i believe no more . and because there are no more , therefore i believe it is impious to say , that there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three . thus the doctrine of the trinity , tho it be above the comprehension of our finite minds , as every thing must be , which is infinite , yet it does not contradict any necessary principle of reason , as transubstantiation does , which is contrary to sense and reason . whether any body be bread or flesh , fall under the notice of sense , and therefore our senses must judg of it ; and all our senses tell us , that the consecrated bread and wine , is bread and wine still , not flesh and blood ; so that we have greater evidence against transubstantiation , than we can have against the trinity ; for we have the evidence of sense , that it is not flesh , but bread ; and no man can pretend to such evidence as this , that there are not three divine persons in the godhead , and this makes some difference between them . as for reason , if we cannot understand , what the properties of a body are , we can know nothing ; and therefore this is a proper object of human reason , though the trinity is not ; and if our reason discover a great many absurdities , and contradictions , and impossibilities in transubstantiation , we must confess , that it is absurd and impossible , as to take notice of some few . to say that the substance of the bread is turned into the natural flesh of christ , which suffered on the cross sixteen hundred years ago , is to say , that the body of christ is made to day , which was 1600 years ago , which is a contradiction ; for what was made 1600 years ago , cannot be made to day , unless it was 1600 years before it was made ; or was made 1600 years after it was made , and thus the same individual body must be , and not be at the same time . it is essential to the same body to be but in one place at a time , and yet all confess , that the body of christ is whole and intire in heaven , how then is the same body at the same time on the altar ? nay , on as many altars as there are in the christian world , at the same time . the body of christ in heaven has the just proportions and dimensions of a human body ; in the consecrated host it is without any extension or distinction of parts , whole and entire in the least crumb of bread : now for the same individual body to be extended , and not extended at the same time , is a contradiction ▪ and tho we could suppose that christ could bestow such a supernatural kind of existence on his body , as to subsist without extension of parts , yet how can the same body at the same time be extended and not extended , as it must be , if the same body be extended in heaven , and not extended in the host. the sacramental body of christ is cloathed with the species of bread , is it so in heaven too ? if not , how is the same body at the same time , with and without the species of bread ? the sacramental body of christ is his dead and broken body , the body of christ in heaven is a living , glorified body ; now if this be the same body , the same body must be dead and alive , broken and whole at the same time . the romanists tell us , that the consecrated bread is the whole body of christ , flesh and blood too , which must go together ; and yet that the consecrated cup is the natural blood of christ shed out of his body ; so that it seems , the same body on the altar is both broken and whole , and the same blood is in his veins , and poured out of them at the same time . now i would ask , whether christ in heaven have any blood , which is separated from his body ; if he have not , then how is the consecrated cup , which is his blood shed for us , and therefore out of his body , that natural blood which christ now has in heaven , where to be sure , he has no blood , which is out of his body , and therefore that blood , which is out of his body , cannot be his natural blood , which he now has in heaven . when our author has digested these absurdities and contradictions , i can easily furnish him with more ; and can there be a greater contempt of the ever blessed trinity , than to compare so sacred and venerable a mystery , to the most absurd doctrine , which was ever invented by men. it will be in vain to pray to god to give us his holy spirit to instruct us , till we first learn to believe our own sense and reason . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59787-e120 ( a ) the charity of lending without vsury, and the true notion of vsury briefly stated in a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor, at st. bridget's church, on tuesday in easter-week, 1692 / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 34 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59805 wing s3278 estc r8222 11902935 ocm 11902935 50618 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59805) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50618) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:2) the charity of lending without vsury, and the true notion of vsury briefly stated in a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor, at st. bridget's church, on tuesday in easter-week, 1692 / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 27 p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1692. reproduction of original in university of pennsylvania library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -n.t. -luke vi, 35 -sermons. usury -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-08 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-08 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the dean of st. paul's sermon before the lord mayor , at st. bridget's church , on tuesday in easter-week . 1692. stamp , mayor . jovis xiv . die april ' 1692. annoque regis & regine wiliel & mariae , angliae , &c. quarto . this court doth desire the reverend doctor sherlock , dean of st. paul's , to print his sermon preached at st. bridget's church on tuesday in easter-week last , before the lord mayor , aldermen , and governors of the several hospitals of this city . goodfellow . the charity of lending without usury . and the true notion of usury briefly stated . in a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor , at st. bridget's church , on tuesday in easter-week . 1692. by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . imprimatur . april 23. 1692. geo. royse . london : printed for william rogers at the sun , over-against st. dunstan's church in fleet street . mdc xc ii. vi. luke 35. but love ye your enemies , — ( and do good , and lend , hoping for nothing again , ) and your reward shall be great , and ye shall be the children of the highest , for he is kind to the unthankful , and to the evil . our conformity to the death and resurrection of our saviour , consists in dying to sin , and walking in newness of life , which st. paul tells us is represented by the external ceremony of baptism ; the baptized person being buried with christ in baptism , and rising out of his watry grave a new born creature , 6. rom. 3 , 4. for in that he died , he died unto sin once ; but in that he liveth , he liveth unto god : likewise reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin , but alive unto god , through jesus christ our lord , 9 , 10. and the principal exercise of this divine life , which is our conformity to the resurrection of christ , is a divine conversation . if ye then be risen with christ , seek those things which are above , where christ sitteth at the right hand of god : set your affections on things above , not on things on the earth , 3. col. 1 , 2. and to set our affections on things above , does not only signify to think sometimes of heaven , and to desire to go to heaven when we dye , which very worldly-minded men may do ; but to lay up for our selves treasures in heaven , which are durable and eternal , in opposition to those perishing treasures on earth , which are subject to thieves , to moths and rust. 6. matth. 19. 20 , 21. to make to our selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness , that when we fail , they may receive us into everlasting habitations , 16. luke 9. now ye all know what this means : viz. to purge our minds from the love of riches , and from all covetous desires ; to improve our estates in acts of piety and charity , for the service of god , and to supply the wants of the poor and miserable : to return our money into the other world , where it will encrease into eternal life and glory : for this is truly to have our conversation in heaven , to live above this world , to sit loose from all the enjoyments of it ; to live to god , and another world , to improve every thing we enjoy here , to secure and advance our future happiness : when men are charitable upon these principles and these designs , they must live a very heavenly life ; for where our treasure is , there our hearts will be also . this our ancestors , who appointed this annual solemnity , seem to have been very sensible of , that there is no particular grace or vertue , the exercise of which is a more visible demonstration of a divine and purified mind , which is risen with christ , and lives to god , as christ doth , than the grace of charity ; and therefore that there was no time more proper to exercise charity , and to exhort christians to charity , and to show charity in all its pomp , and humble bravery , than the feast of the resurrection ; wherein we commemorate the love of our lord in dying for us , and his triumph over death , and in full assurance of a blessed immortality , of which the resurrection of our saviour was an ocular demonstration , send our hearts and our eyes after him to heaven , and contemplate that glory to which he is advanced , and to which he has promised to advance us . this then is my proper work at this time , to exhort you to charity ; proper both to the nature of this holy feast , and to the original institution of this solemnity ; and it may reasonably be hoped , that the annual returns of it , wherein all the arguments to charity are so earnestly pressed on you , should keep this divine fire always burning and glowing in your breasts . you have so often heard all the arguments to charity , that it is impossible you should forget them ; and there is one that is worth all the rest , which no christian can forget , who remembers that there is a heaven and a hell , and which no christian can resist , without despising his soul , and eternal life and death ; and that is , that heaven is the reward of charity ; that hell is the punishment of uncharitableness ; which is so plainly and expresly taught , and so frequently repeated by our saviour , that it is as certain and unavoidable , as that there is a heaven and a hell ; and if heaven be not a sufficient encouragement to charity , nor hell sufficient to deter us from uncharitableness , it is to no purpose to use any other arguments , which can never persuade , if these can't ; or if they could , would neither carry us to heaven , nor keep us out of hell ; for to be charitable only for temporal reasons , is to give our goods to feed the poor , without a true divine charity ; which st. paul tells us , will profit nothing , 1 cor. 13. for such a charity as does not raise us above this world , can neither carry us to heaven , nor keep us out of hell. and therefore instead of drawing together all the arguments for charity which you have so often heard , and shewing them in a new dress , my design at present is to recommend to you a very excellent , but a very neglected part of charity , which our saviour presses on us in my text , viz. the charity of lending , do good , and lend , hoping for nothing again . in speaking to which words , i shall 1. shew you what this duty is ▪ 2. what an excellent charity it is to lend . and how this may be improved to the most excellent purposes . 1. what this duty is , or what our saviour means by lending , hoping for nothing again . and it can signifie but two things ; and i see no reason to think , but that our saviour might mean both . 1. to lend , without hoping for any encrease ; or to lend freely , without usury . 2. to lend , where the very principal may be in danger , when we have little reason to hope that we shall ever see our own again . 1. to lend freely , without usury ; for our saviour commands this , as an act of charity , do good , and lend : and tho to lend , even upon usury , may in many cases prove a great kindness to the borrower , yet charity is not the motive of the lender , it is not charity , but traffick and merchandize of money : and tho the jews were expresly forbid to lend their brethren upon usury , yet our saviour intimates there was something like this , and equivalent to it , which spoiled the charity of lending , even without usury ; that they would not lend to the poor ; who though they should repay them what they borrowed , yet were never likely to be in a condition to lend to them again ; but they would lend to the rich , from whom they expected the like returns of kindness ; as you may see in the verses before my text ; 33 , 34. and if ye do good to them that do good to you , what thank have ye ? for sinners also do even the same . and if ye lend to them , of whom ye hope to receive , ( not only your own , but the like kindness of lending to you when your occasions require it ) , what thank have ye ? for sinners also lend to sinners , to receive as much again ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , equal returns of kindness ; which if it be not usury of money , is usury of kindnesses , but is not charity ; like inviting our rich friends and neighbours to a feast , who can invite us again ; which tho it be no fault , is no charity ; for that consists in entertaining the poor , who can make us no return , 14. luke 12 , 13 , 14. and thus our saviour exhorts us here , but do you do good , and lend , hoping for nothing again ; neither for usury , nor for such returns and exchanges of kindness . it was for the sake of this duty , that usury was so strictly forbidden by the jewish law , that men might the more freely lend their money to those who wanted , when they had no present use for it themselves ; and had no way to encrease it ; and as far as the reason and charity of this law extends , so far it still obliges , and so far usury is still forbid to christians . this is not well considered by those who so universally condemn all usury ; and because the right understanding of this will be of great use to settle some mens minds , and to explain and enforce this duty of lending , which i now recommend to you , it cannot be thought a digression from my present design , to give you the true , but short state of this matter . it is confessed on all hands , that usury is forbid by the law of moses ; but the great mistake is concerning the nature of usury , or what that is which the law forbids and condemns by the name of usury . some think that all increase of money , when men lend a sum of money to receive the principal again with interest , is the usury which the law forbids ; and therefore that this is absolutely unlawful in all cases , and in all degrees ; though we all know , that trade , to which we owe all the riches and greatness of our nation , and so many excellent charities too , cannot be maintained without it : that some men , who now live comforrably in the world , maintain their families with credit and reputation , and do many acts of charity themselves , could not trade at all ; others could not drive such flourishing and spreading trades without borrowed money , nor borrow without interest : that many widows and orphans are maintained by interest , who must in a few years be beggars , had they no other way to live , but to spend the principal . this is so contrary to the sense and reason of mankind , and to all the rules of justice and charity , and so impracticable in the present state of the world , that while it is possible to put any other sense upon the law , i would never think of this . and the comfort is , that the law expounds it self otherwise , and gives no colour for such an interpretation as this , that all increase of money is forbid by it . for 1. the law it self allowed the jews to take usury of strangers of other countries , though not of their brethren , or natural jews , 23. deut. 20. unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury , but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury . and therefore god did not absolutely forbid the jews to encrease their money , for they might lend to strangers upon usury ; which proves , that this was not an universal law to them , much less is it so to all mankind . and that proves that there is no moral and intrinsick evil in usury ; for if all usury had in its own nature been unlawful , god could not have allowed the jews to take usury of strangers ; for he cannot allow the least moral evil . the truth is , i never could yet see the least shadow of an argument to prove , that usury is evil in its nature , unless that money can't beget money , be thought an argument ; but that is as good an argument against buying corn or wine , or any thing else with money ; for it is unnatural for money to beget corn or wine : but if the barren nature of money , that it cannot naturally propagate it self , be a reason against usury of money , this is no reason against usury of corn , which is equally forbid : for it is natural for corn to propagate its kind , and multiply it self ; and yet the usury of all victuals is as much forbid , as the usury of money , 23. deut. 19. now if usury be not morally evil , it can be unlawful to none , but those to whom god has forbid it ; and there being no prohibition of it in the new testament , which is the law of the christian church , it cannot be unlawful to christians , whatever it was to the jews . 2. and yet the jews themselves were not expresly forbid , however they might understand it , to lend their money upon usury , to all their own brethren , but only to the poor : so that had any rich jew come to borrow money of them , for any thing that appears by the law , they might have lent money to him upon usury . this observation will clear this whole matter ; and therefore i shall turn you to all the texts of the law , which forbid usury , and the reading of them will convince you , that usury was forbid only in favour of the poor . the first text is , 22. exod. 25. if thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee , thou shalt not be to him as an usurer , neither shalt thou lay upon him usury : where no usury is forbid , but only lending to the poor upon usury : thus 25. lev. 35 , 36 , 37. and if thy brother be waxen poor , and fallen to decay with thee , then thou shalt relieve him . — take thou no usury of him , nor increase , but fear god , that thy brother may live well with thee : thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury , nor lend him thy victuals for increase . it is true , in the repetition of this law , 23. deut. 19 , 20. it is only said , thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother , usury of money , usury of victuals , usury of any thing that is lent upon usury . unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury , but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury , that the lord thy god may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand unto , in the land whither thou goest to possess . this seems to forbid lending upon usury to any jew , whether rich or poor ; but this being only a repetition of those laws in exodus and leviticus , in all reason must be expounded by them ; and though the poor are not expressed , the circumstances of the place prove , that they only are meant ; for though rich men may sometimes have occasion to borrow money , yet none but the poor , who have no money to buy can ever have occasion to borrow victuals upon usury ; and the difference the law makes between a brother and a stranger shews , that it is intended as an act of charity , which they owe to their brethren , though not to strangers . for which reason also they were forbid to make any of their brethren bondmen , though they might buy the children of the heathen and strangers for bond-men and bond-maids , 25 levit. 39. &c. and the blessing god promises shews , that it is the reward of charity . in other places , where usury is mentioned , some circumstance or other determines it to the poor . this was the case , when nehemiah reproved the nobles and the rulers for exacting usury , 5 nehem. when the prophet isaiah threatens great desolations against the land , he thus describes it , and it shall be as with the people , so with the priest — as with the lender , so with the borrower , as with the taker of usury , so with the giver of usury to him , 24 isai. 2. that is , the lender and the usurer shall be reduced to the same distress and poverty , as those suffer , who borrow upon usury ; which shews , that none but poor men used to borrow upon usury in those days . thus when the prophet jeremiah complains , woe is me my mother , that thou hast born me a man of strife , and a man of contention to the whole earth , i have neither lent on usury , nor men have lent to me on usury , yet every one of them doth curse me , 15 jer. 10. it plainly intimates , that usury is such an oppression of the poor , as both deserves and very often procures curses . and therefore the prophet ezekiel joyns usury with the oppression of the poor , and other acts of violence , 18 ezek. 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17. he who hath oppressed the poor and needy , hath spoiled by violence , hath not restored the pledge , hath given forth upon usury , and hath taken increase , he shall die . but he that hath neither oppressed the poor , nor hath with-holden the pledge , neither hath spoiled by violence , but hath given his bread to the hungry , and cloathed the naked with a garment , that hath taken off his hand from the poor , that hath not received usury nor increase , he shall live . which makes it very plain , what is meant by usury , when to take usury is joyned with violence and oppression of the poor ; and to lend without usury is rekoned among acts of great charity and goodness . there is but one place more , as i remember , that mentions usury , 15 psalm 5. and there putting forth money to usury is joyned with taking a reward against the innocent , which shews , that it was an act of violence and oppression . for indeed among the jews , who were no merchants , nor maintained any foreign trade with other nations , no men had occasion to borrow money , much less victuals , but to supply their present wants , and to take advantage of the necessities of the poor , to increase their own fortunes by increasing their poverty , was against all the laws of goodness and charity ; and therefore this usury , which was the only usury known in those days , is strictly forbid , as all other acts of oppression are . all other kinds of usury are introduced by trade and commerce , and though it is against charity to lend upon usury to men , who borrow to supply their wants , yet if men borrow to increase their trade and fortunes , there is justice and equity in it , that the lender shall make some increase of his money , as well as the borrower . this is not properly usury , but traffick and commerce , and i know no reason , why men may not trade with money , as well as with other commodities . and this i take to be the true reason , why the jews were permitted to take usury of strangers , but not of their brethren , because their heathen neighbours were merchants , as is plain of tyre and zidon , 23 isai. they improved their money by trade , and therefore it was fit they should pay interest for it ; especially if they were to lend upon usury only to such strangers as came among them for trade , but did not dwell and sojourn with them ; which seems probable from 25 levit. 35. where the stranger that sojourns with them seems to be entituled to the like charity as a brother . if thy brother be waxen poor , and fallen to decay , thou shalt relieve him , yea , though he be a stranger , or a sojourner , that he may live with thee , take thou no usury of him , nor increase . for a stranger never signifies a proselyte of justice , who by circumcision was incorparated into the body of israel , made a brother , and entituled to the priviledges of a natural jew , but only a proselyte of the gate , who renounced idolatry , but did not undertake the observation of the law of moses ; and yet they were not to take usury of these strangers if they were poor , no more than of their brother , according to that law , 22 exod. 21. thou shalt not vex a stranger , nor oppress him , for ye were strangers in the land of egypt . the answer our saviour gives to the servant who hid his talent in the napkin , seems to justifie this account , unless we can suppose , that his lord would have been pleased with unjust and wicked gain . 25. matth. 27. thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers , and then at my coming , i should have received mine own with usury . so that though it was unlawful to lend money upon usury to the poor , it was not so to the exchangers , who traded in money . and our saviour's driving the money-changers out of the temple , no more proves that he disallowed that profession , than that he disallowed selling oxen , and sheep , and doves for sacrifice , for he drove them out also ; the fault was not in the merchandise no more of money , than of sheep , or oxen , or doves , but they made his father's house , a house of merchandise . 2 john 14 , 15. &c. it is certain the ancient fathers , who were professed enemies to usury , opposed it under this notion ; for their great arguments against usury , are levelled against uncharitableness and oppression of the poor , as appears from gregor . nyssen , st. ambrose , st. basil , and others ; and yet it is no wonder , should we meet with some passages in them against usury considered , as trading and merchandise of money : for it is well known , that they were not much greater friends , to trade and merchandise , than they were to usury , which they thought unbecoming a christian , as ministring only to covetousness and luxury . and yet i suppose , the greatest enemies at this day to usury , will not carry the quarrel so far , as to condemn merchandise . and yet under this notion of covetousness and sordid gain ( which is equally applicable to all trade . ) usury is forbid the clergy by the seventeenth cannon of the first council of nice ; but no council ever forbad it to the layety , or threatned church censures against them for it , which they would certainly have done , had they thought it evil in its self . this may satisfie us in what sence usury is forbid , both by the law of moses and the ancient writers of the christian church , viz. as contrary to charity ; when we lend upon usury , where charity requires us to lend freely : when we take increase of the poor , who borrow to supply their wants , and sink them still more irrecoverably into poverty by such exactions : this always was , and always will be hateful to god , and to all good men , and yet such detestable usurers there are among us , who grow rich upon the ruins and spoils of the poor , and drink the tears of widows and orphans ; but when to lend without usury is no charity , and to take usury is no oppression , there usury it self is no crime . and hence we learn ( which is the great thing i aimed at ) that usury was forbid only for the sake of lending , which proves , that to lend freely to the poor , is a great and necessary act of charity : though a man never took a penny for usury in his life , yet if he neither gives , nor lends to the poor , he is guilty of all that uncharitableness , for which usury is condemned ; nay in most cases , even these worst sort of usurers are the more charitable men : for excepting some very hard cases , it is greater charity to lend even to the poor for usury , than not to lend at all . for this reason the emperour leo was forced by a new constitution to permit usury , which his father out of a pious zeal , had wholly forbid , because he found , that when men were forbid to take any usury , they would not lend at all , which was a greater hardship to the poor , than usury it self . meerly not to take usury is no vertue , but to lend to the poor without usury is . to lock up our money in our chests to rust and canker , and to do no good with it , is what st. james so severely threatens rich men for , go now ye richl men , weep and howl for your miseries , which shal come upon you ; your riches are corrupted , and your garments are moth eaten ; your gold and your silver is cankered , and the rust of them shall be a witness against you , a witness of your covetousness and uncharitableness , that you have done no good with it , but hoarded it up to rust and canker for want of use . 5 james 1 , 2 , 3. this controversie then may be stated and decided in a few words . usury is a very great sin , that is , to lend our money upon usury to those who borrow for necessity and want , and to exact such payments with rigour and severity , to strip such miserable people of that little that remains , to imprison their persons , and make them end their lives in a goal . to lock up our money , and do no good with it , is to hide our talent in a napkin ; for money is improveable , and must be improved , either for charity or increase , to be a new and perpetual spring of charity . to declaim against usury , and not to exhort men to lend to the poor , without usury is to mistake or overlook the true end and design of the law , and to betray uncharitable men to a greater evil than usury it self ; but if men lend freely to the poor in such proportions , as charity requires , they may very innocently and virtuously , without transgressing this law against usury , lend their money for encrease to the rich. 2. but our saviour seems to mean something more by lending , hoping for nothing again , not only to lend freely without usury , but to lend , where the principal may be in danger , when we cannot reasonably promise our selves to receive our own again : no man can deny , but this is great charity ; but then this must be conducted by the measures and proportions of giving : what charity will oblige us to give , it will as reasonably oblige us to lend , but where the return is very hazardous , it can oblige us to lend , no more than what it would become us to give , and yet in such cases , lending may be a greater charity than giving , which is the second thing proposed , which i can speak but briefly to . 2. the excellency and advantages of this charity of lending , and how it may be improved to the best purpose . now if we compare giving and lending together , lending has much the advantage of giving , as to the true end and purposes of charity . to lend is a greater obligation , to industry than to give , and there cannot be a greater kindness done to the poor , next to keeping them from starving , than to teach them industry . i need not tell you that there are many poor , who will never work , while they can meet with charitable people to give ; nay , who chuse to be sick , to be lame , to be blind , to move charity , rather than work to supply their wants ; but when men have nothing to live on , but the improvement of lent money , which they know , they must repay , when it is called for , this must make them industrious ; for it both encourages their industry , and keeps the rod over them ; especially were this made a standing rule to give nothing to those who are able , but will not work , who have a stock lent them to trade with , and neglect to improve it . thus what we give does but one single act of charity , for we can give it but once , but what we lend may circulate , as the blood does in our veins , and communicate warmth and spirits to more parts of the body than one : that is , what we lend , may be lent again , and do a great many successive charities , as great , or greater than that one single charity had been , if we had given it : and that certainly is one of the greatest and noblest charity , which is most diffusive . but yet to make this charity of lending the more effectual , it must be confessed , that a publick bank of charity raised out of such free loans , will have many advantages above any private acts of this nature ; and i can by no means think this either impracticable or difficult . i doubt not but most of this honourable assembly could contrive very advantageous ways of doing this , were men but charitably disposed . for suppose , you should make your hospitals , or your companies , such publick banks , or if it could be more publick , still the more useful , and the more secure , where charitable people , may safely deposite their money without use , or those who cannot spare the whole interest , may abate some part of it , and where the running cash may be lodged , which men expect no interest for , this might easily rise to a very vast sum , which with wise improvement would make a sure and lasting fund of charity . and could any thing in the world be more easie than this , which no man could feel ? what would it be to a rich man , who has many thousands employed in trade , or secured at interest ; or if he knows when he has enough , has no need to increase it , to drop some thousands into such a free bank , to sanctifie and prosper his trade , and other ways of gain , and to secure a blessing to his posterity ? how many others are there , who could spare a hundred , or it may be some hundred pounds out of their stock , and not feel the want of interest , or at least , if they could not spare the whole interest , might spare the half , or third part of it ? how many are there , who have some hundreds by them useless , which they would not , and could not with any reason grudge to lay up in a safe bank ? how many are there , who would easily be perswaded to lend , were there such a safe bank to receive it , who are very unwilling to give ? and were there such a bank of charity once setled , there would be very little need of giving . for i know not any kind of charity , but might be provided for in this way , were men but free and liberal in lending . it would enlarge your hospitals , clear your streets of beggars , the great reproach of this city ; maintain those who can't work , and employ those who can ; put poor children to apprentice , provide stocks for ingenious and industrious young men , who want them , redeem prisoners , and , which justice and honour requires of you , as far as possibly you can , may in some measure provide a fund for your orphans . this would advance the glory of this great city , it would perpetuate and consecrate the memory of such worthy persons , as would begin and promote such a lasting and extensive charity ; the children which are unborn , would rise up and call them blessed ; it would draw a great share of the charitable money of the nation into your hands , which would quicken trade , and increase your riches , and above all , it would procure all the great rewards which are promised to charity , both in this world , and in the next . but whatever becomes of this proposal , you must always remember , that it is great charity to lend as well as to give : this is what our saviour expects from us , this is what he commands , to do good , and lend , hoping for nothing again ; and if out of a greedy desire of gain , we will lend nothing freely to the relief and encouragement of the industrious poor , this will make all our other usury and increase , which is lawful and innocent in it self , when it neither oppresses the poor , nor stops our charity , to become sin . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. pauls , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . second edition . 4to . an answer to the amicable accomodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . 4to . a sermon at the funeral of the reverend benjamin calamy , d. d. 4to . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . 4to . a preservative against popery , being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts with the vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran jesuit . 4to . a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church , first part. 4to . a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor , and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday november 4th . 1688. 4to . a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god , &c. the second edition . quarto . the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers stated and resolved according to scripture , reason , and the principles of the church of england . sixth edition . quarto . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers , &c. quarto . a sermon preached at whitehall before the queen on the 17th . of june . 1691. being the fast-day . quarto . a practical discourse concerning death . the fifth edition . octavo . a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . second edition . octavo . a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons at st. margarets westminster january 30th . 1691 / 2. quarto . a sermon preached before the queen at whitehall febr. 12. 1691 / 2. quarto . printed for william rogers . a sermon preached before the right honourable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london, at gvild-hall-chappel, on sunday, nov. 4, 1688 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1689 approx. 37 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59877 wing s3348 estc r21594 12567969 ocm 12567969 63387 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59877) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63387) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:17) a sermon preached before the right honourable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london, at gvild-hall-chappel, on sunday, nov. 4, 1688 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [6], 29, [1] p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1689. advertisement: p. [1] at end. running title: a sermon preached before the lord mayor. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -o.t. -psalms cxxii, 6-7 -sermons. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached before the right honourable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london , at gvild-hall-chappel , on sunday , nov. 4. 1688. by william sherlock , d.d. master of the temple . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . 1689. chapman mayor , &c. cur. special . tent . die lunae quinto die novemb. 1688. annoque regni regis jacobi secundi angl. &c. quarto . this court doth desire dr. sherlock to print his sermon preach'd yesterday morning at the guild-hall-chappel , before the lord mayor and aldermen of this city . wagstaffe . imprimatur , novemb. 14 , 1688. z. isham r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris . to the right honourable sir john chapman , lord mayor of the city of london . my lord , in obedience to the order i received from your lordship and the court of aldermen , i present you with this plain sermon , the whole design of which is , not to debate any thing , nor to determine on which side the truth lies , in those warm disputes which have been among us , but to convince all those , who love and pray for the peace of jerusalem , how many controversies there are , which should be laid aside without disputing , and how a little condescention to each other , may either happily vnite us into oue communion , or at least teach us to live together in love and charity , notwithstanding some different apprehensions of things ; and i hope so charitable a design as this , will raise no new disputes and quarrels among us . that god would preserve his church , restore peace and vnity among christistians , bless this great and populous city , and direct your lordship in the government of it , in these difficult times , is the hearty prayer of , my lord , your lordship 's most obedient servant , will. sherlock . a sermon preach'd before the lord mayor . 122 psalm 6 , 7. pray for the peace of jerusalem , they shall prosper that love thee , peace be within thy walls , and prosperity within thy palaces . though the particular time and occasion of penning this psalm is uncertain , yet so much is plain , that it was after david had setled the ark at jerusalem , and made that city the place of god's house , and of religious worship , and the seat of justice and judgment . there was the house of god , vers . 9. that is , though the temple was not yet built , if this psalm was composed by david , as the title of it signifies it was , yet there was the tabernacle and the ark of god , which formerly was in shilo , and afterwards removed from one place to another , till david setled it in jerusalem : thither all the tribes of israel were to resort three times a year to worship god before the ark of the testimony , 4 ver . there was the imperial seat , where david had built his throne and palace , and where his posterity were to dwell and govern israel ; and therefore it was the seat of justice too , as that must be , where the kings throne and the house of god was placed . there are set thrones of judgment , the thrones of the house of david , 5 ver . these were the peculiar priviledges of jerusalem , above any other city in jury . this was the reason of that peculiar affection and passionate concern , which david had himself , and exhorts all others to express for jerusalem , that he greatly rejoyced to go thither , and to continue there . i was glad when they said unto me , let us go into the house of the lord , our feet shall stand within thy gates , o jerusalem . that he exhorts all people to pray for the peace and prosperity of jerusalem , and promises a blessing to those who love it ; as it is in my text , pray for the peace of jerusalem , they shall prosper that love thee ; peace be within thy walls , and prosperity within thy palaces . all this was not for the sake of the material buildings , the beauty of the place , or the convenience of its scituation , but because it was the center of unity ; which is builded as a city that is compact together , whither the tribes go up , the tribes of the lord , unto the testimony of israel , to give thanks unto the name of the lord , 3 & 4 ver . which shews in what respect he commends jerusalem , that it is built as a city , which is compact together ; not with regard to the uniformity and regular order and union of its material buildings , but that it was the center of a religious unity and order in worship , where all the tribes of israel met and united in the same acts of worship and praise to god. there was the house of god , there were the set thrones of judgment . so that to love jerusalem , to pray for the peace and prosperity of it , is to love the house , the worship , the name of god ; to love and pray for the unity , happiness , and prosperity of the church , for the flourishing state of religion , and the peaceful opportunities of worshipping god in his holy temple , together with the equal and impartial administration of justice , which is so much for the publick good , to promote the temporal and eternal happiness of men , that our love to mankind , but especially our love to the brethren , as well as our zeal for god's glory and worship , requires this of us , for my brethren and companions sake , i will now say , peace be within thee : because of the house of the lord our god , i will seek thy good , v. 8 , 9. thus i have given you a very plain and easie exposition of this whole psalm , and therein have sufficiently explained my text ; i have but one thing more to add , to make way for my intended discourse , and that is , to shew you , that this exhortation does directly , and not meerly by accommodation and analogie concern us , as well as it did the jews . for jerusalem was but a type of the christian church , as the carnal israel , or the carnal seed and posterity of abraham were of true and sincere christians , who are the children of abraham , by faith in christ : and therefore st. paul expresly distinguishes between the earthly jerusalem , and the jerusalem which descends from above , 4 gal. 25 , 26. for this agar is mount sinai in arabia , and answereth to jerusalem , which now is , and is in bondage with her children ; but jerusalem which is above , ( or from above , that is , the christian church ) is free , which is the mother of us all . which in 12 heb. 22. he calls mount sion the city of the living god , the heavenly jerusalem . and 3 rev. 12. it is called , the city of god , the new jerusalem , which cometh down out of heaven from god. and 21 rev. 2. the new jerusalem coming down out of heaven from god , prepared as a bride adorned for her husband : which is a description of the most reformed and purified state of the christian church on earth . so that this exhortation , to pray for the peace of jerusalem , does most properly belong to christians , because the christian church is the true jerusalem , the new , the holy jerusalem , descending out of heaven from god , v. 10. by this time , i suppose , you understand the meaning of my text , and how much we are concerned in it ; and there are two parts observable in the words : 1. the duty to pray for the peace of jerusalem ; or of the christian church , peace be within thy walls , and prosperity within thy palaces . 2. the encouragement to this , they shall prosper that love thee . it is the first of these i shall at present speak to , the duty to pray for the peace of jerusalem ; wherein i shall consider two things . 1. what we must pray for . 2. how necessary prayer is , to obtain the blessing . 1. what we must for : peace and prosperity . peace be within thy walls , and prosperity within thy palaces . now the peace of the church signifies two things . 1. the unity and agreement of christians among themselves . 2. the preservation of the church from external oppressions and persecutions . 1. the unity and agreement of christians among themselves : when they profess the same faith , and joyn in the same worship ; when they love like brethren , and have a tender affection and sympathy for each other , as members of the same body : this all christians confess to be a great and necessary duty , and pretend to lament those many scandalous dissensions and divisions of the christian church . this i am sure , that though divisions and dissentions are destructive to all societies , yet there is no society suffers so much by it as the christian church : this destroys love and charity , which is the true spirit of the gospel , and the badge and cognizance of our profession ; by this shall all men know , that ye are my disciples , if ye love one another . this turns the christian church into a school of wrangling disputes , and makes men more concerned what they believe , than how they live ; this gives great offence to the world , representing the christian faith as very doubtful and uncertain , and christianity it self as a great disturber of the peace of mankind ; this overthrows all government and discipline in the church , and makes its censures despised and scorned , when the most profligate sinners can shelter themselves in a schism , and palliate or expiate their other crimes by a factious zeal ; and therefore , if ever we desire to see christianity flourish , we must pray heartily for peace and unity among christians . but that we may the better understand what we are to pray for , let us briefly inquire wherein the unity of the church consists ; and that is , in the unity of faith , the unity of communion , and the unity of love and charity . 1st , unity of faith : whereby i do not understand , that all christians must agree in all the opinions and speculations of religion ; it would be well if it could be so , but this can never be , while men have such different understandings and abilities , such different skill and opportunities of inquiry ; but the unity of faith is secured by an agreement in all the fundamental articles of re●●●ion , though a little varied in some nicer speculations , which are like the different features in mens faces , which distinguish them from one another , but do not alter the humane shape : and this is the difference between the disputes which divide papists and protestants , and the disputes of protestants among themselves : the first subvert the foundations of christian faith and worship , and therefore these differences can never be accommodated and reconciled ; they will not part with their errours , and we must not embrace them , if we love our souls , for as dear a thing as peace is , we must not part with truth for peace . but now the disputes among all that are allowed to be protestants , whatever mistakes there may be on any side , do not overthrow any necessary article of the christian faith ; and therefore the unity of the faith may be secured amidst all these disputes . some of these disputes are only inconvenient modes of speaking , and the difference is only in words , when both parties really mean the same thing ; which , i believe , if all heat and passion were laid aside , would in a great measure appear to be the true state of that protestant controversie , about justification by faith alone . others are meer philosophical disputes , in which the christian faith is not peculiarly concerned , for they have been , and are disputed in all religions ; such as the controversie about god's eternal decrees , and the power and efficacy of nature and grace ; which is only a reviving of that old philosophical dispute about necessity and fate , and god's concourse with second causes to produce their effects . and thus it is in some other cases ; now methinks such disputes as these , which do not properly belong to the christian faith , should not divide the christian church : let men dispute about them as philosophers , but as christians , let it suffice them to believe what christ and his apostles have plainly taught us ; that is enough to carry us to heaven ; and methinks it should be enough to make us agree in the way thither . as to explain this more particularly , but very briefly : there is no good protestant but will confess , that we are justified only by the merits of christ's death and sacrifice , as the only expiation and atonement for our sins : that no works of righteousness which we can do , can make satisfaction to god for our sins , nor merit eternal life , which is the gift of god : that christ is our only saviour , and that he is the saviour only of his body or church : that we are incorporated into the body of christ , and put into a state of justification by faith and the christian sacraments : that no impenitent unreformed sinner , though he do profess to believe in christ , and be baptized , shall be saved by him ; and therefore though repentance and a holy life do not merit the pardon of sin , nor eternal rewards , yet they are necessarily required in all those , who shall be forgiven and saved by christ. this i say , all good protestants agree in , and all this is plainly taught in scripture ; and whoever believes this , and practises accordingly , shall certainly be saved : and what need is there then of reducing all this into artificial schemes , wherein mens fancies and conceits differ ? what necessity is there of disputing what the office of faith , or what the efficacy of works is in our justification , when we all agree , that we are saved only by the mercy of god , and the merits of christ through faith in his bloud , and the exercise of repentance and a holy life : to understand the reason and order of things , conduces much to the beauty and perfection of christian knowledge ; but men may be saved , and the peace of the church better secured , without such particular determinations . thus all good protestants agree , that all god's works are known to him from the foundation of the world ; that christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world : that god knows who are his , and always did so : that we are predestinated to the adoption of children by jesus christ to himself , according to the good pleasure of his will , to the praise of the glory of his grace , wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved : that we are predestinated according to the purpose of him , who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will , 1 ephes. 5 , 6 , 11. that when god comes to judge the world , he will appear infinitely just , and good , and merciful : that bad men shall have no reason to complain of god , and that good men shall have nothing to arrogate to themselves . this secures the glory of god , of his wisdom , goodness , justice , power , and soveraignity , and what need is there to inquire any farther into the divine decrees , than the scripture has revealed ; in the particular explication of which , when men follow their own fancies , they vastly differ from each other , to the great disturbance of the peace of the church . we are assured by plain testimonies of scripture , that god desires not the death of a sinner , but rather that he should return and live : that our destruction is of our selves : that all the good we do , is wholly owing to the grace of god , who worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure : that all the evil we do , is owing to our selves ; that every man is tempted , when he is drawn away of his own lust and inticed , then when lust hath conceived , it bringeth forth sin ; and sin , when it is finished , bringeth forth death . this we all agree in , and this attributes the glory of all the good we do to god , and the shame of all the evil we do to our selves ; this encourages us to do good in a confident assurance of the divine grace , and teaches bad men , that they must not think to excuse their wickedness by charging it on god : and this is all that is necessary for us to know , because it is all that is needful to the purposes of religion , and a holy life . but when men frame this into philosophical hypotheses , they then divide as far from each other , as east and west ; and all the attempts of reconciling them is vain and fruitless , for there is no medium to unite in . the only way to peace , is to silence all these disputes , as matters which mankind will never agree about , and wherein religion is no more concerned , than the government of kingdoms or states , and on which the salvation of our souls no more depends , than the conduct of our secular affairs , or the preservation of this mortal life : for the dispute about decrees , predestination , god's power over our wills , how god and creatures produce the same effect , what belongs to god , and what belongs to the creature in every action , ( since in him we live and move ) concerns every thing else as well as religion ; and yet in all other cases , men let philosophers dispute these points , and quietly go about their business , and do what is fit to be done , as if there were no controversie about these matters ; and i cannot imagine why they should not do so in religion too : believe what is plainly taught , and do what is commanded , use the greatest wisdom , and our utmost diligence in doing good , and depend upon the succours of the divine grace , and leave these disputes to be decided at the day of judgment , and that will decide them all . by this means i am sure most of the disputes among protestants , which have given the greatest disturbance to the church , would be for ever silenced , and christian religion would not be clogged , nor reproached with such philosophical controversies . 2ly , the unity of communion : and that consists in our worshipping god together : when we resort to the same church to offer up our united prayers and thanksgivings to god , and to partake of that holy supper , which is the sacrament and symbol of our union to christ , and to each other : and this indeed is true church-unity , and it is greatly to be lamented , that men who profess the same faith , and agree in all the essentials of worship , should divide communion , and refuse to pray together , and to feast at the same holy table of our lord. we cannot indeed communicate with the church of rome , because they have corrupted the very essentials of christian worship . most men do not understand their prayers , and therefore cannot joyn in prayer with them : they worship images and pictures , which is expresly forbidden by the second commandment . instead of praying to god in the name of our only mediator and advocate jesus christ , they have joyned other intercessors with him ; pray to saints and angels , and the virgin mary , to pray for them , and help them . they worship the host , which we believe to be nothing but bread and wine as to the substance , and therefore no object of worship , and turn the sacramental feast of christ's body and bloud into a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead . such a worship as this we dare not joyn in , because it is sinful and idolatrous . but the case is quite different among protestants ; they pray to the same god , in the only name of the same lord jesus christ , put up the same petitions , offer the same thanksgivings and praises , observe the same divine institutions , without any essential change and alteration , and yet cannot worship god together ; as if it were an impious thing to put up the same prayers , and to offer the same praises to god in a pious , and grave , and well-composed form of words , which others do , it may be not so well and decently , in their conceived prayers ; as if the devotion of the communicant in receiving so inestimable a blessing as the sacramental body and bloud of christ upon his knees , were a prophanation of that holy feast ; as if a white linnen-garment , which never underwent any religious conjurations , and is used only as a decent habit , without any opinion of its vertue or sanctity , were a just reason to drive men out of the church , from the christian communion of prayers and sacraments . these would be surprizing stories to any christians in the world , who had never heard before of such disputes among us . pray give me leave to speak my mind freely upon this occasion . upon the best and most impartial inquiries and observations i can make , i do in my conscience believe the church of england to be the most apostolical and best reformed church in the world : i see no reason from the nature of things to make any material alterations in her doctrine , or worship ; and therefore , i confess , it has given me very just resentments to hear our church charged with such unjust imputations of popery , superstition , idolatry , will-worship , and what not , and to see a blind and furious zeal ready to raze up the very foundations of it . it has often grieved me to see such a church as this rent and torn by schisms , which a man of ordinary prudence might easily foresee , would give great advantage to the common enemy of the protestant faith. this and the care of mens souls , and of their temporal fortunes too , moved several divines of this church , when the government thought fit to re-enforce the laws of uniformity , to examine and answer all the arguments of our dissenting brethren , which they performed with that good temper , with that perswasiveness and strength of argument , as will be a vindication of our church to future ages ; and i wish it may upon second thoughts , have yet a better effect upon those , who were not then perswaded : and this , i suppose , will not be called persecution , much less can the many kind offices they did in keeping off ecclesiastical censures be called a persecution . and yet after all , when it is so apparent , that prejudices are grown as obstinate as they are unreasonable , when not the reason of the thing , but the weakness of some , and the ill designs of others , require some compliance and condescension , we have reason to hope , that the chvrch of england , which at the beginning of the reformation took such prudent care not to offend the papist by going farther from them , than was necessary , will , whenever it is likely to do good , condescend a great deal farther , than it is necessary to reform , to meet the dissenter ; for while the external decencie , gravity , and solemnity of worship is secured , no wise and good man will think much to change a changeable ceremony , when it will heal the breaches and divisions of the church : and let us all heartily pray to god , that there may be this good and peaceable disposition of mind in all conformists and non-conformists , towards a happy re-union ; and all considering men will think it time to lay aside such little disputes , when it is not meerly the church of england , nor any particular sect of protestants , whose ruin is aimed at , but the whole protestant faith . 3ly , another kind of unity is , love and charity , and a mutual forbearance . this , i confess , is a very difficult thing , when the dispute runs so high as to divide christian communion ; for it seems in effect to declare men to be heathens and publicans , when we refuse to worship god with them : and few men can bear this , when so dear an interest is concerned , as the salvation of their souls . and the truth is , that forbearance st. paul so often mentions , was to preserve men of different attainments , and different apprehensions , in the unity of the church , not to countenance their schisms and separations . but yet , since we are fallen into such unhappy circumstances , that a great many men , whom we have reason to hope , are in other respects very good christians , and such as our common saviour will receive with all their infirmities , are involved in a schism , let us still treat them as christian brethren , pay all that kindness and respect to them , which is due to the members of christ , to the children of the same father , and the heirs of the same promises . the good order and government , and the wholsom laws and constitutions of a church , trust not be presently sacrificed to the scruples of every good , but it may be ig●●●●●● and indiscreet christian ; but yet in 〈◊〉 treatment of them , we must consider ●●ether we have not reason to think , that christ will own them with all their fa 〈…〉 and if we have reason to believe , that christ will own them , we ought also to own them , and pay such kindness to them as is due to all sincere christians , though under some mistakes . now i am very confident , after all the heats that have been between the church of england and dissenters , neither of them will damn each other upon account of such differences as are between them : no church-of-england-man will say , that to pray extempore , to baptize without the sign of the cross , to officiate without a surplice , to receive the sacrament sitting , are damning sins ; and i believe there are very few , if any of our dissenters , that will say , that the contrary practise is damning ; and then there may be good christians on both sides ; and those who are so , ought to love one another , as members of the same body of christ , though divided in their external communion , by some unhappy differences . schism indeed we do say , is a damning sin ; but there may be divisions where there is not always the guilt and formality of schism ; and we hope this is the case of all good men , who separate from the church , through some invincible prejudices and prepossessions . this shews what great reason we have to love one another , notwithstanding such dividing disputes ; but if we would practise this true christian charity , we must take care , that these differences do not grow up into personal hatreds and animosities . mens opinions and practices may differ , and while they dispute fairly , they may be friends still ; but when self-love , honour , reputation , and interest , is engaged in the quarrel , this makes the enmity mortal , and they must ruin one another , though they both fall together . this i am sure is not the zeal which descends from above , which is pure and peaceable , gentle and easie to be entreated . 2. the peace of the church signifies its preservation from the oppression and persecution of its enemies : for the church never wants enemies , though their power be not always equal ; and this , i presume , i need not perswade you to pray for , for you are all sensible what an advantage this is . there is none of you would choose racks and tortures , a gibbet or a stake , these are greivous things to flesh and bloud , the very thoughts of which make us tremble : though immortal life , and the joys and pleasures of god's presence , are an abundant recompence for the loss of this present life , and all the sufferings of this world ; yet it is a very difficult tryal , even to the best men , who , when they see it a coming , cannot but pray with the importunity of an agony , as our saviour did , lord , let this cup pass from me . though good men prefer their future hopes before all present things , yet their life , their ease , their liberties , their estates , are valuable things too , and all men would be glad to get to heaven without meeting with such a storm by the way . especially if it be such a storm as threatens the very ruin of the church , and of the true religion , to subvert the faith of many professed christians , to entail ignorance , infidelity , or monstrous errours on our posterity ; in such a case the love of our religion , of our country , of our posterity will make us raise our hearts and our voices to heaven , in our fervent and passionate prayers for the peace of jerusalem . and if we do heartily pray for the peace of jerusalem , methinks we should not sacrifice our religion to private animosities : god forbid , were it in my power , and had i never so little kindness for dissenters , that i should ever embrace any proposals which would ruin all the dissenters in england , and the protestant religion into the bargain ; and i doubt they are no protestant dissenters who would be contented to ruin the chvrch of england , though they introduce popery , and set up the church of rome in its stead . thus i have shewn you , what that peace is , which we must pray for ; and i need not add many words in the second place , to shew you , how necessary prayer is to obtain these blessings ; for not to insist now on those common topicks , of the necessity of prayer in general , and its power and efficacy to obtain our requests of god , i shall desire you only to consider , that this peace is such a blessing , as none but god can bestow , and therefore we ought to pray for it . 1. as for unity and peace among our selves , this saint paul expresly prays for , 15 rom. 5 , 6. now the god of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one towards another , according to christ jesus , that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorifie god , even the father of our lord jesus christ : for it is god that maketh men to be of a mind . whoever considers the unruly passions of men , their different capacities and understandings , and different interests , will not wonder that the best arguments , and the most obliging arts , do not always prevail ; but god can still our passions , enlighten our minds , over-rule our interests , remove our prejudices , and unite and reconcile the most distant persons : and not to take notice now of that power he has over our wills , and his immediate applications to our minds and spirits , he many times effects this by some external and visible providences . the jail and the stake presently reconciled the differences between those two excellent bishops and martyrs ridley and hooper , who before disputed fiercely about some ceremonies , as we have done ; and i pray god grant us so much christian prudence and temper , that we may not need such means to reconcile us : and we have great reason to hope this , since the divine providence has in a great measure already removed the prejudices on both sides , and convinc'd us , that we are not at such a distance from each other as our enemies would have us , and as it may be , we thought our selves to be . dissenters , i hope , are by this time very well satisfied , that the church of england has no inclination to popery , and we have reason to acknowledge , that the body of dissenters ( for some private intriguers on either side do not deserve our notice , nor to be thought on either side ) have not such an irreconcileable hatred to the church of england , as to sacrifice her to a popish interest ; and this bids fair for a good understanding between us , and let us pray to god to continue and perfect it . 2. as for the preservation of the church from the oppression and persecution of her enemies , this is god's care too , and many times nothing but an all-seeing , vigilant , and omnipotent providence can secure her . many times their designs are laid deep and low , full of intrigue and artifice , unknown to all men but themselves , as it was in the gunpowder treason , when our king , and nobles , and senators , were designed as a rich sacrifice to a furious and antichristian zeal ; but when the wicked plotteth against the just , and gnasheth on him with his teeth , the lord shall laugh at him , for he seeth , that his day is coming , 37 psal. 12 , 13. let us then pray heartily to god , that he would reconcile our differences and divisions , and restore peace and unity to his church , that he would defend us from all the plots and machinations of our enemies , that we being delivered from all persecutions , may ever more give thanks unto him in his holy church , through jesus christ our lord ; to whom , with the father and the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and for ever . amen . finis . books lately printed for william rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants . quarto . second edition . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply . 4 o. the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . in two parts . 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry : in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . 4 o. the protestant resolv'd : or , a discourse , shewing the vnreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . second edition . 8 o. the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . 4 o. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . 2d edition . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part. the fifth edition . the second part of the preservative against popery : shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of unlearned protestants . the second edition . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery : in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit , 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature , unity and communion of the catholick church : wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . the first part. 4 o. these five last by william sherlock d. d. master of the temple . a sermon preach'd before the queen at white-hall, february the xiith, 1691/2 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 36 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a71020 wing s3352 estc r41211 13567244 ocm 13567244 100321 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a71020) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 100321) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1049:3 or 1753:5) a sermon preach'd before the queen at white-hall, february the xiith, 1691/2 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 28 p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1692. reproduction of originals in the union theological seminary library, new york and huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -n.t. -matthew iv, 1 -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion books lately printed for w. rogers . a sermon preached at white-hall , before the queen , on the monthly-fast-day , september 16th , 1691. 4 o ; a persuasive to frequent communion in the holy sacrament of the lord's supper . the eighth edition . 12 o ; both by the most reverend father in god , john lord arch-bishop of canterbury . a sermon preached on the 28th of june , at st. andrew's holbourn . by the right reverend father in god john lord bishop of norwich . a sermon preached on the 28th of june , at st. mary le bow , on sunday the fifth of july , 1691. at the consecration of the most reverend father in god john lord arch-bishop of york ; and the right reverend fathers in god , john lord bishop of norwich , richard lord bishop of peterborough , and edward lord bishop of gloucester . by joshua clark , chaplain to the right reverend father in god , the bishop of norwich . 4 o ; the necessity of serious consideration , and speedy repentance , as the only way to be safe both living and dying . 8 o ; the lambs of christ fed with the sincere milk of the word of god , in a short scripture catechism . 12 o ; the folly of atheism demonstrated to the capacity of the most unlearned reader . 8 o ; these three by the reverend mr. clement elis , rector of kirby in notinghamshire . reflections upon two books , one entituled , the case of allegiance to a king in possession . the other , an answer to dr. sherlock ' s case of allegiance to sovereign powers in possession : on those parts especially , wherein the author endeavours to shew his opinion to be agreeable to the laws of this land. in a letter to a friend . 4 o ; the dean of st. pauls's sermon before the queen , on the 12th of february , 1691 / 2. a sermon preach'd before the queen at white-hall , february the xii th , 1691 / 2. by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . published by her majesty's special command . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's church , in fleetstreet . 1692. a sermon preached before her majesty at white-hall , febr. 12. 1691 / 2. iv. matt. 1. then was iesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness , to be tempted of the devil . the temptation of our saviour , after his fasting forty days , is a very proper subject for our meditation at this time ; and suggests so many useful observations , that i shall not wast any time in a needless preface ; but shall 1. consider in general , what concerns his temptation ; and 2. explain the nature of those particular temptations wherewith the devil assaulted him . 1. in general , concerning our saviour's being tempted by the devil : now to tempt , is to make a tryal and experiment ; and when the devil tempts , it is to try , if he can perswade , or seduce us from the fear , and worship , and obedience of god. 1. now in the first place it is very observable , that christ himself , when he became man , was tempted of the devil ; and there is no greater mystery in this , than that he was liable to hunger and cold , and had all the innocent appetites , inclinations , infirmities of human nature ; that is , that he was a true and real man. the ancients generally conclude , that the devil did not know at this time , how great a person our saviour was , even the eternal son of god ; for it is hardly credible , that had he known this , he would have made so vain and hopeless an attempt on him : it is likely enough , he thought him to be some extraordinary person ; he knew by the ancient prophecies , that the messias was to appear ; and knew from the prophet daniel , that the time for his coming was accomplished ; nay , it is probable , he knew all the circumstances of his birth , and heard that testimony god gave him at his baptism , this is my beloved son ; but he saw he was a man , though an extraordinary man ; and might not know that he was any thing more ; and having formerly foiled our first parents in paradise , in the state of innocence , hoped for the like success again . now if christ himself was tempted by the devil , none of us must hope to escape ; tempted we shall be , and therefore must take care to stand upon our guard , and to fortify our minds against all temptations . and this encouragement we have from the example of our saviour , that to be tempted is no sin , unless we yield to a temptation ; for he was tempted as we are , yet without sin ; and we cannot imagine , had it been a sin to be tempted , that god would have permitted the devil to have tempted our saviour ; which may ease the fears of some melancholly christians , who are afflicted with evil and tempting thoughts which their souls abhor ; for whatever the cause of such thoughts be , whether a frighted and disturbed imagination , or the suggestion of wicked spirits , they can no more defile the soul , which abhors and rejects them with grief and indignation , than they can the paper , on which they are writ . nay , hence we learn , that god many times exercises those with the greatest and most difficult tryals and temptations , who are most dear to him . he had no sooner proclaimed christ his beloved son , in whom he was well pleased , but he leads him by the spirit into the wilderness , to be tempted of the devil . this life is a state of tryal and probation ; and temptations , though they create some trouble and difficulty to good men , yet do them no hurt . if good men conquer , temptations do but exercise , encrease , and confirm their graces , and make them great and illustrious examples to the world , glorify the divine power in the victories and triumphs of his servants , over the world , the flesh , and the devil ; give them a secure hope in god , and a transporting sense of his love , and prepare great rewards for them in the next life . and if they happen in any particular encounter to be overcome , as st. peter himself was , when he denied his master ; yet they rise again with glory , and the sense of their sin , and the shame of a defeat , fills them with sorrow , indignation , self-revenge , gives them new spirit , vigour , activity , resolution , makes them more patient of hardships and sufferings , more unwearied in doing good , more humble and modest , and more perfectly resigned to the will of god , to dispose of them and their services to his own glory , as he pleases . god does not train up those whom he loves , and whom he prepares for glory , in ease and softness ; whom the lord loveth he chastneth ; and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth : and the more difficult temptations he exposes us to , the greater honour he does us ; the more glorious will our triumphs , the richer and brighter will our crowns be . let us then behold our saviour in the wilderness , separated from human conversation , and all the comforts of life , in the midst of wild beasts and tempting spirits , and not think , that god uses us hardly , if at any time he lets loose the tempter upon us , and gives him power over all we have , as he did in the case of job , to afflict us in our relations , our bodies , our estates , good names , or whatever gives us the sharpest and keenest sense of suffering ; and is the most difficult exercise of our faith. 2. let us consider the time , when our saviour was tempted , viz. immediately after his baptism , being full of the holy ghost , 4. luke . 1. 1. as soon as our saviour was baptized , he was led by the spirit into the wilderness . for then in my text relates to the time of his baptism ; and st. luke tells us , this was done in his return from jordan , where he was baptized by john. by this religious rite , our saviour had devoted himself to the immediate service of god in the salvation of mankind , and was inaugurated into his prophetick office , by that testimony which was given to him by a voice from heaven , this is my beloved son in whom i am well pleased ; and this was the critical time , both for the devil to tempt , and for our saviour to baffle all his temptations , and to triumph over him . could the devil have conquered our saviour in this first assault , there had been an end of this glorions design of mans salvation , when he had enslaved and captivated the saviour himself ; and therefore he began as early with the second adam , as he did with the first , though not with the like success . had our first parents resisted the first temptation , we had been happy for ever ; but they yielded and brought death upon themselves and their posterity ; but the seed of the woman , whom god had promised , should break the serpents head , who was made manifest to destroy the works , the kingdom and the power of the devil , by god's order and appointment , first encounters him in his own person , resists his most furious assaults , makes him retreat with shame and despair , as foreseeing his own destiny , and the final destruction of his kingdom . as the old serpent seduced our first parents in paradice , and brought sin and misery , and death into the world , so it was very fitting that the saviour of mankind should give the first proof of his divine power in conquering the tempter . this gives us great encouragement to fight under christ's banners against the world , the flesh , and the devil ; for the captain of our salvation has already conquered , and if we are not wanting to our selves , we shall be more than conquerors through christ who strengthens us . he knows what the power of temptations is , and what measures of grace are necessary to resist them ; and if we do not forsake him , he will not forsake us . he has conquered himself , and knows how to conquer ; and if we faithfully adhere to him , we shall conquer too . nay , in case we should some time be conquered , this has made him a merciful and compassionate high priest , being in all things tempted like as we are : he knows the weakness of humane nature , and the power and subtilty of the tempter , and prays for us , as he did for st. peter , that our faith fail not ; that if we fall , we may rise again by repentance : and this is a mighty consolation , that if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father , iesus christ the righteous , who is not only a propitiation for our sins , but was tempted also , as we are . 2ly . st. luke observes , that our saviour was full of the holy ghost , ( which he received without measure at his baptism , when the holy ghost descended like a dove , and rested on him ) before he was led by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil . for human nature ( and it was the human nature of christ on which the holy ghost descended ) cannot resist such powerful assaults without divine assistances . and the example of our saviour assures us , that god will not expose us to any temptations , without giving us proportionable measures of grace to resist them : that if we are at any time conquered , it is not for want of power , but for want of will to conquer : that is , the fault is wholly our own , and we cannot blame god for it . i doubt , there are few men in the world , but the devil ( had he the full power of tempting ) could find out some temptations too big for them ; but the divine goodness is seen , as well in restraining the power of the devil , that we shall not be tempted above what we are able to bear , as by the strengthning our minds by the internal assistances of his grace ; and therefore our saviour has taught us to pray , lead us not into temptation , but deliver us from evil , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the wicked one , which does not signify , that we may never be tempted , which is impossible , while we live in bodies of flesh and blood , and are incompassed with all the flattering objects of flesh and sense ; but that god would not give us up into the power of the devil , to be tempted above what we are able . some of the ancients observe from this story , that when we devote and consecrate our selves to god , we must expect to be tempted as our saviour was : as for bad men , who are the slaves and vassals of the devil , he cannot so properly be said to tempt , as to govern them ; for he is the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience : but when men desert his service , he is very busie to recover his slaves again ; but then our comfort and security too , is , that when we give up our selves to the service of god , he takes us into his protection ; the wicked one cannot touch us without his leave , and he always proportions our trials to our strength . 3dly , consider the place of our saviour's temptation : he was led by the spirit into the wilderness , where there were no tempting objects , but yet there the temping spirit found him . some men think , that the surest way to get rid of temptations , is to get out of the world ; to withdraw themselves from human conversation ; or to make a shew of doing it , without doing it ; as if the devil could not follow them into a desert , or a cell . while we live in bodies of flesh and blood , we may be tempted where-ever we are : if we mortify our sensual appetites , and our love to this world , we may live very innocently in the world ; if we do not , we can never get rid of the world , but where-ever we go , we carry it in our hearts . do these men imagine , they can never be tempted to lust , unless they daily see and converse with beautiful women ? or that they cannot love the world without living in a court , and enjoying all the ease and luxury of a plentiful fortune ? or that it is not possible to despise the world with as much haughtiness and vanity of mind , as any man has , who most admires it ? that a monk can't be as proud as an emperor , and glory as much in a sullen retirement , in voluntary austerities , in an affected poverty , in a vain opinion of extraordinary sanctity , as any man can do in wealth and power ? whence came all those superstitions , which have corrupted both the faith and worship of christianity , and done more mischief to the church and religion , than all the looseness of a secular life , but from desarts and the cells of monks and hermites ? which proves that the devil has his temptations for the wilderness , as well as for the court ; for the most religious devotees , and melancholly enthusiasts , as well as for the men of this world ; and those the most dangerous temptations too ; which as experience tells us , open a back-door for pride and ambition , and secular power , and a general corruption of manners to enter into the church , and into the lives of christians : and therefore we must guard our selves against the tempter as well in our greatest solitudes and retirements from the world , as in a croud of business . we must have a care of the temptations of devotion , and mortification , of fastings and penances , of a sullen discontent at this world , as well as of the temptations of a busie life , and of an easie and prosperous fortune . 4thly , i observe , that christ was led by the spirit into the wilderness , to be tempted of the devil ; that is , it was god's appointment , not his own voluntary choice . and this teaches us manfully to resist temptations , when the providence of god , and the unavoidable circumstances of our condition bring us into temptations , but not presumptuously to thrust our selves into them . there is always danger in temptations , especially when we rashly venture upon them . let not him that putteth on his armour , boast , as he that putteth it off , is true in our spiritual warfare . we have seen great men conquered , even st. peter himself ; and therefore let him that thinketh he standeth , take heed lest he fall , and not unnecessarily venture too near a precipice , where he may be in danger of falling . our saviour has taught us to pray , that god would not lead us into temptation , as i observed before ; much less then ought we to lead our selves into temptation . we may easily presume too far upon the strength of our faith , our courage , our resolution , as st. peter did , who had he been more diffident of himself , had kept out of the high-priest's hall , and escaped the temptation , which he could not resist . we daily see , that men who presume upon the strength of their constitution , and use their bodies ill , destroy their health , and shorten their lives , while men who feel their own weak and crazy temper , live on with care to a good old age ; and thus it is with respect to the mind , as well as to the body : presumption will destroy those , whom fear and caution will secure ; and therefore , let us not be high-minded , but fear . there are a great many ways , whereby men expose themselves to temptation , and tempt even the tempter ; some of which are very obvious : as to keep ill company , whose conversation is a daily temptation : sloth and idleness , which betrays men to any wickedness , which offers itself : for it is an uneasie thing to have nothing to do , and that itself is a temptation , and the devil never wants business to employ such men in ; and i know nothing worse than this , but when men choose such business , as is nothing else but idleness and vanity , or can only minister to their own , or to other mens lusts. but there are other ways , whereby men thrust themselves into temptations , without considering what they do . i might name many , but shall content myself with some few at present , which are least observed , and which prove snares to good men ; as for instance : to impose upon our selves constant tasks of religion , that we will read and pray so much , and so often every day , and observe voluntary fasts , and abstain from such innocent diversions , &c. which men commonly resolve in some great heats and fits of devotion , which they fancy will continue in the same fervour , but never do ; and then these tasks grow very uneasie , as every thing of religion does , when it grows a task ; and then they degenerate into dulness and formality , and then men either leave them off , and with that are tempted to leave off religion itself ; or they are so very cold , that they fancy themselves spiritually dead , and fall into melancholly , into desentions , into despair itself . it is a dangerous thing for men by rash and arbitrary vows , to tye themselves up from doing that , which otherwise they might very innocently do , and which they will be strongly tempted to do , when they have vowed not to do it . the guides of souls know , that this is no imaginary case , but what they so often meet with , and see such ill effects of , that it is very fit to warn men of the snare . were there no other reason against the monkish vows of celibacy , poverty , and obedience , i should think this sufficient , that considered only as perpetual vows , they are a dangerous state of temptation ; and for my own part , i would never advise any man to make a perpetual vow to do , or not to do any thing , which it is not perpetually his duty to do , or not to do . thus to marry with persons of a disagreeable age , or a disagreeable humour , or a contrary religion , is to put our selves into a state of temptation ; but such particular instances would be endless , and therefore i forbear if god lead us into temptation , he will give us sufficient strength to resist , if we improve his grace ; if we lead our selves into temptation , and god leave us to the power and subtilty of the tempter , the sin and the folly is our own . 5thly , i observe by what means our saviour conquered the devil's temptations , and that was by the authority , and by the word of god : it is written , man shall not live by bread alone . it is written , thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god. it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . these are such answers , as would admit of no reply ; for the authority of god can never be answered . and thus we must conquer also , if ever we will conquer , by a firm faith in god , and belief of his word : faith is our shield , and the word of god is the sword of the spirit , and we have no other fure defence against all temptations . this ruined our first parents in paradise , when their reason and natural powers , were in their greatest vigour , perfection , and integrity , that instead of insisting on god's authority , they ventured to reason the case with the tempter . set aside the authority of god , and the devil will quickly out-wit , and out-reason us ; he is skilled in all the arts of deceit , and methods of perswasions , and without god's authority , our courage , our resolution , our honour , out reason itself , even all the rants and triumphant speculations of philosophy , will fail us in the day of trial : to tempt , is either to deceive , or to perswade , and there is no other secure defence against either , but the authority , and the word of god. the wisest reasoner may be imposed on by so artificial a tempter ; but god can neither deceive , nor be deceived , and then while we believe god , and have regard to his commands , we cannot be deceived neither : and what is able to resist all the terrours and flatteries of the world , and the flesh , but the authority of that god , who is our maker , and our judge ? what insignificant names are vertue and vice , how weak and feeble is the sence of decency and honour , and the dignity of human nature , and of a life of reason ( after we have read or writ so many volumes about it ) when we feel the soft charms of pleasure , and our eyes are filled with visible glories ? who would not part with a fine thought or two , with some pretty notions of moral beauty , and intellectual pleasures , for a happiness which may be seen and felt ? but the authority of god , the firm belief of his promises and threatnings , the hopes and fears of another world , are beyond all other perswasions , unless any thing can perswade a man to be eternally miserable . this may suffice to be spoke in general , concerning our saviours temptation ; we come now to consider , ii. the particular temptation , wherewith our saviour was assaulted , and they are three . 1. the first was to relieve his hunger , after his long fasting by working a miracle : and when the tempter came to him , he said , if thou be the son of god , command that these stones be made bread . this was a very artificial temptation , which it may be , none but christ himself would have been aware of : for what hurt was it , for the son of god to work a miracle ? what hurt was it for a man , who was hungry to relieve his hunger ? for here was no temptation to excess , but to satisfie the necessities of nature : what hurt was it for him , who afterwards fed so many thousands by miracles , in this great distress , to have wrought a miracle to satisfie his own hunger ? this was very plausible , and looked like very charitable advice , but yet there was a secret snare in it . 1st , for this was made a trial , whether he were the son of god or not , if thou be the son of god , command that these stones be made bread : now had he complied with this , it had argued a distrust of his relation to god , and of the love of his father ; and this was a temptation to sin. thus the tempter dealt with our first parents , made them jealous of god's good intentions towards them , and by that tempted them to disobedience . the serpent said unto the woman , ye shall not surely die . for god knoweth , that in the day ye eat thereof , then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods , knowing good and evil . that is , god envies your happiness , and therefore has forbid you to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. thus the devil suggested to our saviour , that he had great reason to question , whether he were the son of god , because he was destitute of all the comforts and supports of life , and after forty days fasting , had nothing in the wilderness to eat , unless he would turn stones into bread. and though this part of the temptation our saviour takes no notice of in his answer , but scorns it ; yet we find it makes a very powerful impression upon other men , who are apt to measure god's love or hatred by present things ; when they are prosperous , they conclude they are the favorites of heaven ; when they are afflicted and meet with cross events , then god is angry with them and has forsaken them : and though this argues such a stupid ignorance of christianity , that one would think , it could be no temptation to a christian , yet it is too notorious , that three parts of the melancholy , the desertions , nay despair of many christians , is owing to no other cause : they think their condition safe for the next world , while they are prosperous in this , but as soon as the world begins to frown they are irrecoverably damned ; but would such men consider , that our saviour himself wanted bread in the wilderness , and had no place , whereon to lay his head ; it would cure these desertions if there be no greater guilt , which a strait fortune awakens the sense of , which i doubt is too often the case . 2dly , there was another snare in this , to perswade our saviour , to supply the necessities of nature by extraordinary means , without the immediate direction and command of god ; for this had been a distrust of god's care and providence , to have relieved his own wants by preternatural and uncommanded methods : and therefore to this he answers , it is written , man shall not live by bread alone , but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of god. that is , bread indeed is the ordinary provision god has made for the support of mans life , but when these ordinary and natural provisions fail , he has other ways to support life , as he fed the israelites with manna and quails in the wilderness , and gave them drink out of a rock , but then we must patiently and securely expect by what means god will provide for us , and till the word proceed out of his mouth , till we have some particular command and direction for it , we must take no extraordinary , uncommanded , much less forbidden ways , to preserve our lives : for this is want of trust in god , or want of submission to his will. extream want and necessity is almost an irresistible temptation to human nature , to distrust the ordinary provisions of providence , and to provide for our selves by what means we can ; and to justifie what we do by such necessities : it requires a great degree of faith and trust in god , when we have no prospect of ordinary succors , patiently to expect god's provision , without going out of gods way : but thus our saviour was tempted , and has taught us how to conquer this temptation , man shall not live by bread alone , but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of god : if bread fail , we must expect by what other means god will supply our wants , and not transgress those laws god hath prescribed us , how desperate soever our condition seem to be . 2dly , the next temptation is in the other extreme , to presume so far upon his interest in god's favour and protection , as to make dangerous and vain-glorious experiments of god's care : he set him upon a pinacle of the temple , and said unto him , if thou be the son of god , cast thy self down : for it is written , he shall give his angels charge concerning thee , and in their hands they shall bear thee up , lest at any time , thou shouldst dash thy foot against the stone . when the tempter perceived , that christ wholly relied on the directions and authority of scripture , he inforces his temptation with scripture too , misunderstood and misapplied . and these are the most dangerous temptations of all , which impose upon men with a shew of religion , as our late experience of a wild enthusiastic age will tell us ; when nothing so bad could be thought of , but some men had scripture-examples , or precepts , or prophesies , or parables , to justifie it ; and therefore we must be aware of this , as well as of all the other arts and stratagems of the tempter . in answer to this our saviour proves , that this text could not mean , that god would command his angels to bear him up in their hands , if he should fling himself from the pinacle of the temple , because we are expresly forbid , to make such experiments of god's protection , as this : it is written , thou shalt not tempe the lord thy god. to tempt is to try , and to tempt god is to try what he will , or can do for us , beyond his promise , and beyond the ordinary methods of his providence ; especially when we either murmur against god , for not answering our unreasonable demands , or presume upon his favour to do that , which he has forbid us to do , or expect his protection and blessing , when we put our selves out of the ordinary protection of his providence : it were easie , had i time to give instances , of all these ways of tempting god ; the temptation of our saviour concerns the last i mentioned , out of a vain-glorious humour , and a presumption of god's peculiar favour to us , voluntarily without any reasonable pretence , much less necessity , to thrust ourselves into apparent and unavoidable dangers , and expect god should save us by miracles : for this is what our saviour was tempted to , to fling himself down from the pinacle of the temple , in a presumptuous confidence of god's care of him , that he would command his angels to bear him up in their hands . this looks like faith in god , a plerephory of hope , and full assurance of his love , but indeed is vanity , pride , insolence , presumption , and a tempting of god. it is such an affront and indignity , as wise men will not bear from their best friends , when they impose upon them , not to do them a real kindness , but to gratifie their vanity and humour in such demands , as a wise man cannot honourably grant . and yet there is a more dangerous and fatal presumption then this , when men have such a strong imagination of their being the sons , the chosen and elect people of god , that they think they cannot do any thing to forfeit god's love : they may make more bold with god's laws then other men , for god sees no sin in his people ; nay indeed , that it is no sin to advance themselves , and the cause they have espoused , which they call the glory of god , by extraordinary means , that is , by transgressing all the known and ordinary rules of justice and charity . these are dangerous temptations , and we have seen the miserable effects of them , and therefore let no man think , that he is so great a favorite of heaven , as to have god at his beck to save him by miracles , when he wilfully exposes himself to such dangers , as nothing but miracles can deliver him from ; much less to think , that god will alter the nature of good and evil for his sake ; that he will dispense with his laws , ( laws which are as eternal and unchangeable as his own nature ) when ever such vain enthusiasts pretend to serve themselves , and his glory by the breach of them , it is written , thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god. 3. these two temptations were managed with great art to deceive , the third is open and bare-faced . the devil in express words tempts him to idolatry , with the promise of all the kingdoms of the world , and the glory of them ; which he had drawn a beautiful landskip of , and shew'd him from a high mountain : all these things will i give thee , if thou wilt fall down and worship me : or as st. luke relates it : all this power will i give thee , and the glory of them ; for it is delivered unto me , and to whomsoever i will , i give it . which in some sense was true at that time ; not that the devil had the supreme and absolute disposal of kingdoms , for st. paul assures us , that all the powers even of the pagan world , were of god and ordained by god. but yet he was at that time the god of this world , and had a more visible kingdom than god himself . the true worshippers of god were at that time chiefly confined to judea , a very little spot of earth , but all the power and glory of the world was in the hands of idolaters , who worshipped the devil and wicked spirits : and the force of the argument is , as if he had said to our saviour , you call your self the son of god , and worship him , but will god do that for you , which i can and will do , if you worship me : you your self see , that he has no kingdom but judea to bestow on you , and that also is at present in the hands of my worshippers ; but what is that to all the kingdoms of the world , which are at my disposal , and which you see your self are mine and under my government . but our saviour without disputing the value of this world , or what power the devil had in the disposal of it , chides away the tempter with indignation , be gone satan , for it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . but tho' christ refused this proffer , his pretended vicar has taken it , and revived the old pagan idolatry for the kingdoms of the world , and the glory of them . this is the prevailing temptation to this day , to corrupt religion , the faith and worship of god for some temporal advantages : too many men think that the best religion , which will best serve a secular interest ; and we have reason to think , that too many do this , and know what they do ; that their furious zeal for a false religion is not all ignorance and mistake , but an undissembled love of this world : for can we think , that the devil never tempted any man but christ , knowingly and willingly to renounce the true religion , and the true worship of god for this world ? no doubt he does , and very often prevails too ; and these knowing idolaters who make a downright bargain to worship the devil for the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them , are those who abuse the ignorant and credulous with a false and hypocritical zeal . but let us remember , that we must worship the lord our god , and him only must we serve : let us remember what our saviour tells us , what shall it profit a man , if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? or , what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? let us remember , that the end of religion is to please god , to glorifie him , to be like him , and to enjoy him for ever , and this will give us a secure victory over the world and the devil , which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord iesus christ , to whom with the father and the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and for ever , amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a71020-e690 13 rom. 1. a sermon preach'd before the honourable house of commons, at st. margaret's westminster, january the xxxth, 1691/2 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 35 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59880 wing s3350 estc r21693 12568020 ocm 12568020 63395 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59880) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63395) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:18) a sermon preach'd before the honourable house of commons, at st. margaret's westminster, january the xxxth, 1691/2 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 29, [3] p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1692. advertisement: p. [1]-[3] at end. half title: the dean of st. pauls's sermon before the honourable house of commons, on the 30th of january, 1691/2. running title: a sermon preach'd before the house of commons. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -o.t. -psalms xc, 15 -sermons. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-09 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-09 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the dean of st. pauls's sermon before the honourable house of commons , on the 30 th of january , 1691 / 2. lunae 1 mo . die februarii , 1691. ordered , that the thanks of this house be given to the dean of st. paul's , for the sermon preached before this house at st. margaret's westminster , the 30 th day of january last : and that he be desired to print the same : and that sir tho. darcy , and mr. biddolph do acquaint him therewith . paul jodrell , cl ' dom. com. a sermon preach'd before the honourable house of commons , at st. margaret's westminster , january the xxxth , 1691 / 2. by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . london : printed for william rogers at the sun , over-against st. dunstan's church , in flee●street . 1692. a sermon preach'd before the house of commons , on the xxxth of january , 1691 / 2. xc . psalm 15. make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us , and the years wherein we have seen evil . this psalm , as the title tells us , and as learned men generally agree , is a prayer of moses ; penned by him , as is supposed , after god had pronounced that final sentence against the israelites , that none of that great army , which came out of egypt , from twenty years old and upwards , should enter into canaan , but should all die in the wilderness , excepting caleb and joshua . and therefore he complains , we are consumed in thy anger , and by thy wrath are we troubled ; thou hast set our iniquities before thee , our secret sins in the light of thy countenance : for all our days are passed away in thy wrath , we spend our years as a tale that is told . which is literally true of no other period of the jewish church , but this , when god in great anger had condemned them all to die in the wilderness : they lived then to little other purpose , but to pass away the time , as men tell stories , till forty years should put an end to them all . but in my text , and some verses before , he prays for , and foretells a more happy state of the jewish church ; when all the troubles they had suffered for so many years in egypt , and the wilderness , should come to an end , and they should be setled in a quiet possession of the promised land. return , o lord , how long ? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants . o satisfy us early with thy mercy , that we may rejoice , and be glad all our days . make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us , and the years wherein we have seen evil . so that in my text there are three things considerable ; 1. the first is implied , that sin for which god thus punished them : for that it was for their sins , not only the justice of the divine providence supposes , when the calamity is national ; but the psalmist expresly affirms , v. 8. thou hast set our iniquities before thee , our secret sins in the light of thy countenance . which intimates , that there were more sins than one , and some of them very secret ones too , for which god punished them : for so commonly it is , that a great many sins , such as we have forgot , or took little notice of , are brought to account , when some one great provocation tempts god to publick acts of vengeance . if we apply this to the case i before mentioned , then it is very evident what this provoking sin was ; viz. their murmuring against that good land , their rebelling against god and moses , their attempt to make them a captain to return into egypt , and to stone caleb and joshua , who encouraged them to go up , and take possession of the land , which god had promised to their fathers , num. 14. 2. their punishment , the continuance and severity of it ; they were to wander in the wilderness forty years , and to die there , without entring into that good land. 3. moses's prophetick prayer , that god would return to them in mercy , and recompence these sufferings , by giving them a quiet possession of the land of promise ; make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us , and the years wherein we have seen evil . our case , which is the occasion of this present solemnity , differs somewhat from this in every particular , but yet bears such an analogy , and proportion to it , that i shall take occasion from hence to discourse to you on these three heads : 1. the sin which we this day lament . 2. the evils and calamities , which we have now for more than forty years , in some degrees or other , and sometimes very severely suffered under , as the natural effects , or just punishments of that sin. 3. what a happy prospect we have of an end of all these evils , if we can be contented to be happy . 1. as for the first , the sin we this day lament ; i shall make no scruple to call it what you have this day in your publick prayers to almighty god confessed it to be ; the barbarous murder of an excellent prince : and those are guilty of base hypocrisie , and put a great contempt upon god , who join in the devotions of this day , and don't think it so . besides our imploring the divine mercy and forgiveness , i have sometimes thought that such an annual solemnity as this , is due to the memory of our murdered prince ; the least recompence we can make to him , and yet the greatest thing we can now do for him ; to celebrate his funeral with a religious pomp , and to shed penitential tears upon his grave ; and indeed such an honourable presence as this , gives an illustrious testimony to him , and vindicates his memory from those scurrilous reflections which are made on it by envenomed pens . i shall not dispute the lawfulness of resisting the king's authority ; whether it were lawful for the parliament to take arms against the king , to defend the laws and liberties of their countrey ; for whether it were or were not , all wise and good men must abominate the villany of this day ; as we know many of those did , who began the war , without being aware what the end of it would be . for suppose ( which is all that can be asked in this case ) , that in a limited monarchy the estates of the realm have authority to maintain the laws and liberties of their countrey , against the illegal encroachments and usurpations of their king ; how does this justifie the murder of king charles ? for 1. they could pretend to no farther right , than to keep the king within the boundaries of law ; and when they were secured of this , they had nothing else to do , but to lay down their arms , and return to their duty ; for he was their king still , and they his subjects ; and if it were no rebellion to resist his illegal usurpations , yet it must be rebellion to oppose him , when he was contented to govern by the measures of law ; if there be any such sin , as what men use to call rebellion . especially when the subversion of the laws and government , and established religion of the nation is made the condition of peace : for tho it were lawful for subjects to resist their prince for subverting laws , surely this don 't make it lawful for them to murder him for observing the laws which he is sworn to observe : and therefore whether it were rebellion or not before , one would think it should commence rebellion , when the scotch covenant , the abolishing of episcopacy and liturgies , that is , of the worship and government of the church established by law , were made the necessary articles of peace , without which , a prince who sued for peace , must be denied it by his own subjects . and yet it is much worse still , when a prince for the sake of peace shall make such concessions , ( tho it may be to the diminution of his just authority ) as the estates of the realm shall vote satisfactory , and yet be persecuted by a prevailing faction , who had got the power in their hands , and did equally oppress both king and subjects . i need not comment upon these things , you know the truth , and the application of them . 2 dly , and yet it is a monstrous aggravation of this , when they had a yeilding and complying prince in their hands , as far as with a safe conscience he could comply , to arraign , judge , condemn , and execute him : for what authority had they to judge and condemn their king ? how came they to be his soveraign , and he their subject ? what law or rule made such an example or president as this ? and if they had no authority for it , it was murder , and that the most execrable murder , the murder of their king. it was a sarcastical question of pilate to the jews , will ye crucifie your king ? this they were ashamed of , and therefore disowned him , we have no king but caesar : if the murder of a private man be so great a crime , because in the image of god made he man ; what is the murder of a king , who is doubly sacred , doubly the image of god , both as a man , and as a king , who is god's minister and vicegerent ? and yet a secret stab or poyson had been a civil way of murdering princes , in comparison with this mock-scene and pageantry of justice : for what a tragical sight was this ! how could humane nature bear such an indignity ! to see a crown'd head , which not long since received the humblest submissions of his subjects , and had life and death at his disposal ; who was the fountain of all authority and justice , now arraigned before his own subjects , treated with ignominy and scorn , brought in triumph through his own palace , where he used to shine with an awful majesty , and in the fight of the sun , in the fight of his own subjects , who scarce durst bestow a secret sigh on him ; bow his royal head to the murdering axe : i cannot bear telling th● story , and were it upon any other occasion , i should think it very unmannerly to put you to so much pain as to hear it . and if to this we add the character of his person , and those princely vertues which adorn'd his life ; such vertues as are rarely found in meaner persons ; nay , which would have adorned even a hermits cell ; it still aggravates the iniquity of it : but i shall not insist on this , for he has drawn the picture of himself in his admirable book , better than any one else can draw it . it is an amazing providence , that god should expose the greatest example of piet yand vertue , that had sate upon the english throne , to such indignities and sufferings , as in all the circumstances of them had no example : what wise reasons god had for it , we know not ; but i am sure thus much we learn , that there is a spirit of zeal and faction , the principles of which , if not restrained , will ruin the best princes , and over-turn the best governments in the world ; for they make little difference between princes , where they can find pretence and power . this was a very great wickedness , for which it becomes us , as we do this day , to humble our selves before god , and to implore his mercy to pity and spare us . it is not enough to say , that we had no hand in it ; that it was done before many of us were born , or before we could know and judge any thing about it , or that we did abhor and detest it when it was done : this will excuse us from all personal guilt ; we shall not answer for it in another world , but we may suffer for it in this . national sins bring down national judgments , which all men will more or less feel , till they are removed by a national repentance and humiliation : and therefore tho we cannot confess this sin , as our own personal guilt , we ought to express our publick abhorrence of it ; to beg god to remove those judgments which this sin has both deserved , and has brought upon us ; especially after so many days , wherein we have been afflicted , after so many years , wherein we have seen evil . 2. which brings me to the second part of my text , those many evils we have seen and felt ; those judgments with which god has afflicted us for this sin : for so we have reason to believe , when the punishment bears the character of the sin upon it , and is the natural effect and consequent of it . i shall not give you a history of those late tragical times , which most of you know as well or better than i do : how much this unhappy divided kingdom suffered by a bloody unnatural war , which ruined so many noble and flourishing families , made so many miserable widows and orphans , spent so much christian blood and treasure , ruined the best reformed church , together with the best prince ; put the sword into those mens hands , who knew better than to part with it , when they had it , till they had carved out their own fortune and greatness . i need not tell you , that the fundamental constitution of the english government was overturned , and exchanged for new models , which did not last long enough to be lick'd into any shape , and at last dwindled and glimmer'd away in some short and faint apparitions of power . how the subject was all this while oppressed by the worst sort of oppressors , their fellow-subjects ; and found a vast deal of difference between the government of their king with all his faults , and their new masters . these things , i say , i shall pass over , for thanks be to god , there is an end of them ; and they remain only in story , as sea-marks to warn us , where the rocks and sands lie : but such violent storms as these seldom end without leaving a rowling and troubled sea. these terrible convulsions of state , like a sharp fit of the gout , when the pain is gone , leave a great weakness upon the government , and make it very unquiet , and liable to frequent relapses . as for example : this destroys all confidence between prince and subjects , leaves ill resentments , jealousies , distrusts , which make government uneasie and weak , when a prince cannot trust his subjects , nor subjects their prince ; but they guard and fence against each other , the one to secure his crown , the other their liberties : an unhappy state , which must needs make all publick affairs move slowly , and lamely , and create many inconveniences to a kingdom , both at home and abroad . this temps princes to affect arbitrary power , when they feel their crowns sit tottering upon their heads , and see themselves check'd at every turn , and it may be finally stopt in the most generous designs , to advance the glory , safety , riches , and power of their nation ; nay find themselves too weak to secure their government from foreign powers , or from home-bred factions without it . i believe , no considering man doubts , but that the late attempts to introduce arbitrary power in form of law , were principally owing to the tragedy of this day : and if it were possible any thing could excuse such attempts , this would have done it . however we ought to acknowledge , that those difficulties we so lately strugled under , and from which the good providence of god has delivered us , were the just punishment , because the just desert , and the unavoidable effect of our sin. while this is the state of things , without setting up the royal standard , or levying forces , prince and subjects ( however the matter may be dissembled ) are at war with each other ; and how uneasy a state this is , and how much the publick suffers by it , our late experience will tell us , or nothing will. arbitrary power and popery were the two great pretences to justify the war against king charles i. now whatever appearances there might be of the first through mistake and ill councel , and the necessity of affairs , which might misguide an excellent prince ; there was little pretence for the second , besides a fanatical imputation of popery to the church of england , of which that prince was so zealous a patron ; the church of england , i say , the great bulwark against popery ; whose first reformers sealed their testimony against popery with their blood ; and whose many learned pens have defended the protestant cause , to the great satisfaction of all the protestant churches , and to the confusion of their popish adversaries , and that even in the late reign , when few other pens durst engage in the quarrel . but observe now , as adonibezeck does , how god has required us . to prevent the vain fears of popery , protestants take arms against their king , barbarously murder him , and drive their princes to seek their bread , and to secure their lives in foreign countries . there one of them learns the religion of those countries , which is a very convenient religion for a prince , who affects to be absolute . and this brought our fears upon us ; we saw a zealous popish prince , and popish bishops , and such bold steps made to set up popery , as made us all tremble . righteous are thou , o lord , and just are thy judgments ! on the other hand , this makes subjects very jealous of the power of their prince , and ready to take all advantages to lessen it ; which in time may prove very dangerous to government , at least will insensibly alter the constitution : for too little power is as fatal to government as too much ; nay , in some junctures it is the most dangerous extream of the two for what we call too much power may be well used , when in the hand of a wise and good prince ; and then the more the power is , the stronger and more flourishing must the government and nation be ; but too little power can never govern well when the government is so weak , that it can neither defend it self nor its subjects ; and therefore the just rights and prerogatives of the crown , and the necessary powers and authority for government , ought to be as dear to subjects , as their own rights and liberties are . it is certain power will be somewhere , if the prince loose it , the people will get it , and when once the people gain such a power as to top their prince , there is an end of monarchy . as absolute power changes the constitution of a legal and limited monarchy into an arbitrary government , so a precarious depending power , changes the monarchy it self into a venetian state. both which extreams wise men , who love the english government , would by all means avoid ; and it is a very great mischief , when princes or subjects are violently tempted to either of the extreams : and this we owe also to the sin of this day . another very lasting and fatal evil of such examples , as that of this day is , that it infects mens minds with loose notions of government and obedience , which are at first invented to justifie such actions , and which people are sooner taught then untaught : as , that all power is radically in the people , and therefore but a trust , which a prince must give an account of ; which he may be deprived of ; for the abuse of which he may be punished , even with death , by his own subjects . nay there are some among us who charge all men who deny this , with being enemies to the constitution , and with reproaching the wisdom and justice of the nation in the late happy revolution , which they think can be defended upon no other principles . but as wise men , and as hearty friends to the present government think otherwise ; and i am sure it would be no service to the government to perswade all , who cannot own these principles , to disown and renounce all that has been done . but how does it appear , that the late revolution turned upon these principles . the undertaking of the prince of orange , now our gracious king , needed none of these principles to justify it : he was no subject of england , but an independent prince , and so nearly related to the crown , that he was concerned to see the succession secured , and the government kept upon its ancient bottom ; which was thought so just and honourable and necessary an undertaking , that men of all principles seemed very well satisfied with it ; even those who think the matter carried so far that they cannot now comply with the present government ; in so much , that some , who are the greatest sufferers at present by their non-compliance , could not be perswaded at that time to declare their abhorrence of it . the great body of the nation stood still and looked on ; wished well to the prince without wishing ill to the king's person , or to the just exercise of his authority . and i am verily perswaded , there were very few even among those who were more active , who at that time while the king continued with us ever thought of more , then to obtain a free parliament , by whose mature counsels , the law might be restored to its due course , and the religion and liberties of england secured . but the king would not stand this tryal , but disbands his army , withdraws his person , without leaving any authority behind him to administer the government . no body ever thought that this was a perfectly free and voluntary act , but however gone he was , and had left no body behind him to govern by his authority ; and then the government was either dissolved , or the power must reside in the estates of the realm : for if at any time there be no power in the nation the government is dissolved . the estates upon this great exigency of affairs assembled , but did not pretend the superior authority of the people over kings , and their power to judge , depose , and punish them , but they only undertook to judge , what properly falls under their cognizance in such cases , and what now lay before them , whether the throne were vacant , and if it were , how it must be filled : and when those , who were the sole and proper judges of this case had once determined it , private subjects ( according to the fundamental reasons of all governments ) were bound to acquiesce , whatever their private opinions were , or else such state-disputes can never be determined , but we must necessarily dissolve into anarchy and confusion . where there is no determination of the law of nature , or of the law of god against it ( as there is none about meer legal rights ) the resolutions of government must determine the consciences of private subjects ; for the power of judging must extend as far as the just power of governing does . so that ( whatever dispute there may be about other matters ) the late revolution has made no alteration at all in the principles of government and obedience . it does not oblige us to own the superior power of the people over the king , which would be a very tottering foundation for monarchy , and could never support it long . those who believed the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience to be a good doctrine before may think so still , and be never the less friends to the present government ; and i have often thought it a wonderful providence of god , that in an age , wherein the strictest loyalty and obedience had been so earnestly pressed on men , so great a revolution should be brought about , while the generality of subjects were meerly passive , and surprized into a deliverance . but it is quite otherwise in the present case , the horrid fact committed on this day has poyson'd the very springs and fountains of government , and so deeply tinctured mens minds , that i pray god , we may not still live to see and feel the miserable effects of it . for when men sit loose in their obedience , without the restraint and ties of conscience , nothing but power can keep the disjoynted and incoherent parts of such a government together ; they are a fluid body like the sea , which every breath of wind puts into a new disturbance and commotion . especially when a nation is already divided into parties and factions both in church and state , which are acted with a furious and restless zeal , and will be satisfied with nothing less than to be uppermost ; which is another mischief our late unnatural war has left behind it . those bitter animosities are not yet forgot , nay they daily revive again , and our old quarrels are acted over with a new zeal . this is not only an uneasie , but a very dangerous state for any movernment ; when there are two or three or more parties in any nation , which contend to be uppermost , and to oppress the others , and are resolved to dislike , and to misrepresent what the others do . when a name shall make common friends and common enemies , and few men have any regard to the publick good , if it be against the interest of their party . nay , when good success is grievous to them , if they have not been the chief actors in it , and they are well pleased with the greatest and most irreparable miscarriages , if they give them any advantage over their rivals , though the nation is in danger to be undone by them . what difficulties does this impose upon a prince , when it is dangerous to choose any side , and yet impossible to be thought of none . these are some of those evils , which our own sins , and the just judgments of god have brought upon us . and when shall we see an end of these things ! when shall peace , and righteousness , and truth , take up their habitation among us ! when will god return in mercy , heal the breaches of our sion , and build up her walls ! now is the time if ever , heartily to endeavour , heartily to pray for this , that god would make us glad according to the days , wherein he hath afflicted us , and the years wherein we have seen evil. 3. which is the third part of my text ; which i can but name . now in order to this , god has done a great deal for us already , if we will do any thing for our selves . god hath advanced such princes to the throne ( whom we beseech him long to continue , preserve and prosper there ) as seem on purpose fitted by nature , by education , by religion , by interest , to accomplish this glorious work. we have a king , who was always in the interest of his country , whose great mind knows no greater glory then to be a publick benefactor , to be a patron to the injured and oppressed , and to break the chains and fetters prepared for europe . a king , who knows how to govern a free people , who knows the price of liberty , and what a value mankind have for it . a king , who was never personally concerned in any of our quarrels , and therefore has no personal resentments ; brings no spirit of revenge , no spirit of a party to the throne with him . a king and queen , who by education , principle and interest , are professed enemies to popery , and the great defence and support of the protestant cause at home and abroad ; who teach and encourage piety and vertue by their examples as well as laws , and maintain and defend the worship and government of the church of england , and at the same time endeavour to soften and temper mens passions with ease and liberty ; and god grant we may see the good effects of it ; for liberty unless wisely used , seldom proves a kindness , even to those who have it . so that all the old complaints are redressed , all the plausible pretences for faction are silenced , by the advancement of their majesties to the throne . here is no appearing danger of an over-growing power , and illegal usurpations , no oppression of the subjects in their just rights , no divided interest between prince and people ; unless people will divide from a prince who makes their safety , happiness and interest his own ; nay , who purchases their ease and security with the endless fatigues and hazard of his own sacred person . here are no fears of popish designs , no pretence for former clamours of persecution for conscience sake ; and what have the most dissatisfied men to complain of , but only the pressing necessities of affairs and such unavoidable miscarriages , as such necessities will always occasion under the best government in the world. and why then should we not all unite in such princes , and forget all former quarrels ? why should we still divide into parties , when the throne is of no party , and will admit of none ? what are those grievances still to make party quarrels , unless monarchy and the church of england be thought the only remaining grievances ; and i pray god i may never live to see these grievances removed ; may the throne always support the church , and the church the throne , for neither of them can long subsist apart : a fondness for parity will soon affect the state as well as the church , for parity is parity still , whether in church or state , and most of the arguments for it will do equal execution both ways . to conclude : if ever we desire to see a flourishing church and kingdom again , let us learn wisdom from the example of this day ; for he being dead , yet speaketh , and warneth us all to have a care of a blind zeal and faction , not to lissen to designing and discontented spirits , who to gratifie their own private passions and resentments , will revenge themselves upon the publick peace ; not to be imposed on again by the glorious names of religion and the cause of christ , not to help such men to begin a quarrel who will end it without us , and which we shall then in vain repent that ever we began ; but these cautions are needless in such a wise and honourable assembly . god grant we may all mind the things that make for peace , and those things whereby we may edify one another . to god the father , god the son , and god the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and for ever amen . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. paul ' s , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinany to their majesties . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . second edition . 4 o an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer 4o a sermon at the funeral of the reverend benjamin calamy , d. d. 4 o a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . 4 o a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . first part. fifth edition . 4 o a second part of the preservative against popery . second edition . 4 o a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery , in answer to the cavils of lew●s sabran , jesuit . 4 o a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. 4 o a sermon preached before the right honourable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday , novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god : occasioned by the brief notes of the creed of st. athanasius , and the brief history of the unitarians , or socinians , and containing an answer to both . the second edition . 4 o the case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers stated and resolved , according to scripture and reason , and the principles of the church of england ; with a more particular respect to the oath lately enjoyned , of allegiance to their present majesties , king william and queen mary , sixth edition . 4 o a vindication of the case of allegiance due to sovereign powers : in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet , entituled , obedience and submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop overal ' s convocation-book ; with a postscript in answer to dr. sherlock ' s case of allegiance . 4 o a sermon preached at white-hall before the queen , on the 17th of june , 1691. being the fast-day . 4 o a practical discourse concerning death . the fifth edition . 8 o a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . second edition . 8 o. printed for w. rogers . books lately printed for w. rogers . a sermon preached at white-hall , before the queen , on the monthly-fast-day , september 16th , 1691. 4 o a persuasive to freq●●nt communion in the holy sacrament of the lord's supper . the eighth edition . 12 o both by the most reverend father in god , john lord arch-bishop of canterbury . a sermon preached on the 28th of june , at st. andrew's holbourn . by the right reverend father in god john lord bishop of norwich . a sermon preached on the 28th of june , at st. mary le bow , on sunday the fifth of july , 1691. at the consecration of the most reverend father in god john lord arch-bishop of york ; and the right reverend fathers in god , john lord bishop of norwich , richard lord bishop of peterborough , and edward lord bishop of gloucester . by joshua clark , chaplain to the right reverend father in god , the bishop of norwich . 4 o the necessity of serious consideration , and speedy repentance , as the only way to be safe both living and dying . 8 o the lambs of christ fed with the sincere milk of the word of god , in a short scripture catechism . 12 o the folly of atheism demonstrated to the capacity of the most unlearned reader . 8 o these three by the reverend mr. clement e●●s , rector of kirby in nothinghamshire . reflections upon two books , one entituled , the case of allegiance to a king in possession . the other , an answer to dr. sherlock ' s case of allegiance to sovereign powers in possession : on those parts especially , wherein the author endeavours to shew his opinion to be agreeable to the laws of this land. in a letter to a friend . 4 o a sermon preach'd on the second of september being the fast for the fire of london, at the cathedral church of st. paul's, before the right honourable the lord-mayor, aldermen, and citizens of london / by w. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1699 approx. 37 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 15 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59891 wing s3362 estc r33837 13577278 ocm 13577278 100459 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59891) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 100459) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1049:4) a sermon preach'd on the second of september being the fast for the fire of london, at the cathedral church of st. paul's, before the right honourable the lord-mayor, aldermen, and citizens of london / by w. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 26 p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : mdcxcix [1699] reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -o.t. -micah vi, 9 -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-04 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preach'd on the second of september , being the fast for the fire of london , at the cathedral church of st. paul's , before the right honourable the lord-mayor , aldermen , and citizens of london . by w. sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcix . micah vi. 9. the lord's voice crieth unto the city , and the man of wisdom shall see thy name . hear ye the rod , and who hath appointed it . when the state of this world is happy and prosperous , it is no wonder to see men indulge themselves in ease and luxury , forget god , or grow careless and formal in religion . for though it might reasonably be expected that happy creatures , who rejoice in the blessings of heaven , should be very devout worshippers of that god from whose bounty and goodness they receive all ; yet human nature in this degenerate state is very fond of sensual pleasures : and when an easy and plentiful fortune puts it into mens power to enjoy as much of this world as they will , there are but very few who can set bounds to their enjoyments , and taste the pleasures of this life , without taking large and intoxicating draughts of it ; and this sensualizes mens minds ; and a carnal mind is enmity against god ; saith unto god , depart from us , for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways . never any people had more sensible demonstrations of the power and presence of god amongst them , and his particular care of them , than the israelites had ; and yet moses tells us in his prophetick hymn , iesurun waxed fat ; and kicked ; thou art waxen fat , thou art grown thick , thou art covered with fatness ; then he forsook god which made him , and lightly esteemed the rock of his salvation , 32. deut. 15. and thus god complains ; 1. isa. 2 , 3. hear , o heavens , and give ear , o earth , for the lord hath spoken ; i have nourished and brought up childrem , and they have rebelled against me . the ox knoweth his owner , and the ass his master's crib ; but israel doth not know , my people doth not consider . and as much as we may despise and abhor the ingratitude of the iews , this is the general state of mankind ; and we may find too many examples of it in all times and nations . but it seems much more unaccountable , that when the judgments of god are abroad in the world , the inhabitants thereof should not learn righteousness : because judgments are apt to awaken men , and make them consider . when god speaks in thunder and lightning , those must be deaf indeed , who will not hear . this is the merciful design of providence in sending such terrible judgments on the world , to make men consider their ways and their doings , and to convince them that there is a god that judgeth in the earth . for judgments have a voice , had we but ears to hear : they proclaim the power and the majesty of god ; a terrible majesty , and irresistible power ; they scourge and they threaten sinners , and call for weeping , and mourning , and fasting : and how unthankful soever the iews were to god for his great mercies and deliverances , yet they were not so insensible of his judgments : when he slew them , then they sought him , and returned and enquired early after god , and remembred that god was their rock , and the high god their redeemer , 78. psal. 34 , 35. this we are exhorted to in my text , to hear the rod , and who hath appointed it : to consider for what reason those evils which we at any time suffer , are come upon us , and what god intends by the rod ; which is the only way to grow better by our afflictions , and to prevail with god in great pity and compassion to remove them . but this is the great difficulty ; who shall reveal this secret to us ? how shall we distinguish between the corrections of god , and the wickedness of men ? how shall we understand the language of the rod , and to whom it speaks ; for what sins it strikes , and who are those achans that are the troublers of our israel ; and what god expects from us in such cases ? i shall briefly explain these things to you , and apply it to the present occasion . but i must premise , that i only address my self now to those who believe a god and a providence ; and that god hath revealed his will and the rule of his providence in the holy scriptures . as for atheists and infidels , who have neither eyes nor ears , they can only feel the rod like bruits , not hear its voice like men : though the lord's voice crieth unto the city , it is only the men of wisdom that see his name . now as for those who believe a god and the holy scriptures , there are two very plain interpreters of god's judgments ; natural conscience , and the word of god. for the judgments of god have not an articulate voice to acquaint us in plain and express words , upon what errand they come ; but they are signs which speak by an interpreter ; and if we carefully attend to the dictates of natural conscience , and to the word of god , we cannot mistake their meaning . 1. as first , no man who attends either to the dictates of natural conscience , or to the word of god , can doubt who it is that hath appointed the rod : this is the first and most natural question of all ; and yet a great many who profess to believe a god and a providence , seem not well satisfied in this point : they allow that some judgments are the hand of god , but are not willing to grant this of all ; especially when they see what the immediate and visible causes of such sufferings are . some of the greatest evils which either private men or publick societies suffer , are manifestly owing to the injustice and wickedness of men ; and they can no more believe that it is the will and appointment of god , that they should suffer such evils , than that it is the will of god that others should do them : and all such rods as are not appointed by god , can teach us nothing but the wickedness of those by whom we suffer ; for if god has not sent them , they can bring us no message from god. and yet most men are in some degree infected with this disease : we suffer many evils which we are not willing to ascribe to god , and then we learn nothing from them but a little worldly policy and prudence , to take better care of our selves and our affairs , to be jealous and distrustful of men ; or it may be , to watch our opportunities to revenge the injuries we suffer , and to return them with interest : and yet we profess to believe a providence ; though it were as honourable to god to deny his providence , as to deny his sovereign disposal and government of all events ; or rather , they are both an equal reproach to him . for a providence which does not take care of creatures , is little worth ; and we cannot say that god takes care of his creatures , if any evil befals them without his will and appointment . but natural conscience sees the hand of god in all the evils we suffer : whatever the visible and immediate causes and instruments of our sufferings are , a guilty conscience takes notice of the divine vengeance ; the terrors of god take hold upon him , and he trembles before his judge , though he do not see him ; he is afraid of god , when he feels only the hands of men . and what is the meaning of this ? what is the language of these guilty fears , but that whatever the rod be that strikes , it is moved and directed by a divine hand ; that the wickedness and injustice , the wrath and fury of men , is no other than the vengeance of god ? for why should the evils we suffer from men so terrify a guilty conscience , had we not a natural persuasion , that all these evils are sent by god , whoever are the instruments of them ? thus it is natural in all such cases to fly to god for help . atheists themselves cannot wholly prevent this ; but when they are surprized with any sudden dangers , nature is too quick and too powerful for their philosophy , and surprizes them into an acknowledgment of god and a providence , which they must do penance for when their fright is over . sinners who forget god in prosperity , fly to him in their distress ; remember that god is their rock , and the high god their redeemer . and if this be a natural acknowledgment of providence , as it certainly is , it owns the hand of god in our sufferings , as well as his power to save ; for both equally belong to the supreme and sovereign lord of the world ; and it is not merely his power to help , which makes sinners fly to god in their distress , but a sense of his anger in what they suffer : they do not fly to god as men do to a powerful patron , but as criminals do to the mercy of a provok'd father or prince : when they fly to god , it is to implore his mercy as humble penitents , to appease his anger , that he may remove his judgments ; and when we fly to the mercies of god to remove the rod , it is an acknowledgment that it is he that strikes , as well as he alone that can save . and that conscience judges right in all this , however some men may attribute it to a superstitious education , is evident from scripture , which expresly tells us , that god doth whatsoever pleaseth him both in heaven and in earth . that none can stay his hand , or resist his will , or say unto him , what doest thou ? that there is no evil in the city , which the lord hath not done . if iob be stript of all his large possessions in a day , it is the lord that gave , and the lord that taketh away . if the mighty king of assyria invade israel , and lay waste their cities and countrey , he is the rod of god's anger , and the staff in his hand is his indignation , 10. isa. 5 , 6. affliction cometh not forth of the dust , neither doth trouble spring out of the ground , but god is the judge , he putteth down one , and setteth up another , 75. psal. 7 , 8. this shews us , that whatever our sufferings are , it is god that appoints the rod , and then it must nearly concern us , 2dly . to hear the rod , what and to whom it speaks . now in this case also , conscience and the word of god are the best interpreters of god's judgments . the rod teacheth another way , but teacheth the same thing that conscience and scripture teach us ; that is , it proclaims aloud the evil of sin , and god's anger and displeasure against it , and calls us to repentance , and reformation of our lives . when the judgments of god are upon us , conscience knows their errand , and calls all our sins to remembrance , and sets them in order before us . nothing but guilt makes us afraid of god ; and how quiet and secure soever sinners are at other times , the judgments of god will awaken their guilty fears ; and if men will hearken to the voice of an awaken'd conscience , it will certainly tell them why god strikes ; and we cannot take a safer course , than to reform those sins of which our consciences then accuse us . all the threatnings of scripture are against sin , and all the judgments there recorded , especially publick and national judgments , were inflicted for the punishment of sin ; and these are to be our examples , as they are the standing rules and measures of providence . god never punishes but for sin , though he may exercise particular good men with difficult trials ; and therefore when bad men and a wicked nation suffer , they may certainly know the cause ; they have sinned , and god is angry , and summons them to repentance ; for this is the fruit of all , to take away sin . the voice of judgments is the same with the voice of conscience , and the voice of god's prophets ; wash ye , make ye clean , put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes : cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek judgment , relieve the oppressed , judge the fatherless , plead for the widow , 1. isa. 16 , 17. this is plain enough , and sufficiently known , if it were but sufficiently laid to heart ; and this is all that ▪ we are concerned to know of the judgments of god. the secret and hidden ▪ designs of providence , which many times surprize the world with unexpected events , are the care of god , and belong not to us , till the scene opens , and we see what part is allotted us in it . whatever god be a-doing , we have nothing to do but to amend our lives , which will remove the scourge from us , and entitle us to the care and protection of providence . whereas to busy our selves with politick or prophetick guesses at unknown events , to paint our imaginations with black and frightful , or with gay and charming scenes of things , as desponding fears , or sanguine hopes inspire the prophet , can do us no good , but may do a great deal of hurt to our selves and the world. this is not the voice of the rod , which makes no new revelations to us , but only awakens the convictions of conscience , and enforces the reproofs and threatnings of the word , with such sensible and smarting proofs of the evil of sin , and god's anger against it , as will make all men consider , who have not lost their senses ; and many times restore sense and understanding to those who had lost them . but this to some men will seem a very dull account of god's judgments , which will neither gratify their curiosity nor ill nature ; nor , which they think worse , leave them any excuse to palliate their hypocrisy . the judgments of god declare god's anger against sin , and call us to repentance : this men will own , but do not like to hear . it express'd in such general terms , as if when god sends his judgments amongst us , he were angry with us for all our sins , and called us to repent of them all : this they think hard , that they must part with all their sins , to remove these judgments ; nay , this they think can't be the truth of the case , because the world is always very wicked , and yet the judgments of god are not always abroad in the world : and therefore they suppose , that when god does execute judgments , it is not sin in general , but some particular sins , which so highly provoke him ; and could they learn what they are , and reform them , they might see happy days again : and this sets men at liberty to favour what sins they please , to reproach and accuse each other , and to charge all the evils and calamities they suffer upon one another , without thinking of reforming themselves . thus to be sure it always is , when there are differing parties and factions in a nation , who judge very differently of good and evil : they will all confess they are great sinners ; and , it may be , too many of all parties are guilty of the same sins ; but those sins which are common to them all , must pass for nothing , because so far they are all agreed . but then there are peculiar party-sins , which every party dislikes in each other ; and what they dislike , they conclude god dislikes too ; and to these they attribute all the evils they suffer : as if the judgments of god were not to reform the world , but to decide some party-quarrels , which will never be decided this way , when every party will expound judgments in favour of themselves . but all men see that this is to judge by a false and partial rule : this is neither conscience nor scripture ; for conscience equally condemns all sin , and so does the scripture too . i grant , tho there is always a great deal of wickedness committed in the world , god does not always inflict publick judgments , which are commonly executed when wickedness and impiety is grown publick too ; when publick government is remiss in punishing wickedness , or the numbers and power of sinners are grown too great for the correction of publick justice : but we shall always find in scripture , that when god did inflict publick judgments , he called for a general repentance and reformation ; and if this were not so , no man could understand the voice of the rod without a spirit of prophecy . but this deserves a more particular consideration , both with respect to those sins for which god most commonly sends his judgments , when he sees fit to execute a publick vengeance ; and the necessity of an universal reformation , when the judgments of god are upon us . 1. the most general account the scripture gives us of publick judgments , is an universal corruption of manners . thus the prophet describes the state of the iewish church , when god threatned his judgments against them : ah sinful nation , a people laden with iniquity , a seed of evil doers , children that are corrupters ; they have forsaken the lord , they have provoked the holy one of israel , they are gone away backward . and the whole head is sick , and the whole heart faint . from the sole of the foot unto the head , there is no soundness in it ; but wounds , and bruises , and putrifying sores : they have not been closed , nor bound up , nor mollified with ointment , 1. isa. 4 , 5 , 6. and in verse 10. he calls them , the rulers of sodom , and people of gomorrah . when wickedness is grown universal , and hath infected all ranks and orders of men , such a nation is ripe for judgment ; but it adds greatly to the guilt and provocation , when men are not contented to be wicked , without bidding open defiance to god and to all religion . wo unto them who draw iniquity with cords of vanity , and sin as it were with cart-ropes . who deride all the threatnings of god , and even dare his power and justice : that say , let him make speed , and hasten his work , that we may see it ; and let the counsel of the holy one of israel draw nigh , and come , that we may know it . who mock at the differences of good and evil , and value the reputation of their wit and philosophy too much to be cheated with such empty names . wo unto them that call evil good , and good evil , that put darkness for light , and light for darkness , that put bitter for sweet , and sweet for bitter . wo unto them that are wise in their eyes , and prudent in their own sight : who having first destroyed the eternal and essential differences of good and evil , change their names too at pleasure , and think themselves the only wise men in the world for doing so . this takes off all restraints , and gives the reins to their lusts , and they live just as they believe , without making any difference between good and evil. wo unto them that are mighty to drink wine , and men of strength to mingle strong drink ; who justify the wicked for a reward , and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him . therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble , and the flame consumeth the chaff , so their root shall be as rottenness , and their blossom shall go up as the dust , because they have cast away the law of the lord of hosts , and despised the word of the holy one of israel , 5. isa. 18 , &c. the like account we find in the other prophets . and when the state of a church and nation is so corrupt , we need not enquire for what particular sins god strikes ; but yet there were some sins which god expressed a severer indignation against , and seldom delayed to punish ; such as their idolatry , and contempt of the god of israel , of his word and prophets ; a prophanation of his worship ; atheistical notions of providence , and of good and evil ; or their abominable hypocrisy , in committing all the lewdness and villanies which men could commit , and sheltering themselves in an external form and appearance of religion , which the prophets every where complain of . to these causes is owing the universal corruption of manners ; for it is impossible any nation should so universally degenerate , till they have either corrupted their religion by superstition and hypocrisy , or lost all sense of it ; and therefore this calls for a speedy vengeance . as for what more particularly concerns the christian church , we may learn from the epistles to the seven churches of asia , what it is provokes our lord either severely to punish us , or to remove the gospel from us . the church of ephesus , though she had acquitted her self well in many things , yet had left her first love , had abated very much of her zeal and fervour for the name and religion of christ. the church of pergamus is threatned for suffering those among her who taught idolatrous worship , and fleshly lusts : and the church of thyatira likewise for suffering the woman iezabel to commit fornication , and to eat things sacrificed to idols . the church of sardis made a glorious and pompous profession of religion , but without the true life and spirit of it ; she had a name to live , but was dead : and the church of laodicea grew very cold and indifferent even in the profession of religion , as well as in the practice of it ; she was neither hot nor cold , but lukewarm . all these our saviour summons to repentance , and threatens to punish or destroy them if they did not , chap. 2 , and 3. of the revelations . the application of all this to our selves is so obvious , that i need not multiply words about it : we are that very nation wherein all these evils meet ; it is hard to name any vice which is not openly committed amongst us without fear or shame : nay , things are come to that pass , that to be a modest sinner , to boggle at any wickedness , or to blush at it , is as great a reproach as to be virtuous : and though some men are ashamed to own themselves atheists , yet to believe in christ , and to own any reveal'd religion , or to talk seriously of providence , of god's governing the world , and punishing cities and nations for their wickedness , is thought a jest ; and i wish it were a jest only among vile and mean people , of no fortune or education ; whereas we often see that their condition makes them modest , and untaught nature teaches them better , till they are corrupted by the examples of men of wit and figure in the world. and as for those who pretend to religion , it is a very melancholy prospect , to observe how little of the true life and spirit of christianity there is among them . there is indeed noise , and zeal , and faction enough among some people , and that makes others as cold and indifferent : the tempers of the church of sardis and laodicea , the one that had a name to live , but was dead , the other that was lukewarm , make much the greatest parties among us ; and the very best men , i fear , are too much inclined to the state of ephesus , which had left her first love , those great passions and ardors of devotion which ought to inspire the minds of christians . let us then hear the rod and tremble : see how god dealt with the iewish church for these sins ; see what our lord hath done to the churches of asia ; and though we cannot say what god will do to us , because we know not what wonderful designs are in the womb of providence , yet we know what we do , and how god hath dealt with those who have done as we do ; which is too just reason to fear that he will deal so by us too , unless we repent and reform , which they did not . for , 2dly . when the judgments of god are upon us , the reformation must be universal too : it concerns every man to reform himself ; for a nation can never be reformed , but by the reformation of particular men , who make up the nation ; and therefore when we are summoned to repentance , as the judgments of god summon us all , every man must examine himself what he has to repent of , and reform himself . but yet there is great difference between a national and personal repentance and reformation , and they serve very different ends. a nation may be said to be reformed , and god may in great mercy remove his judgments , tho ( what is never to be expected ) every particular man do not repent and reform himself : but then such a national reformation requires the execution of publick justice against publick wickedness , to make sin publickly infamous , and to teach the greatest and most powerful sinners modesty : to banish , if not sinners , yet sin out of our courts , and out of our streets , and to make it once more seek for night and darkness for a covering ; that virtue may no longer blush in company , or need apologies ; nor vice dare to brave it at noon-day . there has indeed of late been some care taken by publick laws and royal proclamations , to punish the prophanation of god's name by accursed oaths ; but yet in most cases men may be as vile as they please , and as publickly so as they please , and little or no notice taken of them ; nay , they may talk and write what they please against god and religion , ridicule the history of moses , and the gospel of our saviour , and the mysteries of the christian faith , and gain credit and reputation by it . i hope there are not many christian nations in the world , which in so publick a manner permit these things . we have talk'd of liberty of conscience , and reformation , to good purpose , if the only effect of it be a liberty of ridiculing the christian faith ; which might make one suspect that all the zeal some men have express'd against popery , was at the bottom of it a zeal for atheism and irreligion ; which the discipline of popery , as bad a religion as it is , would not endure ; it is indeed well fitted to make atheists and infidels , but will make men have a care how they profess it . and it is to be feared , that this scepticism , and infidelity , and contempt of religion , will prove a back-door to let in popery again upon us . but to leave these thoughts with those whose proper care and business it is ; whether a nation will be reformed or not , it concerns every particular man to hear the rod : the judgments of god warn us of his anger and displeasure against sin , that we may fly from the wrath to come ; and we do not hear the voice of the rod , nor improve judgments to their true end , if we do not so repent and reform , as to save our souls ; and this to be sure must be a personal and an universal reformation . and yet even with respect to present judgments , a personal repentance and reformation is of great use ; for when the judgment is publick and national , god many times makes a remarkable distinction between persons : say ye to the righteous , it shall be well with them , for they shall reap the fruit of their doings : wo unto the wicked , it shall be ill with him , for the reward of his hands shall be given to him : which is spoke with respect to publick judgments , 3. isa. 10 , 11. which is a sufficient encouragement for particular men to repent , and reform their lives , whatever others do . but it is time to apply what i have now discoursed , to the particular occasion of this day 's solemnity ; though possibly some may think that this application comes too late ; it might have been very seasonable one or two and thirty years ago , while the marks of this terrible vengeance were fresh and visible ; when the ruins of our houses and churches could only tell us where london stood , and shew us its funeral pile , where its glory lay in the dust : when so many thousand families felt the smart of their ruined fortunes , and were either forc'd to begin the world again , or sunk irrecoverably under it . this fiery vengeance had a voice then , and a very terrible voice , enough to awaken the most stupid and lethargick sinners . but when we see our city rebuilt more beautiful than ever , as the little poor remains of the old one witness : when our riches and glory are increased beyond the example of most former ages , it seems too late to lament over the ashes and rubbish of our fired city , when there are no visible remains of these ruins to move our pity or sorrow : and indeed were this the only design of this annual fast , it were high time to put an end to it , or to turn it into a thanksgiving festival : for it is in vain to expect , that after three and thirty years , the return of this day should revive and renew our sorrows and lamentations , when our ruins are removed , our losses repaired , and those frightful impressions which the sight of that devouring fire made on us , forgot ; and little left to put us in mind that our city was burnt , but the inscription upon the monument , and the sight of a new city , with the several dates of its resurrection ; which must needs qualify all melancholy and sorrowful reflections on what is so long past . but though the design of this solemnity is not to represent and act over again a new doleful scene of horror , confusion , and amazement , which neither nature nor art can imitate , as we saw it once on this day , without such another amazing sight , which god grant we may never see again till the general conflagration ; yet it is of great use to keep up a lively sense of such judgments upon our minds , which become the subject of reason , of cool thoughts , and wise consideration , when the terror and frightfulness of them is over . judgments could never make a lasting reformation in the world , were we concerned to remember them no longer than we feel their smart ; but they are intended both for punishment and instruction ; the punishment ends with the smart , and that puts an end to all whining and tragical complaints ; but this alone is the discipline of fools or bruits : the instruction is for men , and this is to last as long as memory , and thought , and reason last . what could the fire of london teach us thirty three years ago , which it does not teach a wise man still ? and what thoughts and devout passions became us then , which are not still on this day the proper exercise of our devotion ? when we saw our churches and houses in flames , when we saw those furious torrents of fire rowling down our streets , and despising all the opposition that human art or strength could make , as if they had known by what a divine and irresistible commission they acted ; there were few men to be found , who did not express a great fear and reverence of the power , and justice , and terrible majesty of god ; who did not see and own the hand of god , and the visible tokens of his displeasure , and begin in good earnest to think of reforming their lives , and making their peace with god , who had now taken the rod into his own hand . when we saw our riches make to themselves wings and fly away as an eagle towards heaven ; when we saw all our pride and glory , the toil and labour of our whole lives , the food and the instruments of our lusts , vanish into smoke and dust , this effectually taught us the uncertainty of all present things , and made us seriously consider what an ill state those were in , who had nothing to trust to but such vanishing treasures ; and how reasonable our saviour's command is , not to lay up for our selves treasures on earth , where moth and rust do corrupt , and where thieves break through and steal ; but to lay up for our selves treasures in heaven , which are not subject to such casualties ; which will make us bear such losses better when they come , and secure our eternal interest . when men saw their riches and treasures vanish in a cloud , it naturally made them consider how much of this they owed to the poor , how much they had spent upon their lusts , and how much they had unjustly got ; that is , how much of what god had taken from them was not their own , and how much they had abused the gifts of god : very wise and pious thoughts , had they lasted ; and yet too plain to be missed by those who thought at all , when they saw these lessons written in bright characters of fire . now was all this , do you think , calculated only for sixty six ? is not god the same still ? a just and righteous judge , who is angry with the wicked every day , though he do not every day bend his bow , and let fly his arrows ; though he do not every day make the earth tremble and quake , and the very foundations of the hills to shake , because he is angry ; though we do not every day see a smoke go out of his presence , and a consuming fire out of his mouth ; though he do not upon every provocation appear in his terrible majesty , riding upon the cherubins , and flying upon the wings of the wind . methinks one such example might serve us for some ages , without expecting or desiring to be summoned again to repentance by new terrors . god is gracious and merciful , slow to anger , and of great kindness : he delights more to display his glory in acts of goodness and bounty to his creatures ; but judgments are his strange work , which makes the signal execution of them so very rare ; and the way to have them rare , is not to forget them , to learn righteousness by the things which we have suffer'd ; to fear and tremble before that god who is so terrible in his doings towards the children of men . but if the fire of london was too long since to work upon our fears at this distance , ( though i confess i wonder how any man who saw that sight , should ever forget it , or remember it without a just awe and reverence of god ) ; but i say , if these impressions of fear and terror are lost , let the beauty and glory of our new city , our increasing riches , our flourishing trade , our ease and plenty , teach us to love and reverence , and worship and praise that god , who in the midst of judgment hath remembred mercy ; who hath pluck'd us as a firebrand out of the fire , and hath not suffered our enemies to triumph over us ; who said , down with it , down with it , even to the ground . this is the way to perpetuate our prosperity and glory , if the remembrance of past judgments teaches us to fear god , the sense of his present mercies to love him , and both to obey him . which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord iesus christ : to whom , with the father and the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power , now and ever . amen . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . 2d edit . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . eleven sermons preach'd on several occasions . quarto . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . quarto . a preservative against popery , in two parts ; with the vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . 4to . a discourse of the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. quarto . case of allegiance due to sovereign powers , stated and resolved , according to scripture and reason , and the principles of the church of england . quarto . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to sovereign powers . quarto . a discourse concerning the divine providence . quarto . second edition . price 5 s. a vindication of the doctrine of the trinity . 3d edit . 4to . apology for writing against socinians . quarto . a vindication of the sermon of the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy ; in answer to some socinian remarks . 4to . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of the trinity . quarto . the distinction between the real and nominal trinitarians examined , in answer to a socinian pamphlet . quarto . a practical discourse concerning death . in octavo . tenth edition . price 3 s. a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . the fifth edition . octavo . price 3 s. 6 d. the present state of the socinian controversy , and the doctrine of the catholick fathers concerning a trinity in unity . 4to . price 5 s. an answer to the animadversions on the dean of st. paul's vindication of the trinity . by i. b. a. m. quarto . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against socinians . quarto . a letter to a member of the convention sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1688 approx. 18 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 3 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59826 wing s3298 estc r30640 11379656 ocm 11379656 47662 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59826) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 47662) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1470:1) a letter to a member of the convention sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 4 p. s.n., [london? : 1688?] caption title. attributed to sherlock by wing and nuc pre-1956 imprints. imprint suggested by wing. reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng great britain -history -revolution of 1688. great britain -politics and government -1660-1714 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-01 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a letter to a member of the convention . sir , i hear you are elected a member of this next convention , and therefore expect to see you very suddenly in town , but i can tell you my mind more freely in writing , and you may think better of it when you see it before you , and therefore i have rather chose to give you the trouble of this paper , than to leave all to a personal conference at our next meeting . i will not dispute with you about what is past or what is to come ; it is too late to do the first , and as for the second , whatever becomes of other arguments , interest is most apt to prevail , and therefore all that i beg of you , is to take care that you do not mistake your own and the nations interest in a matter of such high concernment . there is no less affair before you than the fate of princes , and of three kingdoms , which requires the most calm , mature , and deliberate advice ; and yet when you come to london , you will find such distractions and divisions in mens counsels , that all the threatning dangers of popery were not a more formidable prospect to considering men , all old animosities are revived , and new ones fomented every day ; some are visibly acted by ambition , others by revenge ; the dissenter is very busie to undermine the church , and the common-wealths man to subvert monarchy , and the lord have mercy upon us all . i doubt not , but you will readily confess , that it is the common interest to have things setled upon such a bottom , as is most like to last , and then , i am sure , you must consult both law and conscience in the matter , and keep to your old establishment as near as you can ; for when there are so many distempers in mens minds , and such contrary interests , it is no time to innovate , it is no time to lay new foundations , when there are frequent earthquakes , which will not give them time to settle : the revolutions of state have been so quick and sudden of late , that all prudent men will be cautious how they try experiments , which are commonly dangerous and uncertain , but especially in matters of government , which depend on the good liking of free and moral agents , and when se many hundred thousand are to be satisfied , you can never guess at the prevailing opinion , by the major vote of a convention . let us then consider , what is most likely to give the most general satisfaction to the nation , for that , i am sure , is most likely to be lasting , and because you may be a stranger to these matters yet , i will give you an account of the different projects now on foot , as well as i can learn them . some are for sending to the king , and treating with him to return to his government , under such legal restraints , as shall give security to the most jealous persons , for the preservation of their liberties , laws , and religion ; and if he will not consent to this , to make the next heir regent : others are for declaring the crown forfeited or demised , and proclaiming the princess of orange : others will have the government dissolved , and begin all de novo , and make the prince of orange king , or crown him and the princess together , and postpone the title of the princess anne , till after the prince's death , if he survive the princess . i shall not pretend to tell you , which of these i should prefer , were it res integra ; for the question is not , which you and i should like best , but which will be the firmest foundation for the peace and settlement of these kingdoms . 1. as for the first , though it be horribly decried , and such men foolishly exposed as friends to popery and arbitrary power ; yet i could never meet with any man yet , who had the face to reject all treaty with the king upon any other pretence , but that it was in vain , that it is impossible he should give any security to the nation , that he would govern by law ; which is so ridiculous a pretence , that it will satisfie no body , but those who are resolved , that he shall never return . for , as little as i am versed in this matter , i could frame such laws , as should put it utterly out of the king's power to invade our liberties or religion : however , i am sure , we should have thought our selves very secure , would the king have called a free parliament , and given them liberty to have made what laws they pleased , and that which would have given such general satisfaction before , had it been granted , i suspect , should it be now granted , and refused , that would give as general dissatisfaction ; nay the very refusal to treat , will be thought such a scandalous neglect of our duty to a sovereign prince , and give such jealousies to people , that those who oppose it , are only afraid , that the king should comply , as will be the foundation of universal discontents , which will shew themselves upon the first occasion . it is certain , would the convention treat with the king , either they would agree , or they would not agree ; if they could not agree upon the proposal of reasonable securities ; this would satisfie multitudes of people , that they had tried if they did agree , this would give universal satisfaction , and there were an happy end of all our troubles . but now let us suppose , that part of the convention should prevail , which is against treating with the king , and for deposing or setting him aside without more ado ; let us consider what is like to be the most probable consequence of this . it is certain , this fundamental change in the government cannot be made by any legal authority ; for the convention will not pretend to any such legal power , and there can be no parliament without a king ; and a king , whose whole authority depends upon a convention , that has no such authority , is but in a weak state , as to civil right : no man will think himself bound in conscience to obey him , and when every mans conscience is free , let such a prince beware of epidemical discontents . and let you and i calmly consider , what discontents may probably arise upon such a juncture . 1. first then , all those who think themselves bound by their oath of allegiance to defend the kings person , his crown , and dignity , who wonder at men of law , who talk of a forfeiture or demise of the crown , while the king lives , and flies out of his kingdoms , only for the safety of his person , and because he will not trust himself in the power of his enemies ; i say , all such persons will be greatly discontented at deposing the king , and will never own any other king , while their own king , to whom they have sworn allegiance , lives ; and tho you should suppose such conscientious men to be very few , yet if these few should happen to be persons of character , of known prudence and abilities , integrity and honesty , in church or state , their examples , would give a terrible shock to such a new tottering government , tho they were never so tame and peaceable , void of faction and sedition themselves . and yet let me tell you , you must not judg of the numbers of these men by the late general defection . the whole nation , i confess , was very unanimous for the prince , great numbers of gentlemen , nay of the kings own soldiers , went over to him , very few , but papists offered their service to the king ; but the reason of this was very evident , not that they were willing to part with the king , and set up another in his room , but because they were horribly afraid of popery , and very desirous to see the laws and religion of the nation setled upon the old foundations by a free parliament , which was all the prince declared for ; but many who were well-wishers to this design , will not renounce their allegiance to their king ; and now they see what is like to come of it , are ashamed of what they have done , and ask god's pardon for it , and are ready to undo it as far as they can . 2. besides a thousand occasions of discontent which may happen in such a change of government as this , which no body can possibly foresee , and yet may have very fatal consequences , there are some very visible occasions for it besides the sense of loyalty and conscience . how many discontents , think you , may arise between the nobility and gentry , who attend the new court ? every man will think he has some merit , and expect some marks of favor , to have his share of honor , and power , and profit , and yet a great many more must miss , than those who speed , and many of those , who are rewarded , may think they ha'n't their deserts , and be discontented to see others preferred before them ; and those whose expectations are disappointed , are disobliged too , and that is a dangerous thing , when there is another , and a rightful king to oblige ; for duty and discontent together , to be revenged if a new king , and to be reconciled to an old one , will shake a throne which has so sandy a foundation ; the like may be said of the soldiery , who are generally men of honor and resentment , and have the greater and sharper resentments now , because they are sensible of their mistake , when it is too late ; yet as they ought not to have fought for popery , nor against the laws and liberties of their country , so neither ought they to have deserted the defence of the king's person and crown , but have brought the prince to terms , as well as the king. thus you easily foresee , what a heavy tax must be laid upon the nation , to defray the charge of this expedition , and i believe the country would have paid it very chearfully and thankfully , had the prince restored to them their laws , and liberties , and religion , together with their king ; but you know men are apt to complain of every thing , when mony is to be paid , and it may be it will be thought hard to lose their king , and to pay so dear for it too : and tho what the convention does is none of the prince's fault , no more than it was his design , yet angry people don't use to distinguish so nicely . but there is a greater difficulty still than all this : there are no contentions so fierce as those about religion ; this gave life and spirit to the prince's design , and had the main stroke in this late revolution : and though popery were a hated religion , yet most men are as zealous for their own religion , as they are against popery . those of the church of england are very glad to get rid of popery , but they will not be contented to part with their church into the bargain , for this would be as bad , as they could have suffered under popery . the several sects of dissenters are glad to get rid of popery also ; but now they expect glorious days for themselves , and what they expect god almighty knows , for i am confident they don't know themselves . now consider how difficult it will be , for any prince , who has but a crazy title to the immediate possession of the crown , to adjust this matter so , as neither to disgust the church of england , nor the dissenters , and if either of them be disobliged , there is a formidable party made against them . this being the case , should the king be deposed , and any other ascend the throne , it will be necessary for them to keep up a standing army to quell such discontents ; for where there are and will be discontents without any tye of conscience to restrain men , there can be no defence but only in power ; and this will raise and encrease new discontents ; for it alters the frame of our constitution , from a civil to a military government , which is one of the great grievances we have complained of , and i believe english people will not be better pleased with dutch , or german , or any foreign soldiers , than they were with their own country-men ; and i believe english soldiers will not be extremely pleased to see themselves disbanded , or sent into other countries to hazard their lives , while their places are taken up by foreigners , who live in ease , plenty , and safety : and when things are come to this pass , which is so likely , that i cannot see how all the wit of man can prevent it ; i will suppose but one thing more , which you will say is not unlikely , that the king return with a foreign force to recover his kingdoms , how ready will the men of conscience , and the men of discontent be to joyn him , nay to invite him home again ; and if he returns as a conqueror , you will wish , when it is too late , that you had treated with him , and brought him back upon safe and honorable terms . secondly , let us suppose now , that all this should be over-voted ( for i am sure it can never be answered ) and the convention should resolve to proclaim the next heir . 1. you must be sure to examin well who is the next heir , that is , you must throughly examin the pretences of the prince of wales ; and yet if you have not good proofs of the imposture , you had better let it alone . for tho the nation has had general presumptions of it , yet a male heir of the crown is mightily desired , and people would be very fond of him , if they had one , and seem to expect some better proofs than mere presumptions against him , because common fame has promised a great deal more , and if you should either say nothing to it , or not what is expected , it would be a very plausible pretence for discontented people ●o quarrel . 2. suppose the princess of orange should appear to be the next heir , what if a lady of her eminent virtue should scruple to sit upon her father's throne , while he lives ? or what if she should scruple it hereafter , and place her father in his throne again ? this is not impossible , for virtue is greater than a throne . for my part , i think you will put a very hard thing upon so excellent a lady , and i pray god give her grace to resist the temptation . a regency is more tolerable , because a nation must be governed , and none so proper to govern it as the next heir ; but i should think , none who expect to wear a crown , should countenance subjects in deposing their king , nor accept of a crown upon such terms , as to take it off of a fathers head : it is a dangerous thing for a prince who has a title to the crown , to own that the crown may be forfeited or demised by such a withdrawing ; if this be not so , the princess has no right to the possession of the crown yet , and if it be so , her crown is worth a great deal less than formerly it was , especially if she own this secret by accepting the crown , which her ancestors always concealed , and which the best subjects of england would not believe before ; what they may do after this , i know not . thirdly , the next design ( i verily believe without the knowledg or thought of the prince , who has too great a mind to think of any thing , which in the opinion of any wise man could stain and fully his glory ) is to give the crown to the prince of orange , for it must be a gift , if any thing ; for he has no immediate title to it , that i know of : this is upon a pretence , that the government is dissolved , and therefore we must begin de novo , which is very ridiculous , when the king is still alive , and the laws in as full force as ever , only the regular administration of government at present interrupted by the king's absence ; but this is not the worst of it , for it is a dangerous pretence too , especially to men of quality and estates , as you are ; for if the government be dissolved , our laws are dissolved , and honor and property dissolved with them , and then i doubt the mobile will come in for their share in the new division of the lands , and set up for men of as good quality as any ; for if our laws are gone , we return to a state of nature , in which all men are equal , and all things common ; this i believe you will not be for , for the reason above-mentioned . if then the laws continue , the government is not dissolved , and the crown is not a gift , but an inheritance still , as much as your estate is ; and then the prince of orange cannot have it in his own right , because his own princess , and the princess anne are befoe him ; consider then what the consequence of this pro●ect would be . 1. this alters the essential constitution of the english government , by changing an hereditary into an elective monarchy , a thing which i know some men are very fond of : for then the next occasion they can find to quarrel with their prince , they may with as much ease turn it into a common-wealth ; for when the crown is at the peoples disposal , they may if they please keep it to themselves . 2. this will entangle all men of conscience in new difficulties ; for the oath of allegiance does not only bind us to the king , but to his heirs and successors , which must be understood of the next lineal heir , where there is no authority to alter it ; and whatever a parliament may be thought to have with the authority and consent of the king , no man pretends , that a convention of the estates has any legal authority to do it . i should be as heartily glad as any man , to see the prince of orange legally seated on the english throne ; but these are difficulties i cannot break through . thus i have given you my hasty thoughts , and pray god to direct you . i am yours . postscript . there is one thing more , i would beg of you , that the story of the french league to cut protestants throats in england , may be well examined ; for this did more to drive the king out of the nation , than the prince's army ; and if this should prove a sham , as some , who pretend to know , say it is , it seems at least to be half an argument to invite the king back again . in short , remember you are a convention not a parliament , and therefore nothing can give authority to what you do , but the good liking of the people ; and as necessity only can justifie your meeting without the king's writs , so i hope you will take care to do nothing but what will justifie it self to god , the king , and your country . the nature and measure of charity a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor, and the court of aldermen, at the parish-church of st. bridget, on tuesday in easter-week, april 6, 1697 / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1697 approx. 42 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 20 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59832 wing s3304 estc r14354 12004770 ocm 12004770 52280 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59832) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52280) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:7) the nature and measure of charity a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor, and the court of aldermen, at the parish-church of st. bridget, on tuesday in easter-week, april 6, 1697 / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [3], 30, [2] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1697. reproduction of original in huntington library. advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -n.t. -corinthians, 2nd, viii, 12 -sermons. charity -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion clarke mayor . martis xiij . die aprilis 1697. annoque regni regis willhelmi tertij , angliae , &c. nono . this court doth desire mr. dean of st. paul's to print his sermon , preached at the parish-church of st. bridget , on tuesday in easter-week last , before the lord-mayor , aldermen , and governors of the several hospitals of this city . goodfellow . the nature and measure of charity . a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor , and the court of aldermen , at the parish-church of st. bridget , on tuesday in easter-week , april 6. mdcxcvii . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcvii . the dean of st. paul's sermon before the lord mayor , at st. bridget's-church on easter-tuesday . 1697. 2 cor. viii . 12. for if there be first a willing mind , it is accepted according to that a man hath , and not according to that he hath not . the occasion of these words was this . the christians of judaea were at this time in great want , by reason of a general dearth , which was foretold by agabus at antioch , acts 11. 28. and there stood up one of them named agabus , and signified by the spirit , that there should be great dearth throughout all the world , which came to pass in the days of claudius caesar. upon this notice , the disciples , every man according to his ability , determined to send relief unto the brethrem which dwelt in judaea . this is that contribution for the saints which st. paul directs them about , at the conclusion of his first epistle to them , ch. 16. and this is what he inculcates on them in this and the following chapter , but with so much art and insinuation , that though he uses the most powerful arguments , yet he would not seem to persuade , nor to think that they needed any persuasion ; for it is not honourable for christians , whose religion is charity , to need such persuasions and importunities . they may be directed in their charity , and put in mind of such particular charities , as are of the greatest necessity , or the most present use , or have the most general influence , or do the greatest reputation and service to religion ; or their charity may be heightened , inflamed , and enlarged , by the proper arguments and motives of liberality ; but their religion teaches them to be charitable , and the name and profession of a christian is a reproach to them without it : and this is all the apostle aims at even in his soft and tender way of persuasion ; not merely to persuade them to contribute to the necessities of the saints , which he knew they were willing to do ; but that they should contribute liberally , with a free and chearful heart , and open hand ; which is the sum of all his arguments , as i shall shew you in the conclusion , if time permit . but the great difficulty concerns the proper measures of a liberal and overflowing charity . our saviour has prescribed no set bounds and proportions to our charity ; and it is thought as possible to be imprudent and excessive , as too frugal and sparing : we have many other obligations upon us besides charity ; to provide for our own comfortable subsistence , to take care of our wives and children , and to discharge all other duties and offices according to our station and character in the world : all which ought to set bounds to our charity . but what these bounds are , is thought the great question , which is not easily answered : this is true ; nor can any certain measures be prescribed ; nor does the apostle pretend to it : but though there is a great latitude in true christian charity , which does not consist in a point , but admits of different degrees and proportions ; yet the apostle , in my text , directs us to such a principle , as is much better and safer than any stated rules , because it will be sure never to sink below the just proportions of charity ; and will render all we do , be it more or less , very acceptable to god. for if there be first a willing mind , it is accepted according to that a man hath , and not according to that he hath not . in which words , i shall observe three things , which are expressed , or necessarily implied in them . first , that a great readiness and forwardness of mind , to do good , is the true spirit of charity ; which gives value and acceptation to all we do . secondly , that this readiness of mind to do good , to relieve the necessities of those who want , will observe the just proportions of giving , will give according to what a man hath : as is necessarily implied in the words ; for if a willing mind be accepted , according to what a man hath , it is , because it gives according to what a man hath . thirdly , that where there is this willing mind , with a fitting proportion according to our abilities ; whether it be more or less , which we give , it is equally acceptable to god. such a man is accepted according to what he hath , not according to what he hath not . i shall speak as briefly as i can to each of these , that i may not be prevented in such an application , as is proper to this solemnity . first , that a great readiness and forwardness of mind ( for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies ) to do good , to relieve the necessities of those in want , is the true spirit of charity , and gives value and acceptation to all we do . such a willingness of mind , when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is the principle and first mover in all our charitable actions , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very acceptable to god. this , i think , i may take for granted ; for what is the grace and vertue of charity , but a charitable inclination , disposition , temper , habit of mind ? and what is this but a readiness and forwardness to do good ? our inclinations and passions are the principles of action , and therefore have a natural tendency towards their proper acts and objects , and will act when they have the power and opportunity of action : charity is love , the love of pity and compassion to the miseries and sufferings , and wants of our brethren ; and love in all other instances is a very restless active principle ; and so will our love to the poor and miserable be , if it be inclination and habit. there is no man but will pretend to be very ready and willing to do good , though he never does any : for to have no inclination to do good , is so infamous , that those who do no good , are ashamed to own it ; but to do no good , is a plain evidence against them , when nothing can hinder them from doing good , but the want of will and inclination to do it ; when god has furnished them with the means of doing good , and there are thousands of objects to exercise their charity , and to move their pity , if they had any . the will is accepted for the deed , both by god and men , when it is not in our power to do that good which we sincerely desire to do , and which we would certainly do , were it in our power ; but it is to mock both god and men , to pretend a willingness , when it is visible to all the world , that a will to do good is the only thing we want . but such a readiness and willingness of mind as is active and vigorous , as contrives and lays designs of charity , or embraces such as are offered , and takes all wise opportunities of doing good , this is very acceptable to god , as being the most divine and god-like temper , the image of his own goodness , and the noblest exercise of our love to men , inspired with the love of god. now in moral actions it is the principle that gives the value ; not so much the gift , as the mind of the giver ; and therefore st. paul tells us , that though we give all our goods to feed the poor , and have not charity , we are nothing . 1 cor. 13. 3. god can feed the poor without us , if he so pleases ; but as for several other wise ends of providence , so he has ordered , that the poor shall be always with us for the trial and exercise of our virtue , but the virtue is not the gift , but the charity . and could we perform all the acts of charity without a charitable mind , the world might be better for it , but not we our selves . 2dly . this readiness and forwardness of mind to do good will observe the just proportions of charity , will give according to what a man hath . i observed before , that our saviour in his gospel hath prescribed no fixt measures nor proportions of charity : nor could he reasonably do this , considering the nature of charity ; which though it be not so absolutely free , that we may chuse whether we will be charitable or no ( for charitable we must be at the peril of our souls ) ; yet the proportions must be free , or it is not charity , but a poors rate , as all the positive laws , which god gave the jews for the relief of the poor , were no better ; and therefore , by the wiser jews , were never placed to the account of charity , but of justice , and a legal righteousness : which is the very distinction st. paul makes between a righteous and a good man , rom. 5. 7. but scarcely for a righteous man will one die , yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to die . a righteous man is one , who is legally righteous , and observes what the law requires ; but a good man is one who is acted by a free , unconfined and generous goodness . now upon this pretence , that there is no proportion assigned to charity , there are to● many , who content themselves with very little ▪ indeed with nothing which can properly b● called charity . but i wonder in the mean time what these men make of all those command● and exhortations which we find in the gosp●● to charity , which are so many , so pressing an● importunate , and bound on us by so many pr●mises of present and future rewards , and wit● so many terrible threatnings denounced again●● the uncharitable , that surely they must mea● something ; and as willing as men are in the●● cases , to pretend ignorance , i believe there a●● few men living , but know in some measure what charity means : and though they may dispute how much they ought to give , yet certainly know , that they ought to give ; and that to give nothing , or what is next to nothing , all circumstances considered , is not charity . a charitable temper and disposition of mind is an indispensible duty , and the most essential part of the christian religion . this our saviour commands ; and he need command no more , for charity is and will be a rule and measure to it self . where this divine principle is , it will teach us when , and how , and in what proportion to give : the sun needs no rules and directions how to communicate its light and heat . nature is the surest and most infallible rule , and law to it self ; and thus it is proportionably in moral as well as in natural agents . for what is the immediate effect of nature and life , can never be taught without its principle ; cannot exceed its principle , and cannot fall below it . all the rules in the world can never teach that man charity , who wants the principle ; a charitable mind needs no rules , but turns naturally on its own byas ; which will direct its motions right . there is a great difference indeed between natural and moral agents . natural agents are necessarily determined to some one end , and therefore have but one principle , which uniformly and steddily pursues the ends of nature ; but moral agents , as they act freely , so they have many different principles , inclinations , and passions , which stint and limit each other ; that none of them can act to their utmost vigour , but as they are mutually poized and ballanced : and this is the work of reason and religion , to put them into their natural order , and to set just bounds to them ; and that proportions the degrees of their activity and strength ; but yet every principle , unless violently oppressed , will act according to its nature , as it more or less prevails . and this gives measures and proportions to all our actions ; as to shew you this in our present case . charity is that love to mankind which makes us pity all their wants and sufferings , and inspires us with a great zeal and concernment to help and relieve them . if you enquire , what the natural measure of this charity is ? i know no other natual measure , but its natural end , that is , to relieve all that suffer and are in want ; for that is what charity would do , and what all charitable men heartily wish that they could do . well! but this is impossible , for there are too many miserable people for any man to relieve them all . this is true , and want of power must of necessity set bounds to our charity ; but since we cannot relieve all , we must relieve such as we can ; and wisely consider where the greatest necessities , and greatest obligations are : which will give the preference to christians before infidels ; to good men before the wicked ; to god's poor , whom the divine providence has made poor , to the poor of their own making , whom idleness , luxury , and vice have made poor and miserable . well! but how far must we relieve these poor ? must we give as long as we have any thing to give , and make our selves the objects of charity ? by no means ! there are other as natural principles as charity , which must set bounds to it . self-love is a natural and necessary principle ; no man is bound to love any man better than himself : to love our neighbour as our selves , is all that the gospel it self makes our necessary duty ; though some great and generous friendships , and divine charities , may go further , as far as concerns this life . next to self-love , our natural affection for our wives and children must take place , as ingrafted in it , and thought the best and the dearest part of it , as being nearest to our selves , and what the best men are the most tenderly concerned for . and this is the chief thing , which among men of any principles , disputes the bounds of charity : for as for those stupid brutes , who love money only to look on , or to count their bags and securities , without suffering themselves , or any body else , to use it , they are not fit to be named : for i can hardly reckon them among reasonable creatures . but men's care of themselves , and of their wives and children ( not to descend at present to other relations , which may come within the compass of charity , though of a nearer and more sacred obligation ) is thought a very prudent and reasonable consideration in this case , and indeed is so ; for there is a great deal o● truth and reason in that common saying rightly understood , that charity begins at home the great controversy then is between ou● love to our selves , our wives and children ▪ and charity to the poor . now there is no dispute , but the first must have the preference ; but yet charity to the poor must have its place also and then the only question is , in what proportion this must be ? and that is a very hard question , if you put it in arithmetick , for i can name no proportion ; nor has our saviour thought fit to name any : but , as i observed to you before , true charity will assign a just proportion to it self : for a true charitable mind will spare what it reasonably can , and never below the proportion of charity ; and will spare more or less , according to the degrees of its charity . i must be forced to represent this in short to you , that i may not be tedious . that love we have for our selves , and for our natural dependents , will generally secure us against exceeding the proportions of charity , that there is seldom any danger on that side . on the other hand , if we have a true charitable mind and a sincere compassion for the sufferings of others , we shall certainly do what we our selves , considering our circumstances , and what all charitable men who know our circumstances , will call charity . but then , the more intense and fervent our charity is , this will still increase the proportion , and sometimes to such heights , as can hardly escape the censure of affectation and folly : and were it not for the interposition of the divine providence , might sometimes prove very fatal to themselves and their families . as to give you the account of this in short ; there are two things absolutely necessary to dispose men to give liberally : a just sense of the miseries of others ; and a true judgment of our own abilities . as for the first : a charitable mind is very easy to receive the impressions of charity ; and the more charitably it is disposed , still the more easy . every pitiable object moves and affects such men , and they are no more able to resist the silent oratory of meager looks , naked backs , and hungry bellies ( were they not sometimes harden'd by cheats and vagabonds ) than to deny themselves what is necessary to life : much less can they deny any known and unquestioned charity ; for since charitable they are , and acts of charity they will do , they are very glad to know how to dispose of their charity , to do that good which they intend by it . a soft and tender mind , which feels the sufferings of others , and suffers with them , is the true temper and spirit of charity ; and nature prompts us to ease those sufferings , which we feel : this makes us so ready to supply our own wants , because we have a quick and smart sense of them ; and the christian sympathy and fellow-feeling of charity , will proportionably incline us to relieve our suffering brethren , when we feel in our selves what it is they suffer . an inward principle is more powerful than all external arguments ; and sense and feeling is this principle ; and charity is this sense . thus , as for proportions , a charitable mind sets no other bounds to its charity , but only ability ; that the only question is , whether we can spare any thing from our selves and families ? and what we can spare ? now when charity is the judge of this , it is always a favourable judge on the side of the poor and miserable , and always the more favourable judge , the greater the charity is : it will teach us to think , that we want less , and consequently can spare more , when we consider how much others want : at least it will teach us to abate of what we do not want ; of all idle and superfluous expences ; of all needless pomp and ceremony , which is more than our station and character requires ; and it is incredible to think what an inexhausted fund this would be for charity : did we truly estimate our own wants , rectifie our expences , and set just bounds to our desires , many of us would soon find , that we have a great deal to spare : and nothing will so effectually do this , as charity ; and therefore charity is the best rule and measure to it self . so that there is no great occasion to dispute proportions ; let us learn to be charitable , and charity will teach us what to give . every man can tell when another is charitable ; and a charitable man man can tell when he himself is so ; and as our charity increases , so we shall abound in the fruits of charity ; for the more we love , the more liberally we shall give . this is not to leave what we will give to charitable uses , to our own free choice , as a trial of our ingenuity , as some represent it : for had this been the case , there should have been some proportion fixt , less than which we should not give , though we might give as much more as we pleased ; for otherwise nothing is matter of strict duty , but all is left to ingenuity ; which is so far from being true , that there is not a more necessary duty in all religion than charity ; and even the greatest degrees and heights of charity , are all duty : for we are commanded to be charitable , and to aim at the highest degrees of charity ; and the proportion of giving is referred to the principle , and included in the degrees of charity ; such a proportion as such a degree of charity will give , is as much a strict duty as such a degree of charity is . the very nature of charity proves that thus it is , and that it can't be otherwise . for meerly to give , or not to give ; to give more or less , is no certain proof of a charitable , or uncharitable man ; how liberally soever we give , we are not charitable , unless we give from a principle of charity , and our charity be as great as our gift . so that had god prescribed how much every man must give to the poor , they might have observed this proportion of giving without any charity , and then such gifts as these had been no acts of charity , when the gift and the charity was parted : but a charitable man will give , and will give in proportion to the degrees of his charity , and therefore charity ; and the encrease of charity is the only proper object of command ; for he will give liberally , who loves much ; and the proportion of giving is commanded in the degrees of charity , which alone can prescribe , and will observe a just proportion . let no man then inquire , how much he must give ; the proper inquiry is , how much he must love . let no man satisfie himself with some small trifling presents , which bear no proportion to what he has , upon pretence that god has prescribed no proportion of giving ; but let him ask himself , whether , in his own conscience , what he gives , bears any proportion to that love and charity to the poor and miserable , which god requires : and let him remember , that though god has not fixt the proportions of giving , he requires great degrees of charity ; and though men may give liberally without charity , yet not to give in some due proportion , is a certain sign of want of charity , when there wants no ability to give . give me leave to observe by the way , that what i have now said of charity , is true of all other christian graces and vertues ; that it is the principle , which both must and will give laws and measures to the external acts of such graces and vertues : as to instance at present only in the acts of religious worship , the measures and proportions of which are as much disputed , and no more determined and limited by the laws of our saviour , than those of charity : we are commanded to fast , and pray , and to communicate at the lord's table , and to read and meditate on the holy scriptures , and such other acts of religion ; but we are not told , how often we must fast and pray and receive the lord's supper , nor how much time we must spend in our publick or private devotions ; or though all the publick exercises of religion must be regulated by the publick authority of the church ; which as to time and place , and other external circumstances , is the safest rule ; yet our private devotions are free , and both publick and private devotions have a great latitude ; and thus as it is in the case of charity , some men think , they can never spend time enough in the publick and private exercises of religion ; and others think a very little will serve the turn , and any trifling pretence is sufficient to excuse them from their closets , or the church , and especially from the lord's table . and the resolution of this is the same , as in the case of charity ; we are commanded to be devout worshippers of god , and the true spirit of devotion naturally prescribes the external measures and proportions . devout minds , who have a true sense of god , and of their constant dependence on him ; that they owe all temporal and spiritual blessings to him , and daily need the pardon of their sins , the protection of his providence , and the supplies of his grace , will never fail to worship god , whom they inwardly reverence and adore ; and as our devout sense of god encreases in strength and vigour , the external expressions of devotion will be more frequent , more lively and affecting ; for nature will exert it self , and will exert it self in proportion to its strength and vigour . but to return . 3. the third thing i proposed , i must at present wave ; that where there is a willing mind , with a fit proportion , according to our abilities , ( which , as you have heard , there will be , where there is a truly willing and charitable mind ) whether it be more or less , that we give , it is equally acceptable to god. such a man is accepted according to what he hath , not according to what he hath not : and indeed there is no great occasion to insist on it ; for it is self-evident , that god will not exact that from us , which we have not . only we must observe , that this does not excuse any man from charity , though he have nothing to give ; he must have a willing charitable mind to make him accepted ; nor does it excuse those from charity , who have but little to give , for they must give according to what they have : nor does it excuse those , who have nothing to give , from other acts of charity , which require the giving nothing , and a great many such acts of real charity there are , which poor people may do for each other , though they have not a penny in their purse . but it is time now to turn my discourse to the proper business of this great solemnity . publick charities are always reckoned amongst the greatest ornaments of any country , and make up the most lovely and charming part of their characters : stately and magnificent buildings shew great art , and great riches , and a gallant and noble genius , but great charities have something divine , and strike the mind with a religious veneration . there may be much more magnificent shows , than this day's procession , but none which affect wise and good men with a sincerer pleasure : to follow a great number of orphans , in the mean , but decent dress of charity , singing the praises of god , and praying for their benefactors , is beyond all the roman triumphs , however adorned with a pompous equipage , and great numbers of royal slaves . these present us with nothing but the miserable spectacles of spoil and rapine , the uncertain changes and vicissitudes of fortune , the lamentable fate of conquered princes and people , and the pride and insolence of conquerors ; but here are the triumphs of a generous goodness and divine charity , triumphs without blood and spoil , without slaves , and captives , unless redeemed slaves , rescued from the jaws of poverty , and all the injuries and miseries of a ruined fortune : that to me this great city , and this honourable train , never looks greater than in this humble pomp . a pomp not for vanity and ostentation , but to endear and recommend charity , by shewing the visible and blessed fruits of it : and to the same end , i must give you an account of the present state of these publick charities . the report was here read. that these are all great charities , i need not tell you ; indeed all so great , that it is hard to know , to which to give the preference , and what occasion all these charities have of fresh , liberal , and constant supplies , the report acquaints you . but i cannot pass over one thing i observe in this report , and which , i fear , many necessitous people feel , that there have been no orphans taken into christ's hospital this year , nor , as i remember , for two years last past . i do not mention this by way of reflexion , as any fault in the administration and government , but to put you in mind , how much that excellent foundation needs your supply ; and though i do not love to compare charities , they being all of great use and necessity in their kind , yet i think this foundation has something to plead for it self beyond any other . a helpless age , destitute of friends , and all means of support will plead for it self without saying any thing : it is a pitiable sight to see poor innocent children turned helpless into the wide world to starve , or beg , or steal , or to suffer all imaginable difficulties and necessities at home : without education , without government or discipline , without being used to labour , or taught any honest way of living ; which , as they grow up , improves into a habit of idleness , and that betrays them to all degrees and kinds of wickedness , trains them up to the gallows , or fills our other hospitals with vagrant and miserable people . there is nothing , which all wise common-wealths have been more concerned for , than the education of children , which proves a great support , and gives great ease and security to any government , by breeding up usefull members of it : so that this is a charity , which would in a great measure make some other charities less needfull ; and it is certainly a greater charity to prevent the miseries of mankind , than to relieve them . this is a charity , wherein every member of this great city , is most nearly concerned , because they and no others have a right to it . it is a provision for their posterity , against all the sudden strokes of fortune , which no man can be secured from ; here it is , that families , which are unexpectedly ruined by the uncertain chances of trade may be raised again by charity ; at least , by that vertue and industry , which their education teaches them , and those fair advantages , with which according to their several capacities they are placed in the world ; they have a new opportunity given them of trying a better fortune , or rather , a more propitious providence . so that every citizen is concerned to promote and enlarge this charity , because no man knows who shall want it , if not for his children , yet for his grand-children , or remoter descendents ; and possibly to men , who are sensible of the uncertain changes of the world , and have a religious reverence for the divine providence , it would be no mean argument to promote this charity , were care taken , that the descendents of benefactors , if ever they should want this charity , should certainly have it . it is certainly for the honour of this great city to make the best provision it can for the children of unfortunate citizens ; and those on whom providence has smiled , while they have seen their neighbours shipwrackt by such unaviodable accidents , as no prudence or conduct could escape , cannot make a more proper acknowledgment of the divine goodness than this . i shall add but one thing more of this nature . this is the only charity , which is most likely to raise a fund of charity : among such great numbers , as have their education in this place , there have been , and we may reasonably hope there always will be , not a few , who will raise their fortunes in the world , and remember , their beginning was charity . i 'm sure , such men ought to do so , and then such an hospital as this , may help to support and enlarge it self , and in time raise new hospitals , for new colonies of charity . but while i plead for christ's hospital , i would not be thought to divert the whole current of charity into this one channel ; as things now are , there is absolute necessity of other charities : the sick , diseased , and maimed , are great objects of charity , especially souldiers and sea-men , who venture their lives , and lose their health and their limbs in the service of their country , to defend our fortunes , liberties , lives , and religion . there is none of us , but would think it a very poor recompence for the loss of health and limbs to be cured upon charity ; it is certainly the least that we can do for them ; so very little , that if it be charity to do it , it is barbarity to deny it , and that is but a very small degree of charity , which is but one remove from barbarity itself . as for other sick , and diseased , and lame people , who cannot be at the charge of a cure , where sickness , disability , and poverty meet , this makes them double objects of charity , especially , as it often happens , when these disabilities fall upon the industrious , who before supported themselves and their families by honest labours , without charity . nay as for those , who may be justly thought the least objects of charity , the wicked and vicious , who reap the deserved fruits of their own wickedness , i am sure , they are the objects of the greatest pity , because this life will not end their miseries ; and if we can prolong their lives here to save their souls , it will be charity indeed , and what effect the sense of their wickedness and sufferings , and the grace of god , may have upon them , no man can tell . as for distracted persons , i believe , no man , who considers , what a blessing reason and understanding is , and what a misery the want of it is , can think of them without the most sensible compassion : i think , all other evils whatsoever , are to be preferred before it ; and therefore to restore them to their senses again , which we hear by the blessing of god is often done , or however to keep them from doing themselves , or others any injury , and to preserve human nature from that contempt , which such publick spectacles expose it to , is a very extraordinary charity . now all this shews , that a charitable man need not be at any great loss , how to dispose of his charity ; here are too many very proper objects of charity , ( if god so pleased ) and we ought to be very thankfull to god , that we our selves are not in the number , for it is more blessed to give , than to receive . but then the great numbers of miserable people , who in several kinds want our charity , is a very powerfull argument to greater liberality and bounty . for this i must add to what i have already said concerning the measures and proportions of charity ; that a truly charitable mind will encrease its proportions according to present wants ; will sometimes abridge itself even in the conveniences of life to supply great and pressing necessities ; for a great love will not only spare , what it easily can , but when there is great reason for it , will deny it self to do good . and here i intended to have represented to you our apostles arguments for a liberal and bountifull charity : but , i fear , i have already too much trespassed ; and where there is a willing mind , so many and so great objects of charity , are themselves very pressing arguments . and therefore as the apostle endeavours to inspire his corinthians with an holy emulation of the zeal and forwardness of the churches of macedonia , how that in a great trial of affliction , the abundance of their joy , and their deep poverty , abounded unto the riches of their liberality ; so i shall only desire you to emulate the great examples of past and present times , and that you would set as great examples for times to come . if any thing deserves our emulation , great and generous charities do , which are a resemblance and imitation of the divine goodness , than which nothing can more endear us to god or man : we owe all our present foundations to royal bounty and private charities ; and thanks be to god , our present age , as bad as it is , is not without some great examples ; and though true virtue is void of the pride , and vanity , and envy , and jealousies of earthly rivals , yet it fires at great examples , and is ashamed to be out-done by equals in love to god or men ; especially when the honour of the church , whereof they are members , and the religion , which they profess , is concerned . it is well known , how many pious and charitable foundations are owing to popish superstition ; they hoped to expiate their sins , and to merit heaven by their good works , and in this hope , and this perswasion , they did a very great many . we understand better than to think of meriting any thing of god , much less of purchasing a liberty of sinning , by acts of charity ; but if those great rewards , which are promised to charity , and which we profess to believe , will not make us charitable , without the opinion of merit and satisfaction ; charity is so great and excellent a vertue , and so very usefull to mankind , that at least thus far popery will be thought the better religion ; and therefore as the apostle argues , as ye abound in every thing , in faith , and utterance , and knowledge , and all diligence , and in your love to us , see that ye abound in this grace also : as we have a more orthodox saith , a clearer and distincter knowledge , and a purer worship , than the church of rome , let us excell in charity too , and convince the world , that to renounce popery , is not to renounce good works . finis . books publish'd by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. paul's ; and to be sold by w. rogers . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery , 2d edit . 4to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer , 4to . a sermon at the funeral of the reverend dr. calamy , 4to . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick communion , &c. 4to . a preservative against popery , in two parts , with the vindication . a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church , first part , 4to . a sermon before the lord-mayor , novemb. 4 1688. 4to . a vindication of the doctrine of the trinity , 3d edit . 4to . the case of allegiance to sovereign powers stated , &c. 4to . a vindication of the case of allegiance , &c. 4to . a fast-sermon before the queen at whitehall , june 17. 4to . a practical discourse concerning death . in octavo . ninth edition , price 3 s. in twelves , price 2 s. a practical discourse concerning judgment , 4th edit . 8 vo . a sermon before the house of commons , jan. 30. 1692. 4to . a sermon preach'd before the queen , feb. 12. 1692. 4to . the charity of lending without usury , in a sermon before the lord-mayor on easter-tuesday , 1692. 4to . a sermon at the temple-church , may 29. 1692. 4to . a sermon preach'd before the queen , june 26. 1692. 4to . a sermon preach'd at the funeral of the reverend dr. meggot , late dean of winchester , decemb. 10. 1692. 4to . a discourse concerning the divine providence , 2d edit . 4to . an apology for writing against socinians , 4to . a sermon at the temple-church , dec. 30. 1694. upon the sad occasion of the death of our gracious queen , 4to . books printed for , and are to be sold by w. rogers . archbishop tillotson's works , being all that were publish'd by his grace himself ; and now collected into one vol. fol. price 20s . — discourse against transubstantiation , 8vo . alone . price 2d . stitcht . — persuasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's-supper . 8vo . sticht 3d. in 12 o bound , 6d . — sermons concerning the divinity of our b. saviour , 8vo . — six sermons . i. of stedfastness in religion . ii. of family-religion . iii , iv , v. of the education of children . vi. of the advantages of an early piety . in 8vo . price 3s . in 12 o. 1s . 6d . bishop of worcester's doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented , &c. 4to . — doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compar'd , in in two parts , 4to . bishop of norwich's two sermons of the wisdom and goodness of providence , before the queen at whitehall , 4to . — sermon preach'd at st. andrew's holborn , on gal. 6. 7. — of religious melancholy . a sermon preach'd before the queen at whitehall , 4to . — of the immortality of the soul , preach'd before the king and queen at whitehall , on palm-sunday , 4to . bishop of bath and wells commentary on the five books of moses : with a dissertation concerning the author or writer of the said books ; and a general argument to each of them , in 2 vol. 8vo . dr. clagett's sermons , in two volumes , 8vo . dr. wake 's sermons , in 8vo . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the sacinians , 4to . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of the trinity in unity , 4to . an answer to the animadversion on the dean of st. paul's vindication of the trinity , 4to . the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined , and the doctrine of a real trinity vindicated from the charge of tritheism : in answer to a late socinian pamphlet , entituled , the judgment of a dis-interested person , concerning the controversie about the b trinity , depending betw . dr. s — th and dr. sherlock , 4to . mr. tyrrell's history of england , fol. price 20s . dr. pelling's discourse concerning the existence of god , 8vo . — practical discourse concerning holiness , 8vo . the end . the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy a sermon preach'd before the right honble, the lord mayor and court of aldermen at guildhall-chappel on sunday, april 25, 1697 / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1697 approx. 46 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 15 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59808 wing s3280 estc r28137 10410096 ocm 10410096 45001 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59808) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 45001) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1389:26) the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy a sermon preach'd before the right honble, the lord mayor and court of aldermen at guildhall-chappel on sunday, april 25, 1697 / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 24 p. printed for w. rogers, london : 1697. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng philosophy and religion -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the dean of st. pavl's sermon before the lord mayor and aldermen , on april 25. 1697. clarke mayor . martis quarto die maij 1697. annoque r. rs. wilhelmi tertii angliae , &c. nono . this court doth desire mr. dean of st. paul's to print his sermon preached before the lord mayor and aldermen of this city , on sunday the 25th day of april last . goodfellow . the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy . a sermon preach'd before the right hon ble the lord-mayor , and court of aldermen , at guildhall-chappel , on sunday , april 25. 1697. by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcvii . colos. ii. 8. beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit , after the traditions of men , after the rudiments of the world , and not after christ. had st. paul lived in our age , it would have required little less than the courage and bravery of the spirit of martyrdom to have said this : and nothing but the authority of so great an apostle ( which though some men do not much value , yet they dare not openly despise ) can skreen those , who venture to say it after him . what some men call philosophy and reason ( and there is nothing so foolish and absurd which some men will not call so ) , is the only thing which those men adore , who would either have no god , or a god and a religion of their own making . and what attempts some have made to undermine all religion , and others to corrupt and transform the whole frame of the christian religion , upon a pretence of its contradicting natural reason and philosophy , is too well known to need a proof . that thus it was in his days , and that thus it was likely to be in future ages , st. paul was very sensible , when he gave this caution to his colossians ; and i 'm sure it is as proper a caution for us , as ever it was for any age since the writing of this epistle ; for this vain pretence to reason and philosophy never more prevailed , and never did more mischief to the world . it is an endless and fruitless task to go about to confute all the absurd hypotheses and wild inconsistent reasonings wherewith men abuse themselves and others : the experience of so many ages wherein philosophy was in all its glory , and the several sects disputed and wrangled eternally , without ending any one controversy , gives no great encouragement , to hope for much this way ; at least it can never be expected that ordinary christians should be better instructed and confirmed in the faith by philosophical disputes . the christian religion has from the very beginning been corrupted by a mixture of philosophy : thus it was in the apostles days , and thus it has been more or less in all ages of the church to this day ; and the direction the apostle gives for the security of the christian faith , is , not to dispute such matters , but to distinguish between philosophical disputes , and matters of revelation ; and to reject all the pretences of philosophy , when it does or seems to contradict the faith of christ , or would make any corrupt additions to it . beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is to make a prey , or to carry away as a prey ; that is , to seduce them from the christian faith , or from the purity and simplicity of it : through philosophy and vain deceit , that is , through the vain deceit of philosophy , which cheats men with a flattering but empty appearance ; may unsettle weak minds , but cannot lay a sure and solid foundation of faith ; may cheat men out of their faith , but when that is done , can give them nothing certain in the room of it : for it is but after the traditions of men , and after the rudiments of this world : some of these doctrines may possibly plead prescription , as having been so long received that no man knows their original ; or if they have the authority of some great name , yet it is but a human authority , and they are but the traditions of men ; and of men who at best had no better information than from the visible appearances of nature , and their own imperfect observations , and corrupt or defective reasonings , after the rudiments of this world : and is this an authority to oppose against the faith of christ , which both wants that divine confirmation which he gave to his doctrines , and contradicts them ? for they are not after christ , neither taught by christ , nor consonant to what he taught . these words might afford great variety of discourse ; but i shall confine my self to what is most useful , and reduce that into as narrow a compass as i can , by shewing , i. what great need there is of this caution , to beware lest any man spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit . ii. what great reason we have to reject all these vain pretences to philosophy , when they are opposed to the authority of a divine revelation . i. as for the first of these , whoever considers what an enemy these vain pretences to philosophy have always been to religion , will see need enough for this caution . true reason , and the true knowledge of nature , which is true philosophy , would certainly direct us to the acknowledgment and worship of that supreme being who made the world : and yet we know , that there never was an atheist without some pretence to philosophy , and generally such loud noisy pretences too , as make ignorant people think them very notable philosophers , and that tempts some vain empty persons to affect atheism , that they may be thought philosophers . that this is vain deceit , all men must own , who believe there is a god : and if it be possible to pretend philosophy for atheism it self , it is no great wonder if it be made to patronize infidelity and heresy : but this plainly shews of what dangerous consequence it is to admit philosophical disputes into religion , which if at any time they may do any service to religion , much oftner greatly corrupt it , and shake the very foundations of it ; of which more anon . at present i shall only shew you how the matter of fact stands ; that most of the disputes in religion are nothing else but the disputes of philosophy , and therefore according to the apostolical command , to be wholly flung out of religion , and not suffered to affect our faith one way or other . to be a philosopher and a christian , to dispute and to believe , are two very different things ; and yet it is very evident , that most of the arguments against revelation in general , and most of the disputes about the particular doctrines of christianity , are no better than this vain deceit of philosophy ; that were the matters of faith , and the disputes of philosophy truly distinguished , this alone would be sufficient to settle the faith of christians , and restore peace and unity , at least in the great fundamentals of religion , to the christian world. 1. as to begin with revelation in general . the books of moses are the most ancient , and that considered , the best attested history in the world ; the whole nation of the jews , whose history he writes , pay the greatest veneration to him ; and if we believe the matters of fact which he relates , he was certainly an inspired man , who could neither deceive , nor be deceived . and it is impossible to have greater evidence for the truth and authenticalness of any writings , at such a distance of time , than we have for the writings of the new testament ; and indeed the infidels of our age have very little to say purely against the credibility of the history ; and then one would think , that all their other objections should come too late , unless they will justify pharaoh in disbelieving moses , and the scribes and pharisees in disbelieving our saviour , after all the miracles they did : for if they will disbelieve moses and christ , though they have nothing material to object against the truth of these histories ; nothing , which they would allow to be good objections against any other history ; they must by the same reason have disbelieved them , though they had seen them do all those great works which are reported of them in such credible histories . but whatever the authority of these books are , they think they may securely reject them , if they contain any thing which contradicts their reason and philosophy , and they find a great many such things to quarrel with : they think moses's history of the creation very unphilosophical ; that the story of eve and the serpent is an incredible fiction ; that the universal deluge is absolutely impossible , and irreconcileable with the principles of philosophy ; and it does not become philosophers to have recourse to miracles : that what we call miracles are not the effects of a divine power , but may be resolved into natural causes ; that inspiration and prophesy is nothing but natural enthusiasm , and all the pretences to revelation a cheat and imposture ; that nature teaches us all that we need to know ; that there is no other certain knowledge but this ; that we are not bound to believe any thing which our own reason cannot grasp and comprehend , and therefore revelation is perfectly useless ; and god himself cannot oblige us to believe any thing which does not agree with the reason of our own minds , and the philosophy of nature . those who understand the mystery of modern infidelity , know that these , and such like , are the wise reasons for which they reject and ridicule all revealed religion , and endeavour to rob and spoil men of one of the greatest blessings in the world , a divine revelation . so that infidelity is resolved into these vain pretences to philosophy , that men will understand how to make , destroy , and govern the world better than god. 2. as these men oppose reason and philosophy to revelation , so others either deny the fundamental articles of christianity for the sake of some philosophical difficulties , or corrupt the doctrines of christianity by a mixture of philosophy . the gospel of our saviour is the plainest revelation of the will of god that ever was made to the world ; all its doctrines are easily understood , without art and subtilty ; and yet there is not a more nice , intricate , perplext thing in the world , than what some men have made the christian faith : all the subtil disputes of philosophy are brought into the church ; and plato and aristotle are become as great apostles , as st. peter , or st. paul : as to give some few instances of it ; for time will not permit me to discourse it at large . what are the arian , socinian , pelagian controversies , but meer philosophical disputes , with which these hereticks corrupted the catholick faith ? there is nothing more plain and express in scripture than the faith of father , son , and holy ghost , or the doctrine of the trinity in vnity ; and that great art and subtilty which has been used , and to so little purpose , to pervert those texts of scripture , wherein this doctrine is contained , is an evident proof , that this is the plain , natural obvious sense of those texts , since it requires so much art and criticism to put any other sense on them ; and that will not do neither , till men are resolved rather to make any thing of scripture , than to find a real trinity there . if then this faith be so plainly contained in scripture , what makes all this dispute about it ? what makes those , who profess to believe the scripture , so obstinate against this faith ? truly that which makes some men infidels , makes others hereticks , that is , a vain pretence to philosophy . the first philosophical dispute is about the divine unity : we all own with the scripture , that there is but one god ; but we say further , as the scripture teaches us , that there are three , father , son , and holy ghost , each of which is true and perfect god. this they say is a contradiction ; and if it be so , there is an end of this faith , for both parts of a contradiction can't be true : but to be three and one upon different accounts , and in different senses , is no contradiction ; for thus three may be one , and one three ; and this is all the scripture teaches , or that we profess to believe , whatever the mystery of this distinction and unity be : but this will not satisfy these philosophical wits , unless they can comprehend how father , son , and holy ghost , are really and distinctly three , and essentially one , the manner of which the scripture gives no account of , and therefore this is no dispute in faith , but only in philosophy . another objection concerns the divine generation , how god can beget a son of his own substance ; which the arians thought inferred a division of the divine substance . and a third objection concerns an eternal generation ; how it is possible that the father should beget an eternal son ; that the son should be begotten without any beginning of being ; and that the father should not be at least some few moments before the son , and consequently the son not eternal . now we all grant that we can give no philosophical account of this , no more than we can of the simple divine essence , or of eternity it self ; but we may believe that god has an eternal son , as we do that there is an eternal god , without knowing how any thing is eternal : these are disputes in philosophy , and such as none but vain men will dispute about , as being acknowledged above our comprehension , and therefore no reasonable objection against our faith. this as for the doctrine of the incarnation , nothing can be plainer in scripture , than that the son of god was made man ; that the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us ; that god was manifest in the flesh : and all the disputes about this article are purely philosophical : some men reject it , because they cannot understand how god and man can be united in one person : others confound the divine and human nature , as eutyches did ; or divide the persons , as nestorius did ; both which indeed destroy the article of the incarnation ; for the word is not made flesh , unless the same person , who is god , is man too , and continues perfect god and perfect man after this union : but all these disputes concern the philosophy of the union of the divine and human nature in christ ; and if we would separate between faith and philosophy , such disputes might soon be ended . thus most of the difficulties in the pelagian and quinquarticular controversy , are ultimately resolved into mere philosophical disputes about fate and prescience , liberty and necessity , and god's concourse with creatures , or the powers of nature and grace : and would time permit , it were easy to shew this in most of the controversies of religion , that it is not what god has revealed , and what he requires us to believe , but such nice philosophical questions as men raise about these matters , which occasion all these disputes . it has often been proposed as a means of union to silence all disputes , to confine our selves to scripture-words and expressions , without determining the signification of them : but this would make only an agreement in words , not a consent in opinions ; nor could it secure the peace of the church , while all men knew , that under the same form of words , they had very different and contrary meanings , which would still make them as much hereticks to each other , as if their words did as expresly contradict each other , as their faith. but would men reduce all their disputes to scripture , and make that the only rule of their faith , without intermixing any philosophical disputes with it , this would be an infallible means of union ; for it is only this vain pretence to philosophy , which raises all these disputes , and then tempts men to pervert the scriptures to justify their philosophy . in all these cases we are concerned to enquire what the true sense of the article is ; for this the scripture teaches , and so far our faith is concerned ; and these are not only justifiable , but necessary disputes , if the true faith be necessary : and such were the disputes of the catholick fathers with the sabellian , arian , and photinian hereticks ; whether father , son , and holy ghost , were only three names , or three appearances and manifestations of the same one single person , or any other three , but three true , proper , coeternal , and coequal persons : or whether he , who is in scripture called the son of god , be a creature , though the most excellent creature ; or a son , and god by nature , truly begotten of his father's substance : or whether christ be god incarnate , or a meer man : and their ancient creeds pretended to no more , than to teach what the catholick faith was , not to expound the philosophy of the trinity and incarnation . and thus far we must explain the faith , as to know , and to let others know , what it is we believe ; and if to assert the ancient catholick faith against old and new heresies , should be called new explications , we cannot help it ; for we must explain what the scripture teaches about these articles , and how the catholick church always understood them : but that which we are to beware of , is , not to mix philosophy with our faith , nor to admit of any mere philosophical objections against the faith , nor to attempt any explications of these mysteries , beyond what the scriptures , and the faith and practice of the catholick church will justify . indeed the importunity of hereticks did very often engage the catholick fathers in philosophical disputes ; but this they did , not to explain the christian mysteries by philosophy , but only to shew , that as incomprehensible as these mysteries are , the philosophy of hereticks , and their objections against these articles , were very absurd : and such disputes as these may sometimes be absolutely necessary , and of great use to shame these vain pretences to philosophy , while we do not put the trial of our faith upon this issue . secondly , let us now consider what great reason we have to reject all the vain pretences to reason and philosophy , when opposed to a divine revelation . for that is all the apostle intends in this caution ; not to discourage the use of reason , or the study of philosophy , which are great improvements , and a delightful entertainment of human minds , and with a wise and prudent conduct may be very serviceable to religion too ; but we must not set up any conclusions in philosophy against the christian faith , nor corrupt the faith with a mixture of philosophy , nor reject any revealed truths , for want of natural ideas to conceive them by . to shorten this discourse as much as i can ; i shall at present only shew you what reason we have to believe those doctrines which are thought the most mysterious and inconceivable , notwithstanding any objections from natural reason and philosophy against them . and the account of this must be resolved into the nature , use , and authority of revelation ; that revelation , as to such matters as are knowable only by revelation , must serve instead of sense , natural ideas , and natural reason ; that is , that we must believe things which we do not see , things which we have no natural notion or conception of , things which are not evident to natural reason ; for without this , there is little use of faith , no authority of pure revelation . it is true , the general corruption of mankind made it very necessary for god to revive the laws of nature , and to reinforce the observation of them by his own authority and command ; but the proper work of revelation is to discover such things to us as nature cannot teach , of which we have no natural notion , nor any natural evidence ; at least , thus it may be , if god knows more than natural reason teaches , or can comprehend ; and thinks it fit to reveal such supernatural truths to us , when he sees it useful for mankind . now if god ever does reveal such things to us , if we believe upon god's authority ( which is the strict notion of a divine faith ) , we must believe without any natural evidence , merely because god has revealed it ; and then we must believe such things as are not evident to sense and reason ; and then it can be no objection against revelation , nor against the belief of any such supernatural truths , that we have no natural notion , nor natural evidence of them , that they are what we cannot conceive and comprehend . to believe no farther than natural reason can conceive and comprehend , is to reject the divine authority of revelation , and to destroy the distinction between reason and faith. he who will believe no farther than natural reason approves ; believes his reason , not the revelation ; and is in truth a natural philosopher , not a believer : he believes the scriptures , as he would believe plato and tully ; not as inspired writings , but as agreeable to reason and the result of wise and deep thoughts ; and this puts an end to all the disputes about faith and revelation at once : for what use is there of faith ? what matter whether the scriptures be divinely inspired or not , when we are no farther concerned with them than with other human writings , to believe what they teach agreeable to our own reason ? let these men then either reject faith and scripture , or confess , that revelation , as to all supernatural truths , must serve us instead of sense and reason . i would gladly know of them , whether they would not believe such supernatural truths , as are not evident to reason , were they sure that god had revealed them ? i guess they will not be so hardy as to say , that they would not believe god himself , should he reveal such things as their reason cannot comprehend ; and if they would believe god in such matters , why will they not believe a revelation , which they themselves acknowledge to be divine , in such matters ? for is there any difference between believing god , and believing a divine revelation ? if god does know , and can reveal such mysteries , and is to be believed when he does reveal them , and such doctrines are contained in an undoubted revelation ; then the unconceivableness of them can be no argument against the truth of the revelation , or that sense of the words , which contains such mysteries . let us then consider the natural consequence of this , which is of great moment in this dispute , viz. that we must allow of no objections against revealed mysteries , which we will not allow to be good objections against sense and reason ; which is a necessary and unavoidable consequence if revelation , with respect to supernatural truths , stand in the place of sense and reason . now no man questions the truth of what he sees and feels , or what he can prove to be true by plain and undeniable reason , merely because there are unconceivable difficulties in it ; as there are in every thing , even the most certain and familiar things in nature : and if revealed truths are not more unconceivable than many natural objects of sense and reason , why should their being unconceivable be a greater objection against believing a revelation , than it is against believing our sense and reason in matters equally unconceivable ? when god has revealed to us , that he has an eternal and only begotten son , though we cannot comprehend the mystery of the eternal generation , why should we not as firmly believe it , as we do , that man begets a son in his own likeness , the philosophy of which we as little understand ? nor can we any more conceive the union of the soul and body , than we do the incarnation of the son of god , or the union of the divine and human nature in one person ? and if we own the authority of revelation , why should we not as well believe what revelation teaches , how unconceivable soever it be , as we do what sense and reason teaches , though it be alike unconceivable ? all men are sensible , that it is very absurd and foolish to deny the being of any thing which they have certain evidence of , because they cannot comprehend the nature and reasons of it : the man who rose up and walked before the philosopher , who was disputing subtilly against the possibility of motion , put a scorn upon all his arguments , by shewing him that he could move : and therefore we see , that all men believe their senses and reason against all the difficulties in nature , and will never be persuaded , by the subtillest disputant , that that is not , which they certainly see and know to be . now for the same reason , if men will allow the authority of revelation , they must believe what is revealed , how unconceivable and incomprehensible soever its nature be ; for when we know that a thing is , ( and this may be known by revelation as well as by sense , as those men must confess , who acknowledge a divine revelation ) no difficulties in conceiving it , must persuade us to deny that it is . this is very plain in it self , though few men consider it , that to disbelieve what is revealed , for the sake of any difficulties in understanding or conceiving it , is to reject the certainty of revelation ; for what other account can be given of that difference men make between the evidence of sense and reason , and of revelation , but that they allow sense and reason to be good and certain proofs of the being of such things as are evident to sense and reason , how mysterious soever their natures are ; but that mere revelation is no certain proof of the being of any thing which is not evident also to sense and reason , how plainly soever it be revealed ; that is , that revelation alone can prove nothing ; for if revelation it self could prove the certainty of what is revealed , the difficulties in nature and philosophy could no more disprove a revelation , than confute our senses . now let any man judge , whether this be not unequal usage , to expect more from revelation , than they do from sense and reason , and not to believe revelation upon the same terms that they believe their senses . should men resolve to believe nothing which they see , till they could give a philosophical account of the reasons , and causes , and natures , of all they see , as they refuse to believe a revelation any farther than they can conceive and comprehend the thing revealed , they must of necessity be as great scepticks , as they are infidels . for as for contradictions , it is an easy matter to make or find seeming contradictions in what we do not understand ; for when we know not the philosophical natures of things , nor how they act , and yet will be reasoning and guessing at them , all our false guesses may be full of contradictions and impossibilities , because we know not the true mystery of nature . it is this vain humour of criticizing upon nature which makes so many atheists . they go upon the same principle with infidels and hereticks , to believe nothing which natural reason cannot conceive and comprehend ; now they cannot comprehend the notion and idea of a god , which they say , is made up of contradictions and impossibilities , and therefore they reject the being of a god : they cannot conceive a creating power , which can give being to that which had no being before , which they think a plain contradiction to make something of nothing ; and therefore they reject the creation of the world , and either assert the eternity of the world , or at least the eternity of matter : they can conceive no substance but matter and body , and therefore reject the notion of a spirit , as nonsense and contradiction : they will allow nothing to be wisely made , which they understand not the reason and uses of , and therefore they fancy a great many botches and blunders in nature , which cannot be the designs and contrivance of wisdom , but the effects of chance ; and then the consequence is plain , that the world was made by chance , not by a wise author . now , i confess , if this way of reasoning be allowed , it will be impossible to defend either sense , or reason , or revelation , against the cavils of atheists and infidels ; for there are unconceivable and incomprehensible secrets and mysteries in them all ; and if to conceive and comprehend the natures of things must be made the measure and standard of true and false , we must deny our senses and reason , as well as our faith ; and if we do and must believe our sense and reason beyond our comprehension , why must we believe nothing that is revealed , any farther than we can conceive and comprehend the nature and reasons of it ? the sum is this : humane knowledge , whatever the means of knowing be , whether sense , or reason , or revelation , does not reach to the philosophical causes and natures of things , but only to their being , and natural vertues and powers ; and as a wise man , who knows the measure of his understanding , expects no more from sense and reason , than to know what things there are in the world , and what they are , as far as they fall under the notice of sense and natural reason ; so we must expect no more from revelation , than the knowledge of such things as sense and natural reason cannot discover . but we must no more expect the philosophy of supernatural truths from revelation , than we do the mysteries of nature from sense and reason . now since human knowledge is not a knowledge of the mysterious natures of things , but only to know what things there are , and what they are ; there can be no cantradiction between sense , and reason , and revelation ; unless one denies what the other affirms , not that one teaches more than the other teaches , or that one cannot comprehend what the other teaches . reason teaches more than sense teaches , or can comprehend ; and revelation teaches more than either sense or natural reason teaches , or can comprehend ; but this is no contradiction , but only a subordination between these different kinds and degrees of knowledge ; but as for unconceivableness and incomprehensibility , that is no argument against any thing ; for sense and natural reason can no more comprehend their own objects , than they do what is revealed : and it is manifest perverseness to make that an objection against revelation , which we will not allow to be an objection against sense and reason . this is sufficient as to the reason of the thing ; but as far as it is possible to remove mens prejudices also against believing mysteries , i shall briefly answer two very popular objections . 1. it is thought very unnatural , that when god has made us reasonable creatures , and therefore made natural reason to us the measure of truth and falshood , he should require us to believe without reason ; as we must do , if he reveals such things to us as we know not , and cannot possibly know the reasons of . if we must believe with our understanding , how can we believe things which we cannot understand ? this were a reasonable objection , were it true ; for we cannot believe what we have no knowledge , nor understanding of ; for faith is knowledge , though not natural knowledge . but do we not understand what it is we believe ? do we not know what we mean , when we say , we believe in father , son , and holy ghost ? nay , do not our adversaries understand what we mean by it ? how then come they to charge us with believing contradictions and impossibilities ? for if they know not what we believe , they cannot know whether we believe contradictions or not . and if we do understand what it is we believe , then we do not believe without understanding , which is absolutely impossible , if we know what it is we believe . and we know also why we believe : our faith is founded in sense and reason , and resolved into the authority of god , which is the highest and most infallible reason . the miracles which christ and his apostles wrought , were evident to sense , and owned by reason to be the effects of a divine power ; and the answer the blind man gave to the pharisees , when christ had opened his eyes , speaks the true sense of nature : h●rein is a marvellous thing , that ye know not from whence he is , and yet he hath opened mine eyes . now we know that god heareth not sinners ; but if any man be a worshipper of god , and doth his will , him he heareth . since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind : if this man were not of god , he could do nothing , 9. john 30 , 31 , 32 , 33. and all mankind own , that the most absolute faith is due to god , and to those who speak from god ; and this , as i take it , is to believe with reason . but still we believe such things , whose natures we do not understand , and cannot account for by natural reason , and this is to believe without reason . we believe , that god the father hath an eternal son , and an eternal spirit ; and that father , son , and holy ghost , are but one eternal god ; but this is what natural reason cannot comprehend , nor give us any notion or conception of , how god can have an eternal son , and an eternal spirit , really distinct from himself , and yet with himself one eternal and infinite god : reason can give no account of the eternal generation of the son , nor of the eternal procession of the holy spirit ; and is not this to believe without reason , which a reasonable creature ought not to do , and which we ought not to think , that god who made us reasonable creatures , expects from us ? and this i grant would be a material objection , were reason the judge of the nature and philosophy of things ; and did reason require us to believe nothing but what we understand and comprehend . but then we must no more believe sense and reason , than revelation ; for we do not comprehend the nature of any one thing in the world , how evident soever it is to sense and reason , that there are such things . nature is as great a mystery as revelation ; and it is no greater affront to our understandings , no more against reason for god to reveal such things to us as our reason cannot comprehend , than it is to make a whole world , which reason cannot comprehend . when we make it an objection against any thing , that it is without reason , or , as we apprehend , against reason , and contrary to reason ; we must first consider whether it be the proper object of reason ; otherwise it is no objection ; as it is no objection against sounds , that we cannot see them ; nor against colours , that we cannot hear them ; because sounds are not the objects of sight , nor colours of hearing . now no man pretends , that the pure natures and essences of things , or their essential reasons , properties , unions , operations , are the objects of humane reason ; for no man living knows any thing about them . and yet this is all the incomprehensibility men have to complain of in the doctrine of the trinity , and the incarnation ; that they cannot comprehend , how god can beget an eternal son ; nor how three divine persons should be so united , as to be essentially one god ; nor how the divine and humane nature can be united into one person , god-man : all which concern the essence , and essential properties , operations , unions , relations of the deity , which a modest man might allow to be incomprehensible , if god be infinite , though he could comprehend the natures , essences , and essential reasons and properties of created beings ; but when all created nature is such a mystery to us , that we know not the pure nature and essence of any one thing in the world , is it an affront to our reason , that we cannot comprehend the divine nature ? such matters as these are neither without reason , nor against reason , nor contrary to reason ; because reason has nothing to do with them , and can take no cognizance of them : they belong not to reason , but to that infinite mind , which comprehends it self , and the ideas of all possible beings . a perfect comprehensive knowledge of nature belongs only to the maker of all things ; for it is not only to know what things are , but how to make them ; which would be a vain curiosity , and useless knowledge to those , who have not a making and creating power . this is to know things à priori , with an intuitive ideal knowledge , which is infinitely more superior to reason , than reason is to sense : and it is the affection of this intuitive making knowledge , which makes some men atheists , and others hereticks . 2dly . another great objection against such a revelation as contains matters which natural reason cannot comprehend , is , to what purpose such a revelation serves ? what merit there can be in believing such doctrines ? and of what good use such a faith can be to us ? now i confess i cannot think it meritorious merely to believe things which are incomprehensible ; or that god any more intended to puzzle our faith with revealed mysteries , than to puzzle our reason in making a mysterious world. whether we receive our information from sense , or natural reason , or revelation , it is certain we must believe mysteries , if we believe any thing ; for all things have something mysterious and incomprehensible in their natures ; what natural reason cannot account for , and what god never intended we should understand : for god never intended to teach us how to make the world , nor how every creature was made ; and therefore we cannot and are not concerned to know the internal frame and constitution of nature . but though neither natural nor revealed knowledge extends to the reasons and causes of nature , and of essential properties and operations ; yet both natural and revealed knowledge is of as much use to us , as if we did perfectly understand all the secret and incomprehensible mysteries of the nature of god , or of the natures of creatures . both natural and revealed knowledge are alike upon this account , that they only acquaint us what things are , and what ends they serve ; and then we know what use to make of them , without understanding the secret mysteries of nature . is this world , or any thing in it , the less useful to us , because we cannot conceive how god created all things of nothing ? or because we do not understand the nature of matter , nor how the several parts of matter came by their different virtues and qualities ? is corn , or fruit , or herbs , the less nourishing or refreshing , because we know not how they grow ? does it require any philosophy to know how to eat , and drink , and sleep ? will not our food nourish us , unless we understand how it is concocted , and turned into chyle , and blood , and spirits ? nay , is it of no use to know that god is an eternal , omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent being , unless we can conceive how any being can be eternal without a cause , and without a beginning ? or can comprehend how he can do and know all things ; and be present in all places at once , without extension , and without parts ? we may make all the use that can be made of this world , and of every thing in it , without understanding the essential reasons and causes , or internal nature of any thing ; and we must do so , if we will make any use of it ; and we know god to all the ends and purposes for which creatures ought to know god , though his nature be incomprehensible . and thus it is in matters of pure revelation , such as the doctrine of the trinity , and the incarnation ; how unaccountable soever the mystery of a trinity in unity , the eternal generation , and the incarnation of the son of god be , yet it is the most useful knowledge in the world : though we know not how the eternal father begat an eternal son of his own substance , nor how this eternal son in time became man ; yet it is the most desirable knowledge in the world to sinners ; to know , that god has an eternal son ; and that he so loved the world , as to give his only begotten son for the redemption of mankind , that whosoever believes in him , should not perish , but have everlasting life ; and that this eternal son of god became man , lived a poor , necessitous , laborious life , and died an accursed death for the salvation of sinners ; and to know , that the holy spirit , which proceeds from father and son , dwells in the christian church , and quickens and animates the whole body of christ. if this be true ( as we must suppose in this argument ) , all mankind must confess , that this is a very useful knowledge ; and never the less useful , because a trinity in unity , and the eternal generation , and the incarnation of the son of god , are great and inconceivable mysteries . could we give a rational and philosophical account of the eternal generation , and of the incarnation , we should know more than we now do ; but faith makes it as useful to all the purposes of religion , as the most perfect intuitive knowledge could do . this is a sufficient answer to that objection against the usefulness of such mysteries as have something incomprehensible and unconceivable in their natures : which is an equal objection against all created nature , which is but one great mystery ; and yet the world is a very useful world , and we know in some good degree what use to make of it : and the knowledge of those gospel mysteries which are the subject of our present dispute , are manifestly of infinite use to us , if the certain knowledge of the pardon of sin , and eternal life , by the obedience , and sufferings , and death , and intercession of the son of god incarnate , be of any use ; and therefore it became the wisdom and goodness of god to reveal these mysteries of salvation to us . especially if we add to this , that the lapsed state of human nature makes supernatural knowledge necessary . natural knowledge we grant was sufficient for a state of nature , though no man would have had reason to complain , had god in a state of innocence by a more familiar intercourse with man , or by the frequent conversation of angels , improved his knowledge beyond the mere attainments of his natural faculties ; and it is not improbable , but this might have been ; i am sure there is an impatient thirst after knowledge in human nature , and such a great curiosity for secret and hidden mysteries , that it looks very unnatural for men to complain , that god reveals more to them than nature teaches . but yet i say , natural knowledge must be allowed sufficient to all the ends of human life , while man continued innocent ; for that is the original state of human nature , as all men must grant , who believe that man was made by god. but when man sinned , he forfeited the favour of god , and a natural immortality ; and whether he should be restored or not , and by what means he should be restored , depended wholly on the sovereign will and pleasure of god : and therefore the light of nature , though it could direct an innocent man how to please and worship god , and to preserve himself immortal , it could not teach sinners how to make atonement for sin , nor give them any certain hopes that god would forgive sins , and bestow immortal life on them ; which makes it necessary , that the religion of a sinner be a revealed religion . and if god in infinite goodness is not only pleased to restore sinners to grace and favour , but to advance them to a supernatural state of perfection and happiness both of soul and body in the next world ; this must be done by supernatural means , and therefore requires a supernatural knowledge ; for the light of nature can neither raise us above nature , nor discover supernatural truths to us ; and this makes it necessary to know and believe such things , as we have no natural notion or idea of , such things , as neither eye hath seen , nor ear heard , neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive . if nature can't save us , it can't discover to us the way of salvation neither ; and if we must be saved by a supernatural grace and power , it must be supernaturally revealed ; and what is supernatural , is the object of faith , not of natural knowledge . this seems to me to give a plain account , why god thinks fit to reveal such mysteries to us as nature cannot teach , and as we have no natural notion of , because our lapsed state has made such supernatural revelations necessary to the recovery of mankind ; and when we are fallen below the relief of nature , and of natural knowledge , we ought to be very thankful to our good god for supernatural knowledge , and supernatural means of salvation . to god the father , god the son , and god the holy ghost , three persons , one eternal god , be honour , glory and power , now and for ever . amen . finis . some seasonable reflections on the discovery of the late plot being a sermon preacht on that occasion / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1683 approx. 54 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 16 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59895 wing s3366 estc r10020 11906836 ocm 11906836 50722 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59895) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50722) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:9) some seasonable reflections on the discovery of the late plot being a sermon preacht on that occasion / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 2 p.l., 26 p. printed for thomas basset ..., london : 1683. reproduction of original in university of pennsylvania library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -o.t. -psalms xviii, 50 -sermons. popish plot, 1678. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion some seasonable reflections on the discovery of the late plot. being a sermon preacht on that occasion . by william sherlock , d. d. rector of st. george buttolph-lane , london . london : printed for thomas basset , at the george in fleet-street . and fincham gardiner , at the white horse in ludgate-street . 1683. the preface to the reader . the reason , why i publish this sermon , is partly to gratifie the desires of some , partly to prevent the misrepresentations of others , but chiefly for the same end , for which i preacht it , viz. to take the advantage of this present opportunity , to make some impressions upon mens minds , which i fear at other times , they will not so easily receive . i hope all honest men , even dissenters themselves , do from their hearts abhor those villanous designs against the life of our king , which god of his great mercy to these kingdoms , has so lately brought to light : and while they are possest with such an abhorrence of the treason , it seems to me , to be a very proper season to put them in mind by what means such evil designs have been first formed and encouraged and brought to ripeness and perfection ; that those , who have been cheated into a faction by some plausible pretences , and have followed the general noise and outcry in the simplicity of their hearts , may take warning for the future , and avoid every step and advance towards sedition and treason , as well as abhor the treason it self . it was impossible to do this , without calling to mind a great many things , which to be sure , those who are any ways concerned , are not now willing to hear of ; and that with such plainness , as is necessary to convince men of the evil nature and tendency of such practices : but god is my witness , that i did not this with the least design to upbraid or reproach any men , or party of men , but with the same honest and charitable intentions , though it may be not with the same skill , that a chirurgeon uses in searching a wound to the very bottom ; which is very painful indeed , but absolutely necessary to a cure. some persons , i hear , have objected against this discourse , that i seem to charge this plot upon the protestant dissenters , and insinuate that it is a fanatick , a true protestant plot. god forbid that all protestant dissenters should be concerned in this plot , i hope better things of many of them ; nor do i undertake to meddle with such matters . all that i meant , is nothing but what is evident to any man , who believes a plot , that this horrible conspiracy has been contrived and carried on by those men , who of late have pretended to be the only true protestants ; a name , which they would not allow to any man , who appeared zealously concerned either for the king , or the church of england . whether such men have any religion or none , whether they go to conventicles , or to give the better grace to the business , sometimes hear the common prayer , is all one to me . i am sure the turbulent spirit , which has of late acted our dissenters , and their unwillingness to believe any plot still , gives too just a suspicion of many of them . though we are all bound to praise and adore the divine goodness in defeating such wicked designs , yet i am so far from triumphing over these men , that i cannot but pity and mourn over them ; my heart bleeds for that scandal , that is done to religion , that advantage which is given to the common enemy , for the sin and the fall of great men , and the ruine of noble families ; but what is done , cannot be undone again : our care must look forward , to times to come , to remove the occasions , to root up the very seeds and principles of sedition , that these shakings and convulsions of state may at last settle in a profound and secure peace and tranquillity . if this plain discourse can contribute any thing to so happy an end , i have all that i aim'd at both in preaching and printing it ; however , i have the satisfaction of an honest design , which is a reward to its self ; and gives that inward contentment and pleasure , which the reproaches and censures of the world , which too often attend such undertakings , can never disturb . a sermon . xviii . psalm , v. 50. great deliverance giveth he to his king , and sheweth mercy to his anointed , to david and to his seed for evermore . this psalm was pen'd by david in a thankful remembrance of those many wonderful deliverances , which god had wrought for him ; and particularly his deliverance from the hands of saul , a jealous , powerful , and implacable enemy , as we are expresly told , 2 sam. 22. 1. this pious prince , though he were immediately advanced to the throne by god himself , could not escape the conspiracies of his enemies both at home and abroad : for men of turbulent and restless spirits , will be sure to find or make some pretences or occasions of quarrel , under the most just and equal government . sometimes men dispute the right of succession ; but this they could not do here , unless they would dispute gods right to place and displace princes ; for david was immediately chosen by god , and anointed by his prophet , and yet this could not secure him from conspiracies and rebellions . others pretend great oppression and male-administration of government , though their licentious noises and clamours sufficiently confute it ; for men , who are most opprest dare say the least of it . the liberties and properties of the subject , is an admirable pretence to deprive the prince of his liberties and properties ; and those who have any liberty and property to loose , seldom gain any thing by this : for when they have secured their liberties and properties against their prince , it is a much harder task to secure themselves from their fellow-subjects . men who have no property have some encouragement to rebel , and fight for property ; for it is possible they may get something in the scramble , when all law and property ceases , but the property of the sword : but methinks men of honour and plentiful fortune , should not be so zealous for transferring properties , to enrich beggars , and submit their necks to the yoke and government of their own slaves ; which our late experience has taught us to be the glorious effect of rebelling for liberty and property . others make religion a pretence for their rebellion , religion , the greatest and the dearest interest of all ; but methinks it is a dangerous way for men to rebel to save their souls , when god has threatned damnation against those who rebel : but this is as vain a pretence as liberty and property ; for no men fight for religion , who have any . religion is a quiet , peaceable , governable thing ; it teaches men to suffer patiently , but not to rebel . and were there any true concernment for religion in this pretence , can we imagine , that the most profest atheists , the most lewd profligate wretches , the greatest prodigies and monsters of wickedness , should be so zealous for religion ? but it 's evident , it is not religion , such men are zealous for , but a liberty in religion ; that is , that every one may have his liberty to be of any religion , or of none ; which serves the atheists turn , as well as the sectaries , but is not much for the honour or interest of true religion . so that whatever the pretences are , it is an ambitious , discontented , revengeful spirit , an uneasie , restless , fickle and changeable humour , which disturbs publick government , and undermines the thrones of princes ; and therefore it is no wonder , if the best princes and the best governments in the world be disturbed by such men ; david himself could not escape , he had a great many enemies , but davids god was greater than they all , for great deliverance giveth he to his king , and sheweth mercy to his anointed , to david and to his seed for evermore . there is something peculiar in these words , which cannot be applied to any other prince : for as david was king of israel , so he was a type of the messias , who was to descend from his loynes , and that promise or prediction that he would shew mercy to his anointed , to david and to his seed for evermore , received its full accomplishment , in the kingdom of the messias , who is said to set upon the throne of david ; but yet those deliverances god wrought for david , were personal too , and an example of gods care and protection of pious and religious princes . and when we see the same good providence watching over our prince , and securing him from the bloody designs of wicked men , we have reason thankfully to acknowledge it , as david did ; great deliverance he hath given to our prince , he hath shewn mercy to his anointed . now know we , that the lord saveth his anointed , he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand . some trust in chariots , and some in horses , but we will remember the name of the lord our god : they are brought down and fallen , but we are risen and stand upright . my present discourse therefore shall consist of those two parts . 1. briefly to observe to you , those many great deliverances which god hath wrought for our king. 2. i shall make some practical reflections on it , especially with reference to this late discovery . 1. to observe to you , those many great deliverances which god hath wrought for our king. his troubles have not been much unlike , i am sure not inferiour to davids , and his deliverances have not been less strange and wonderful . i am not a going to give you a history of his life , but only to point you to some remarkable passages of it , which it becomes us all thankfully to remember . i suppose no man doubts , how many dangers a prince is exposed to , who flies before an enraged and victorious enemy ; who knows not whither to go , where to hide himself , whom to trust : this was the condition of our dread soveraign , who was hunted as a partridge in the mountains , pursued by his own rebellious subjects , who had usurpt his throne , and thirsted after his blood. but then god found a hiding place for him , and delivered him from the desire and expectation of his enemies . but still his condition was calamitous , he was forc't to live in exile and banishment , divested of royal power , and all the ensignes of majesty , reduced to a precarious , and sometimes a necessitous state , while he saw his friends impoverisht and ruined , his loyal subjects opprest , his enemies triumphant , too vigilant , and too powerful to allow any hope to see an end of these troubles . but that god , who can do what he pleases , and oftentimes does such things , as no humane force nor power can effect , put an end to these troubles also ; and restored him to his fathers throne in peace and honour , and with the universal joy and triumph of his subjects : and i suppose you will reckon this a deliverance , a great and wonderful deliverance both to prince and people ; a deliverance immediately wrought by god ; without humane policy , contrivance , or power . to see a prince whose father was murdered , and himself forc't into banishment by his own subjects , without any power of his own , without the help and assistance of forreign allies ; while his friends at home were opprest , while the same power that drove him out , was still in the hands of his enemies ; while so many persons who were in greatest power were concerned for their own preservation to keep him out ; while those who wisht his return , durst not whisper any thing tending to call the king back again ; i say , to see a prince in such circumstances , without striking a blow , without shedding a drop of blood , return again in the throngs and crouds , and with the acclamations of his subjects , is no less a miracle , than dividing the sea to give a safe passage to the israelites : for the psalmist represents it as an argument of equal power to still the noise of the the seas , the noise of their waves , and the tumult of the people . this is the lords doings , and it is marvellous in our eyes ; now know we , that the lord saveth his anointed , he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand . and that good providence , which brought our king back again , has watcht over him ever since . though he returned in a happy day , when the seas were smooth and calm , when no frowns were to be seen on mens forheads , but such cheerful looks as signifyed the inward pleasure and serenity of their minds , yet it could not be expected , that this calm would always last . i think we may now venture to say , without fear of being censured , that there are two sorts of men , that are restless and implacable , and always working under ground , and both of them with an equal pretence of religion : i mean the papist and the fanatick . i shall not take notice of those several weak attempts they have made since the happy restauration of our prince ; there is something greater to imploy our thoughts at this time , some more signal demonstrations of that great deliverance god giveth to his king. we have now for many years had little other discourse than of a popish plot , a wicked hellish design against the life of our king , and the religion and liberties of his subjects . this was a formidable design , laid close and in the dark , prosecuted with deep counsels and combined interests . we may remember , for i think we cannot easily forget , what horror and consternation surprized us at the news ; we lived in perpetual fear of the life of our prince , in perpetual fear of our own : how did the name of popery deservedly stink among us ! how did men abhor a religion , which is nourisht with blood , with royal and innocent blood ! how zealous were men in their discoveries , how watchful in their guards , how devout in their prayers for the preservation of their prince , and of their religion ! and though possibly we have not seen to the bottom of that plot to this day , and it may be never shall , yet blessed be god , there was enough discovered to prevent the mischief ; we still enjoy our religion , we still see our prince , and rejoyce under the benigne influences of his government ; hitherto god hath saved his anointed from a popish , i pray god still defend him from a fanatick plot. a fanatick , a true protestant plot ? surely that is impossible ; there can be no danger from that corner ; this is only a scandal cast upon innocent and peaceable men . truly this has been so often said , and with so much confidence , that we had like not to have believed it possible , till it had been too late . it was sufficient to prove any man to be a papist , who durst own it possible , for such good men to rebel , or plot against the king and government ; and yet it was very hard not to think that possible to be done , which had been done once already , and that so lately , as not to be forgot , though it was pardoned ; an act of oblivion could not wipe it out of mens memories , especially when they saw the same things begin to be acted over again , with the same religious pretences . i am apt to think , we had been more secure from the popish plot , than for ought i know , we may yet be , had not these men abused peoples fears and dangers of popery to the disturbance of the government , and to the carrying on their antimonarchical and fanatick designs . we remember how soon the popish plot was turned into a great noise and cry against the church of england ; and no way was thought so fit to keep out popery , as to pull down the church ; and thus the poor church of england , which had escaped the rage and fury of rome , had like to have been sacrificed to a true protestant zeal , which no doubt had given a fatal blow to popery . hoc ithacus velit , & magni mercentur atridae . how things proceeded after this to the disturbance of the publick peace , and the interruption of the ordinary course of justice , you all know , as well as i ; and wise men quickly saw , and honest men could not forbear warning the people , whither these things tended : and they met with a good reward for it ; they were all papists in masquerade , and especially the loyal clergy were loaded with all the contempt and ignominy , which an inraged and envenomed zeal , and some witless scriblers could cast on them . whole vollies of pamphlets flew about to poyson the people with lewd and seditious principles ; but to talk or write or preach about obedience to government , or patient suffering for a good cause , was to betray the protestant interest , and to invite a popish successour to cut our throats : and what all this ends in , thanks be to god , we now see , and i hope , time enough to prevent it . i do not pretend to tell you any thing which you do not all know ; time , and the care of our governours , and the guilty consciences of rebels , and the good providence of god , i hope , will make further discoveries , and bring these secret works of darkness into open view ; but we know enough to praise god for his great deliverance , which he hath given his king ; we know enough to admire and adore that infinite wisdom who by the most seemingly casual and contingent events , can so easily disappoint and defeat the designs of wicked and bloody men . who ever suspected , that the fire at newmarket was sent by god for the preservation of our king and his royal brother , for the preservation of these kingdoms , of our liberties and religion ? wonderful are thy works , o lord , and thy ways past finding out . this short account i have given you , is an excellent comment upon my text , a case very parallel to davids . the deliverances of our prince are no way inferiour to that mercy god shewed to david , when he delivered him from the lyon and the bear , from the uncircumcised philistin , from a persecuting saul , from a rebellious absolom , from a treacherous achitophel , from the strivings of the people . great deliverance sheweth he to his king , and sheweth mercy to his anointed . 2. and thus i proceed to make some practical remarks and observations on this , which was the thing i principally designed . and they are these . 1. what a vain and fruitless attempt it is to plot against the life and crown and dignity of our prince , when god undertakes the defence and protection of him . setting aside the wickedness and impiety of it , it is a foolish and dangerous design . whoever considers only the probable events of humane actions , will be easily convinc't , how unlikely it is , that such plots should take effect . to miss the very critical m●nute , spoils all the design ; and yet after all the skill and contrivance they can use , there are ten thousand casualties to disappoint them . such designs cannot be acted alone , but require numerous confederates ; and what security can there be , that no one man in such a number shall betray the secret ? some possibly may be toucht with remorse and horror of conscience , may be frighted with the very thoughts of that villany which they designed to act ; and then they need no body to betray them but themselves , for no man can long together conceal the fire , which burns in his own breast . other men may get into the company , and acquaint themselves with all their intrigues , and act so cunning a part , as to be mistaken for confiding persons ; may appear most zealous and most forward in the business , and all this while betray their counsels , and put an effectual stop to them , when they are ripe for execution : and it is impossible for the cunningest men to prevent this , who have not a casement into mens breasts . other men , who enter into the confederacy to make their fortunes , may happen to consider , that it is much the safest and most effectual way to do this by discovering the plot , than by acting it . the power of wine sometimes unlocks a secret , and saves a kingdom ; some unexpected quarrels and animosities among the conspirators , a mutual jealousie of each others greatness ; a hasty dispute about dividing the riches and honours and power of the nation , before they have it , may tempt them to hang one another , and leave the spoil which they had already devoured in their hopes and expectations , to the right owners . a desire to rescue some friend out of the common ruin , may save a kingdom . walls and hedges have ears , and the very birds of the air may tell the matter . their cabals may be observed and suspected , and their affectation of secrecy may betray them . their guilt is often seen in their looks , and creates jealousies and suspicions of some secret design ; and an unlucky word , which he meant nothing by , who spoke it , may make them think themselves discovered ; and this is a ready way to make them discover themselves . the heart of the stoutest rebel may fail him , when he comes to give the fatal blow ; or he may miss of his aim , or his gun may not go off , or he may distrust his own escape , and not be hardy enough to sacrifice his own life in the cause ; and a thousand other accidents , which it is impossible for me to reckon up , may save the devoted prince , and hang the conspirators : and those had need be men of very desperate fortunes , or very little understanding , who engage in such desperate designs . but when to this we add the consideration of the divine providence , which peculiarly interests it self in the disposal of kingdoms , and in all the great changes and revolutions of publick affairs , unless these men were of the privy-council of heaven , and could hold intelligence with the secret decrees and purposes of god for the government of the world , they can never be secure of success , how hopeful soever their projects and designs appear . if god take any care of human affairs , if he concern himself at all in the government of the world , we may certainly conclude that his providence does principally order the fate and revolutions of kingdoms and common-wealths . some philosophers have questioned , whether god condescended so far , as to take notice of particular creatures ; but all who acknowledged his providence , thought the great concernments of kingdoms , the placing or displacing of princes , worthy of his care and peculiar regard : and therefore we , who are assured by our saviour , that gods care and providence extends to the sparrows , and the lilies of the field , cannot doubt , whether he rules and governs in the kingdoms of men , whether he who takes care of every particular creature , takes care of the general concernments of humane societies , wherein the happiness of all particular men is involved . and can these men then think to pull down and to set up princes at their pleasure ? god may sometimes suffer treason and rebellion to be prosperous , but it can never prosper , but when god pleases ; and it is impossible rebels should ever know that , and therefore it is impossible , they should have any reasonable security of success . there is nothing more expresly contrary to the revealed will of god , than treasonable plots and conspiracies against soveraign princes : and though god does many times permit those things to be done , which he has forbid to be done , or else no man could ever be guilty of any sin ; yet his forbidding of it is a plain argument , that he does not approve it , that he will not countenance it , nay , that he will not permit it , but where he sees great and wise reasons to do so . god never indeed interposes by an irresistible power to hinder men from choosing that which is wicked , for he offers no force and violence to mens wills : but when this wickedness is injurious to others , who are the objects of his care and providence , he many times interposes to prevent the mischief . the lives of private men are not at the disposal of every ruffian ; not a sparrow falls to the ground without our father , much less a man , much less a prince , on whose life and fortune the lives and fortunes of so many thousands depend . and therefore no man can reasonably promise himself success in plotting against his prince , but he who certainly knows , that god for some wise but hidden reasons , will suffer such a villany to take effect ; which no man can know without a revelation ; and we cannot think , that god will encourage any man by an extraordinary revelation to do that , which he himself has expresly forbid , and threatned with eternal death . so that all such men act at infinite uncertainties ; besides the punishments of the other world , which are reserved for traitors ; besides the many natural contingencies and uncertainties of humane actions : if they believe , that there is a providence which governs the world , they have ten thousand to one against them , that god will not permit them to do , what they design : and those are bold men indeed , who dare vie stratagems and power with god! especially when they plot against a prince who seems to be the darling of providence , who has received so many wonderful and miraculous deliverances , as if he were still reserved for some extraordinary service in the world. one would have thought , the discoverie of the popish plot , which no doubt was managed with as much secrecy , with as wary councils , and deep intrigues , as any thing ever was , should have discouraged any new attempts in this age : it should have brought to mind that triumphant psalm , why do the heathen rage , and the people imagine a vain thing ? the kings of the earth stand up , and the rulers take counsel together ( a more powerful faction than some private male-contents ) against the lord , and against his anointed , saying , let us break their bonds asunder , and cast away their cords from us . he that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh them to scorn , the lord shall have them in derision . at least it is time now to take warning , lest we be found fighters against god : it is a vain and a dangerous attempt to conspire his ruine , whom god hath hitherto so miraculously preserved . secondly , there is another observation on these late plots and conspiracies , which no man can avoid making , and that is , how dangerous the disputes and differences of religion are to the publick peace and welfare of any nation . christian religion indeed is the greatest security of government , both in its precepts and examples ; it commands every soul to be subject to the higher powers , and threatens eternal damnation against rebels ; it teaches us to give to every one their due ; tribute to whom tribute is due , custom to whom custom , fear to whom fear , honour to whom honour . it strictly enjoyns the practise of all sociable vertues , and charms those boisterous passions , which disturb humane conversation ; it requires us to obey our superiours in all lawful things , and quietly to submit and suffer , when we can't obey . and the blessed jesus , who was the author of our religion , and our great pattern and example , did himself practise these laws , which he gave to us . he lived in obedience to the civil powers ; and though the jewish nation , which was a free people , the lot and inheritance of god himself , were then in subjection to the romans , yet he would not give them the least encouragement to shake off the yoak , but commands them to give nnto caesar the things that are caesars , and to god the things that are gods. though he was a king , yet he was not caesars rival ; for his kingdom was not of this world , & therefore he did not arm his subjects to fight for him , as he told pilate . his kingdom was not to be set up in the world by force and power , but he gave testimony to the truth with his blood , and commanded his disciples to do so too . he died himself upon the cross , and made this the condition of our discipleship , to take up our cross and follow him ; and thus the apostles and the primitive christians did , they cheerfully followed their master to the cross , and conquered by suffering . christianity was planted in the world by no other arts but the foolishness of preaching , by preaching that absurd and ridiculous doctrine , as the world then accounted it , of a crucified jesus ; and it defended it self only by a resolute and patient suffering for the name of christ. this is the true temper and spirit of christianity . under the most barbarous and persecuting emperours , no christian ever suffered as a rebel ; they gave no other disturbance to the government , than by confessing themselves christians , and suffering for it . their numbers indeed were very formidable , but nothing else ; for in imitation of their great master , they went as lambs to the slaughter , and as sleep before their shearers are dumb , so they opened not their mouths . but notwithstanding this , our daily experience tells us , that when religion is divided into factions and parties , or rather men are divided into factions and parties upon account of religion , there is nothing more imbitters mens spirits against each other , nor gives greater disturbance to publick government . all the troubles and miseries , which for these late years have overwhelmed this unfortunate island , have been owing to this cause ; religion has been made either the reason or the pretence of all : papists plot and conspire the death of a protestant prince to bring in popery , and profest protestants , it seems , do the same thing to keep out popery ; and thus a protestant prince , and a truly protestant , or rather a true primitive and apostolick church , is in danger of both . and is there not great reason then for princes , who love their lives and their crowns , to keep a watchful eye over such busie , potent , and dangerous factions ? shall it be called persecution for religion , to punish traitors , or to keep under a factious and turbulent spirit ? if the consciences of subjects will serve them to rebel for religion , it seems a very hard case , if the conscience of the prince must not allow him to hang 'em for their rebellion : and yet no wise prince will put it upon that hazard neither , if he can help it , to suffer his subjects to deserve to be hanged . to curb a growing faction by prudent and timely restraints , is a much better and safer way . the truth of this is readily owned , when it is applied to the papists . they are men of such dangerous principles and practices , as not to be suffered to live in any protestant kingdom ; and truly so they are , and thanks be to god , we have very good laws against them ; and whatever they may do in private , they dare not out-face government with their publick and numerous conventicles ; they walk in the dark , and dare not own themselves to be what they are . but yet i cannot but wonder upon what principles those men act , who are so zealous against popery , and think it such an unpardonable fault in governors , to suffer any papist , especially a popish priest , though never so obscurely and privately , to live among us , and yet at the same time think it persecution , a horrible persecution , not to grant a general liberty and indulgence to all other dissenters . the difference between these two cases must either respect their religion , or the security of the government . as for their religion , i believe popery to be a very corrupt religion , and the greatest apostacy from christianity of any other sect or profession , which deserves the name of christian ; but yet i am so profest an enemy to popery , that iabhor that popish principle of persecuting men meerly for religions sake , which can no more be justified in protestants against papists , than in papists against protestants . it is certainly the duty of a prince to use his power and interest to establish the true religion in his kingdoms , to encourage the sincere professors of it , and to lay such restraints upon others , as may be sufficient to make them consider , and hearken to wise instructions , that it may be no mans temporal interest to dissent from the religion of his prince : and it is the duty of church-governors not to receive any into the communion of the church , or to cast them out again , who do not profess the same faith , or will not conform to the worship and discipline of the church . and this is all , that i know of in this matter ; and if men will call this persecution , it is a sign , they know not what persecution means ; for the primitive christians , who were indeed persecuted , would have thought such usage as this , a very easie and prosperous state. so that the difference must lie , if any where , in the security of the government . that no protestant prince or kingdom , can be secured from the attempts and conspiracies of papists , whose principles and practices are destructive to government : and this is the very true reason of those severe laws , which were made in this kingdom against popery . and it must be acknowleged , that there was formerly a vast difference between papists and protestants upon this account , and therefore a sufficient reason for any prince to make a difference between them ; and i wish , i could say , it were so still , but i dare not , i cannot say so . to deny that profest protestants have ever rebelled against their prince , is to deny , that there ever was a civil war in england , that there ever was a protestant prince murdered by his protestant subjects with all the mock-formalities of law and justice ; and he must have somewhat more than the impudence of a jesuit , that can deny this . and i would to god , we had but one instance of this , though that was a very bad one ; it might have left some place for hope still , that this was not the temper nor the principles of the men , but some unlucky juncture of affairs , which transported them beyond the bounds of their duty , and their own avowed principles . the happy restauration of our banisht prince might in some measure have expiated their former guilt , and they might have recovered their innocence , and the reputation of protestant loyalty , had they manifested the sincerity of their repentance by abhorring all the principles and practices of rebellion : but he must be a bold man indeed , who dares make excuses for those who prove rebels a second time ; and he must be a bolder prince , who will trust them . and when every little creature is so vastly concerned for liberty and property , can we think our prince should be the onely unconcerned person , when the liberty and property of his own life and crown is at stake ? or can any reasonable man expect , that he should encourage those religious factions , which by frequent experience he finds troublesom and dangerous to his throne ? when religion turns into a state-faction , to curb and restrain and quell such pretences , is not to invade the rights of conscience , or the liberties of religion , but to secure the publick peace , and to prevent the occassions of new rebellions . and no sober dissenter can reasonably blame his prince for this , though he may blame those , and ought to express a just indignation against them , who forfeit this liberty by abusing it for a cloak of maliciousness . and if we ever desire to see the peace and prosperity of our sion , is it not high time to unite in religion , which is the onely thing , that can bless us with a firm and lasting peace ? all our late troubles have been owing to the differences of religion ; and while the cause of dissentions remains , though there may be some expedients at present found out to palliate the distemper , yet nothing can remove it . all men seem to be very sensible of this , and very desirous of an union ; but the question is , how or in what we shall unite . shall we unite in popery ? god forbid ! the salvation of our souls is somewhat dearer to us than temporal peace , and that we believe to be exposed to infinite hazard in the communion of so corrupt a church . a firm and universal agreement indeed in any thing , will secure the publick peace , but we must not make our religion so wholly subordinate to temporal ends . if we can save our souls , and secure the publick peace together , such a religion ought to be chosen upon a double account ; but if both these interests cannot be united , we must take care to save our souls , and trust the providence of god with our other concernments . shall we then unite with the different sects and parties of christians , which are among us ? this is to unite without union . it is to unite indeed against something , but to unite in nothing . the several parties of dissenters , who separate from the church of england , differ as much from each other , as they do from us . they may unite and combine together in pulling down , but they can never unite in setting up any thing : they can unite in tumults , and publick disturbances , but they can never unite in peace . when they had pulled down the church of england , they could set up nothing in its room , but a prodigious encrease of heresies and schisms . there is nothing then to unite in , but the church of england , as by law established , which will both secure the interests of our souls and the publick peace . and why should we not unite in this church ? which is the glory and the bulwark of the reformation , the envy and the terror of rome . whose fathers and first reformers were martyrs against popery , and who her self has been a martyr for loyalty . those infinite dangers we are surrounded with on all hands , methinks should strongly encline all honest men , impartially to examine the reasons of their separation : and i am confident , not onely what has been formerly written in the defence of this church , but what has been lately offered for the satisfaction of dissenters , would open the eyes of all sincere men to see their mistakes , if they would but calmly , without prejudice or passion , read and consider it . it is demonstrable , we can unite no where else ; and is it a desirable state , to be perpetually strugling and contending with intestine commotions ? to be hating , reviling , undermining , each other ? for gods sake , beloved christians , let us at last consider the things which make for peace , and those things , whereby we may edifie each other . and in order to do this , i observe further , 3. how dangerous a rash boisterous intemperate zeal is , though it be for the best things , and against the worst . whatever private discontents , revengeful or ambitious designs , might secretly act some great men , who know how to practise upon the zeal and the ignorance of the people ; yet nothing is more evident , than that the first visible occasion of these new troubles and conspiracies , which have endangered the life of our king , and the ruine of his government , was laid in a mighty zeal against popery , and for the preservation of the protestant religion . the popish plot was the first scene in this new tragedy . those bloody designs raised the fears , the jealousies , the indignation of men ; and a love to their prince and to their religion , kindled and blew up their zeal into such a violent flame , as threatned an universal desolation , and became more formidable , than the danger it intended to remove . a great and passionate zeal , like a distempered love , blinds mens eyes , and makes them mistake both their enemies and their friends . it fills their head with endless jealousies and fears , and makes them start and run away from their own shadow . such a boisterous zeal is the frenzy and calenture of religion , which makes men uncapable of all sober counsel , and prudent resolves , and precipitates them into the most wild extravagant and irreligious attempts . there is nothing more pernicious than zeal when it gets a head , and bears down all the considerations of reason and religion before it . when men are conscious to themselves , that they are engaged in a good cause , and have honest designs , it makes them more bold and venturous : for though few men dare own it , yet the actions of too many sufficiently proclaim , that they think they may strain a point , and dispense with strict duty , when it is to serve a good cause , when the honour of god , and the interest of religion is concerned : such a zeal does violently push men forward , but it does not steer well , nor observe its compass ; and thus it is too often seen , that men who begin with a zeal for religion , insensibly slip into state-factions , and are engaged vastly beyond what they first designed , and engaged so far , that they cannot retreat with safety or honour , but must either conquer or be conquered . let us then above all things have a care of our zeal , that we may not mistake an earthly fire , which burns and consumes , for that divine and harmless flame , which is kindled at gods altar . a true zeal for religion , is nothing more nor less , than such a hearty love for it , as makes us very diligent in the practise of it our selves , and contented , if god sees it fit , to lay down our lives for it , and very industrious to promote the knowledge and practise of religion in the world by all lawful and prudent means . a true christian zeal will not suffer us to transgress the strict bounds of our duty to god , or of our duty to men , especially to kings and princes , whatever flattering prospect of advantage it may give . to lie , to forswear our selves , to hate and revile each other , to reproach and libel governours in church and state , to stir up , or countenance with the least thought , any plots , seditions , or rebellions against the king , is not a zeal for god , nor for religion ; for this wisdom is not from above , but is earthly , sensual and devilish : for where strife and contention is , there is confusion , and every evil work . 4. let our past experience therefore teach us , to watch over the least stirrings , and first appearances of a seditious and factious spirit , either in our selves or others , however it may be disguised with a pretence of religion . faction , like other vices , has but very small beginnings ; but when those beginnings are indulged , it soon improves and gests strength . omne in proecipiti vitium stetit : when men once espouse a party , like those , who are a running down hill , they cannot stop , when they please . discontents and jealousies are easily fomented , when we have once given admission to them ; and the busie factors and agents for sedition , when they find us never so little disposed and prepared to receive the impression , use their utmost art and skill , all the methods of insinuation and address , to make us proselytes . i doubt not but many men have died rebels , and suffered as traitors , who at first did as much abhor the thoughts of treason and rebellion , as any of us can . thus i doubt not but it was in our late troubles , and thus i believe it is at this day . let such examples as these make us wary , how we begin to entertain , or to whisper our discontents and fears ; how we begin to listen to suspicions of our prince , or of his government , and to hear with pleasure , any scandalous stories or reflexions on either : those who can with content and pleasure hear their prince , and his government reviled , will soon think him not fit to be their king. and the great danger of such beginnings is , that we are not apt to observe them in our selves or others , when religion is concerned in the quarrel . we think it all zeal , pure zeal , and cannot suspect our selves or others , to be in any danger of turning rebels . but whatever is in its own nature a degree and tendency towards rebellion , is so , where ever , and in whomsoever it is found ; and there is always more danger , that the beginnings of vice should corrupt the best temper of mind , than any hope , that a sound and religious disposition should correct the malign influences of such a vice. some mens religion does as much incline them to faction , as secular interest does other men ; and there is no such dangerous faction , as that which is bred and nourished by the corruptions of religion . the jewish zealots , and the christian enthusiasts of all sorts , are too plain an example of it . and therefore when men , who make great pretences to religion begin to talk or act factiously , a fair opportunity is as like to make them rebels as any other men . thus we often see it is , and this is a sufficient reason to suspect all such beginnings , either in our selves or others , whatever glorious pretences we may have . let this at last teach us to learn from experience . one would wonder ▪ that there should be any occasion for such an observation as this : for those , who have not understanding nor reach enough to foresee the issues and events of things , yet when they have once seen , what the events of such actions have been , when they see the same things acted over again , they expect to see the same effects . thus indeed it usually is , thus it ought to be , if men ever intend to grow wise and happy ; and yet our late observations will tell us , that it is not always thus . for if it had , the same game would never have been played over twice , by many of the same men , in the same age , and by the same arts and methods , and yet the people deluded , and the world bore in hand , that they designed nothing less , than to play the same game again . we saw all the zeal , and all the intrigues of 40. and 41. return again , and yet it was an unpardonable crime for any man to say so , or for any man to look as if he thought so . the cry against popery was renewed , but indeed with a great deal more reason , than they formerly had , for we were in eminent danger of popery ; which is the onely difference between those times and ours : but then our real fears and dangers of popery were presently abused to factious designs , and made a property of to serve some more secret intrigues . the old cry was against popish bishops , and a popish liturgy , and popish ceremonies , and in a word , against the popish church of england ; but one would have thought it impossible , that ever the church should at this time have been charged with popery , when the popish plot was principally intended against the church of england , and our king as the supream governour and defender of it ; and yet this was done too , and the king and the church had like to have been brought into the plot against themselves . we heard new stories told of the growth of popery and arbitrary government , when thanks be to god , we saw nor felt no such thing . this was the main subject of those infinite numbers of pamphlets , that flew about ; the bishops and clergy were sure never to escape , besides those many oblique and scurrilous reflections , which were made upon the king and his government : and it is hard to name any step , which was formerly taken to ruine church and state , which these men could possibly take , and did not . and yet few men would see , whither all this tended , though no men were thought fit for any publick trust or office , but those who were eminent for their disaffection to church or state. i hope your eyes are opened now , to see what all this meant ; and methinks it is but a reasonable request to you , that if ever we should be so unhappy , as to see these things acted over again , you would not need being put in mind , what the natural tendencies and consequents are ; which is the onely reason why i mention them now . we had like to have paid very dear for disbelieving our own eyes and senses , and former experience ; it is certainly a cheaper and safer way to learn by former experiences than by new ones . 6. let us now learn how dangerous a thing it is to interrupt the ordinary course and methods of justice , let the pretence be what it will. justice is the only support and security of humane societies ; and a stop or a breach here , is as fatal and dangerous , as a failure in the foundation , or the main pillars , which support the building . when men are rescued from the hands of justice , against the most clear and notorious evidence , upon a meer presumption of their innocence , and a good opinion of them . what security can there be to the government , when let men do what they will , if they can get and maintain a reputation of zealous patriots for their country and religion , they are out of the reach of justice ? had not the good providence of god interposed , this very thing might have cost our king his life and his crown , and involved this miserable nation in a bloody war this plot might possibly have been discovered sooner , before it was so ripe for execution , had justice had its due course ; which i think , it becomes all persons , who are concerned in it , seriously to consider , with such guilt and confusion , as it deserves . 7. i observe , that in times of publick danger , when we have enemies on both sides , it concerns us to keep a watchful eye upon both extreams . it is indeed a very hard thing to do this , but it is impossible we should be safe without it . while our thoughts are wholly employed to secure our selves on one hand , where our danger is present and visible , it gives opportunity to an unseen and unobserved enemy , to assault us on the other . when the popish plot was discover'd , all mens mouths were opened against popery ; we saw no other enemy , we feared none , we suspected none ; nay , when there was too much reason for our suspicions , we would believe none ; we thought it impossible , that men , who exprest such an abhorrence and detestation of the popish plot , should be laying new plots themselves . and we see now , what advantage they made of our security . and now the great danger is , that the discovery of this anti-popish plot , should make men secure of popery , and think there is no danger now from that corner . for my part , i am abundantly satisfied , that we are in great danger of both , and in the greater danger of both , because their contrary assaults give great advantages to each other . the papists now may father their plots upon protestants , and protestants upon papists ; and we may be involved in blood and confusion , and neither know our friends nor our enemies . god of his infinite mercy preserve our king and these kingdoms , our liberties , laws , and religion , from the wicked conspiracies ▪ of all our enemies . which is the last thing i shall recommend to you , to praise god for his preservation of our king hitherto , and earnestly to beg , that the same good providence would still watch over him for the time to come . and certainly if ever we had reason to praise god for any deliverance , we have for this , which is such a comprehensive mercy , as extends to all our concernments of soul and body in this world . if we value our own lives , our liberties , and religion , if we value the security of the government , and the publick peace and safety , we have reason to bless god for the preservation of our king. who can without horrour consider , what a distracted face of things we had seen at this day , had this plot taken effect ? who knows , who should have acted his part in that tragedy ? by what mark or test , they would have distinguished friends from enemies ? or what comfort had it been to any loyal subject , and good christian , to have survived the murder of his prince , and the ruines of church and state , and to have been an eye-witness of those barbarous villanies , which would have been acted under a mask of religion ? blessed be that god , who giveth deliverance to his king , and sheweth mercy to his anointed . blessed be that alwise being , who sits upon the circle of the heavens , and sees and laughs at , and defeats all the most secret plots and conspiracies of wicked men . let us bless god , and let us honour our king , and receive him with joy and thanksgiving as a new gift and present from the hands of god. when we are heartily thankful for the mercies we have already received , this will make our prayers more effectual for the continuance of them . o lord save the king , who putteth his trust in thee : send him help from thy holy place , and evermore mightily defend him : let his enemies have no advantage against him , nor the wicked approach to hurt him . which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord iesus christ , to whom with the father and the holy ghost , be honour and glory and power , now and for ever . amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59895-e280 13 rom. 2. 20 psalm , 6 , 7 , 8. 65 psal. 7. 2 psal. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. 18 joh. 36. three letters to dr. sherlock concerning church-communion wherein 'tis enquired whether the doctor's notion of church communion be not too narrow and uncharitable, both to dissenters, and men of larger principles / by a lay-man of the church of england ... atwood, william, d. 1705? 1683 approx. 58 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a26184 wing a4183 estc r11681 11998162 ocm 11998162 52130 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a26184) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52130) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 557:18) three letters to dr. sherlock concerning church-communion wherein 'tis enquired whether the doctor's notion of church communion be not too narrow and uncharitable, both to dissenters, and men of larger principles / by a lay-man of the church of england ... atwood, william, d. 1705? sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [8], 31, [1] p. printed for jonathan robinson ..., london : 1683. attributed to william atwood. cf. nuc pre-1956. errata: p. 31. advertisement: p. [1] at end. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. lord's supper -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion three letters to dr. sherlock concerning church-communion , wherein 't is enquired whether the doctor 's notion of church-communion be not too narrow and uncharitable , both to dissenters , and men of larger principles . by a lay-man of the church of england , and in constant communion with it . london , printed for jonathan robinson , at the golden lion in st. paul's church-yard . 1683. to the reader . i hope these papers will not fall into any man's hands , who counts it not a great blessing to have kings for nursing fathers to god's church : to have the true religion establish'd and guarded by humane laws . and perhaps 't is no absurdity to suppose , that men may as well continue members of the national church , notwithstanding their breaking many positive laws made for the outward management and ordering of it , tho' not fundamental and necessary to its being : as he who incurs the penalty of any statute of the realm about civil affairs , may however be a sound member of the state , if he keep from treason or other capital crimes . nay possibly , that there should be several religious assemblies living by different customs and rules , and yet continuing members of the national church , is not more inconsistent than that particular places should have their particular customs and by-laws differing from the common law of the land , without making a distinct government . sure i am , an outward government in the church is requisite , if it were only for the restraining those men who out of confidence of their own abilities , will be venting notions , which none but men of great subtilty can make one believe to be agreeable , either to scripture , or to that doctrine to which they have subscribed and declared their unfeigned assent and consent . and me-thinks it were enough to remove mens prejudices against episcopal government , to consider how needful it is that some of the most learned and discreet should be chosen from among the herd of clergy-men , to oversee , admonish , and censure those who are apt to go beyond their due bounds . yet even within this government , it may sometimes become the duty of one of the laity , to take upon him to reprove his teacher , when he apprehends the doctrine to be dangerous : in which case , unless he remonstrate against it , he may be thought to communicate with him in his error , which possibly may be as sinful as communicating in a schism , which dr. sherlock frights us with . out of respect to whom i must say , that i had rather be mistaken in that sense which i conceive ought to be put upon his sermons about church-communion , than be able to justify , that the objections to which he never vouchsafed an answer , were meither impertinent to his discourses , nor frivolous . his notion of a political union of true believers to christ , i had long since read ; but the hearing of it , fix'd my attention , and put me upon sending him my objections against it in a private manner . the more i think of his sermons , the more i am perswaded that they are contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel , and the doctrine of our church . the scripture tells us , that god is no respecter of persons : but in every nation he that feareth him , and worketh righteousness , is accepted with him . but the doctor says , that the only visible way of forming a church , ( for i do not now speak of the invisible operations of the divine spirit ) is by granting a church-covenant , which is the divine charter whereon the church is founded : and investing some persons with power and authority to receive others into this covenant , &c. and then to be taken into covenant with god , and to be received into the church , is the very same thing . so it seems , according to him , no man is in covenant with god , who is not actually received into covenant by a visible church ; that is , by the bishops and ministers of the church , as he elsewhere has it , speaking of what makes any thing in a strict sense an act of church-communion . indeed he may seem to have a reserve , when he says , he speaks not of the invisible operations of the spirit : yet what room he leaves for that out of the pale of a particular visible church , is a great question , when he confines the influences and operations of the divine spirit to the unity of the church : that is , if he speaks to the purpose , to vniformity to that sound part of the catholick church where a man lives . but if a man fall into a nation where there are no bishops or inferior clergy authorised by them , the lord have mercy upon his soul : for 't is a question how that scripture can be fulfilled , which saith , god is no respecter of persons , &c. but if the bishops where he lives , fall out , wo be to him if his bishop be singular . and god knows , but one of the primitive fathers , tertullian , notwithstanding all his zeal for the christian religion , lies in purgatory to this day , with all his followers , to st. austin ' s time : for though , as dr. cave says in his excuse , he lived in an age when a greater latitude of opining was indulged ; and good men were infinitely more solicitous about piety and a good life , than about the modes of speech , and how to express every thing so critically , that it should not be liable to a severe scrutiny and examination . yet this good man having had disputes with others of the primitive fathers ; the doctor tells us , whether ever he was reconciled to catholick communion appears not : 't is certain , for the main , he forsook the cataphrygians , and kept his separate meetings at carthage , and his church was yet remaining in st. augustine's time : by whose labours , the very reliques of his followers called tertullianists , were dispers'd and quite disappeared . what our church determines in this case , we may see in the 19th article . and i will leave it to dr. sherlock to reconcile himself to its doctrine in this point : which is , that , the church visible of christ , is a congregation of faithful men , in which the pure word of god is preached ; and the sacraments be duly ministred , according to christ's ordinance , in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same . if any man tax me with undermining the authority of the church , in objecting against dr. sherlock's way of supporting it , dr. stillingfleet has furnish'd me with a sufficient apology ; men of any common understanding ( says he ) would distinguish between the necessaries of life and of civil society : so would any one but s. c. or n. o. of the necessaries to salvation , and to the government of the church . for men must be considered as christians , and then as christians united together . as in civil societies they are to be considered , first as men , and then as cives . to say that a man hath all that is necessary to preserve his life as a man , doth not overthrow the constitution of a society , altho' it implies that he might live without it . so when men are considered barely as christians , no more ought to be thought necessary for them as such , but what makes them capable of salvation . but if we consider them as joining together in a christian society , then many other things are necessary for that end : for then there must be authority in some , and subjection in others ; there must be orders and constitutions , whereby all must be kept within their due bounds : and there must be persons appointed to instruct the ignorant , to satisfy the doubting , to direct the unskilful , and to help the weak . it belongs to such a society , not barely to provide for necessity , but safety ; and not meerly the safety of particular persons , but of it self : which cannot be done , without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens employments , and not suffering every pretender to visions and revelations , to set up for a new sect , or which is all one , a new order of religious men. this i should think were enough , not only to justify me , but to draw to my side all the moderate church-men ; yet that it may not be said that i bring but one doctor 's opinion against another , i shall take in the suffrage of the worthy dean of canterbury , and that delivered very solemnly in the presence of his sacred majesty . i do assure you , ( says that great man in his sermon at court ) i had much rather perswade any one to be a good man , than to be of any party or denomination of christians whatsoever ; for i doubt not but the belief of the ancient creed , provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it , together with a good life , will certainly save a man ; and without this , no man can have reasonable hopes of salvation , no not in an infallible church , if there were any such to be found in the world. but since the setling the true notion of schism will go a great way towards the satisfying our enquiries in this matter , it may not be improper to transcribe some part of dr. stillingfleet's sense of it , where he vindicates the church of england from the imputation of schism ; the being of the catholick church , says he , lies in essentials , for a particular church to disagree from all other particular churches , in some extrinsecal and accidental things , is not to separate from the catholick church , so as to cease to be a church ; but still , whatever church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary conditions of communion , so as to cast men out of the church , who yield not to them , is schismatical in so doing ; for it thereby divides it self from the catholick-church ; and the separation from it , is so far from being schism , that being cast out of that church on those terms only , returns them to the communion of the catholick-church . on which ground it will appear , that the church of rome is the schismatical church , and not ours . for , although before this imposing humour came into particular churches , schism was defin'd by the fathers , and others , to be a voluntary departure out of the church ; yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular , but the true catholick church : for not only persons , but churches may depart from the catholick church : and in such cases , not those who depart from the communion of such churches , but those churches which depart from the catholick , are guilty of the schism . three letters to dr. sherlock , upon his sermons concerning church-communion . reverend sir , not doubting but you will be willing to stoop to the capacity of the meanest of your auditory ; i who have often heard you with great satisfaction , and i hope not without edifying thereby , take leave to intimate to you , as nigh as i can , in your own words , what i conceive to have been the substance of your discourse this last sunday , upon i cor. 12. 27. [ now ye are the body of christ , and members in particular . ] and to propound some queries , which perhaps you may think fit , in some part at least , to take notice of in your further progress upon this nice subject . however i hope you will candidly interpret this friendly intimation from one who is a member of the same church with you , and is as hearty ●●● his desires of a firm union amongst protestants as any man can be : and therefore is the more concern'd at any discourse which may represent all dissenters , as such , as men depriv'd of the ordinary means of salvation , and consequently to be in as bad a case as the moral heathens . and ( as most men of such notions believe , or would infer ) in a worse condition than those of the romish communion . which i hope was not in your intention , how liable soever your assertions may seem to that interpretation . not but that many things which you then taught us are of a far different import . be pleas'd to take your own again , with as little alteration of the words , or order in which they were delivered , as may be , without the repetition of many things , whereby 't is convenient to lengthen out a sermon . you may remember that you told us , that , the church is a body of men separated from the world , and united to god and themselves by a divine covenant : that 't is an entire body , and every member united to the whole church by christian communion . that our saviour ordained the apostles , and gave the government of the church to them and their successors , with a promise to be with them to the end of the world. that there can be but one church where all priviledges and duties are common , and but one and the same institution of god's appointment : that the gospel-covenant is the foundation of the christian church . god only can make a church , not man's invention . the only way god has of forming a church is , by granting a church-covenant , and investing some persons with power of receiving others according to the terms , with such rites as they are pleas'd to institute . as that can be no church which is not in covenant with god , so he can be no member who is not visibly admitted into covenant . you farther observ'd , under distinct heads , 1. that a covenant-state , and a church-state , is the same . 2. every profess'd christian received into covenant is a member . 3. nothing else is necessary to make members but baptism . 4. a church-state cannot depend upon humane contract or covenant : 't is god's covenant which is in our church required of the adult . the independents found their church upon humane contract , which they will not say is any part of the baptismal vow . 5. 't is absurd to gather churches out of churches of baptiz'd christians . 6. the doctrine of the unity of the church confirm'd from the notion of a charter to any body politick . they who are not admitted into the corporation , have no right to the privileges ; and are usurpers , if they exercise any act belonging to the members . god considers all men as united into one church or body , has made no covenant with geneva or england in particular . the only thing that can give us right to church-membership , is to observe the conditions of the covenant . he destroys the unity of the church , who is not subject to its censures . every member is a member of the whole : baptism does not make us members of any particular church , but of the universal , founded only on divine covenant . every act of christian communion must be an act of communion with the whole church : and 't is impossible to live in communion with the whole , without communion with some part , when it may be had : ' t is necessary to communicate with some church , by communion with the church in which we live , if it be a sound member ; i communicate with the whole . according to the primitive rule of but one bishop in a city , they who divide from the national church are guilty of schism . nothing can justify division , but such a distance as hinders the exercise of joint-communion . to sum up what i take to be the force of all this . the apostles and their successors were by our saviour invested with a power of receiving members into his church upon his terms , and with such rites as they should think fit . and they who are not so receiv'd into the church , have no right to any of the benefits promis'd to the members of christ's body . this power is by an uninterrupted succession derived upon the governors of our national church ; wherefore all others that pretend to the exercise of this power within this nation , are usurpers : and all the laity baptiz'd by their pastors , not being duly admitted into any particular church , are so far from being members of christ's body , that they are usurpers and traitors to that power which is deriv'd from him in a right line . durus hic sermo . wherefore i may well upon the whole desire , that you would seriously consider ; ( 1. ) whether a pious dissenter , suppos'd to be received into the church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient church-power , is in as bad a condition as a moral heathen , or in a worse than a papist ? ( 2. ) whether the submission to the power and censures of this church ( which all must own to be a sound church ) be part of the divine covenant , which unites the members of the catholick church to god and to each other ? if it be , then as he who is not admitted into this church , is no member of the catholick , and has no right to the benefits of being a member of christ's body : so it is with every one excluded by church-censures , though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect , nay for a wrongful cause . if it be no part of the divine covenant , then a man that lives here may be a true member of the catholick church , though he is not in communion with this sound church . but you will say , ( which i think is not much to this question ) , that he ought to communicate if communion may be had . but then query , whether the dissenters may not reply , that they are ready to communicate , if the communion be not clogg'd with some things which are no part of the divine covenant ? as for instance , an adult person would be baptized if he could be admitted without the sign of the cross : or would receive the sacrament , if he might not be obliged to kneel ; which he supposes to have been in use , and required , only since the doctrine of transubstantiation divided the church . yet however , query ; ( 3. ) whether where communion may not be had upon those terms which our saviour instituted , a church may not , at least in some cases , be gathered ; without any immediate derivation from other church-governors besides christ himself ? if it may not , what think you of a lay-christian quietly permitted to teach the word of god amongst heathens , and to disciple such as will receive his doctrine ? if a church in such case may be erected , then surely god's only way of forming churches , and investing some persons with power of receiving others , is not from a constant succession from the apostles , but from under his institution who has appointed a power in his church , which expires no more with any particular governors than the power of kings , his vicegerents , dies in any nation for want of some monarch just going before , from whom the claim is to be made . though the power of a king be god's power , yet i dare say you will own , that at least in some kingdoms , a king may be duly chosen to this power by men. you will say perhaps , ( though still the force of my objection will remain ) that this is an extraordinary case of utmost necessity , not to be instanced in amongst us . but then i ask ; 1. whether upon allowing no other case , you will not put the being of our church upon a very hazardous issue ; and oblige your self to prove that it was a true church before the reformation ? 2. whether supposing this church to have been antichristian before , ( which i think is the doctrine of our homilies ) ; the case i put of a layman's discipling heathens , supposes a more violent necessity of acting without authority from a succession of church-officers , than at least 't is possible may be the case of our own church ? ( 4. ) q. whether from the supposition , that there ought to be but one church-covenant throughout the catholick church , that there cannot be one true church within another ; and that the nature of catholik-communion is such , that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound church , from which one is not hindred by reason of the distance of place ? it do's not not follow ; 1. either that the french protestants have no church here , but are schismaticks in not communicating with ours ; or that ours is guilty of schism , in making the terms of communion so streight , that it is not the duty of every one ( though a licensed stranger ) to communicate with this church . 2. does it not follow from the obligation to communicate , or to be ready to communieate with any true church where distance does not hinder , that a member of the church of england is not obliged to constant communion with the church , but may occasionally communicate with the french church ; nay with dissenters too , if he believes that any of their congregations is a true member of the catholick church ? if they may , then constant communion is not always a duty where occasional is lawful . dr. stillingfleet indeed says , that if a man were obliged to be a member of the french church , or the like , and thought it lawful to communicate sometimes , constant communion would be a duty . but according to you no man is obliged to be a member of one sound church more than another , provided the distance is not so great , but that he may communicate with both . ( 5. ) query , whether a true christian , though not visibly admitted into church-communion , where he wants the means , has not a virtual baptism in the answer of a good conscience towards god ? according to 1 pet. 3. 21. ( 6. ) query , why a profess'd atheist who has been baptiz'd , and out of secular interest continues a communicant with this church , is more a member of the catholick church than such as are above described ? ( 7. ) query , whether as the catholick church is compar'd to a body of men incorporated by one charter , upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of a charter to the whole body , by the miscarriages of any of the officers , does it likewise follow that the miscarriages of church-officers , or the church representative , as i remember bishop sanderson calls the clergy , may forfeit the privileges given by christ to his church , or at least may suspend them ? as suppose a protestant clergy , taking their power to be as large as the church of rome claim'd , should deny the laity the sacraments , as the popish did in venice , and here in king john's time , during the interdicts . quid inde operatur ? but more particularly i shall make observations upon these following positions . 1. you say , our saviour made the apostles and their successors governors of his church , with promise to be with them to the end of the world. 2. that 't is absurd to gather a church out of a church of baptiz'd christians . 3. that the independents separate from catholick communion , by adding a new covenant , no part of the baptismal vow . for the first : i desire to be satisfied in these particulars . 1. whether our saviour's promise of divine assistance , did not extend to all the members of the church , considering every man in his respective station and capacity , as well as to the apostles as church-governors ? for which you may compare st. john with st. matthew . 2. therefore query , whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular churches , provided there be to particular persons , such as are in charity with all men , and are ready to communicate with any church which requires no more of them , than what they conceive to be their duty , according to the divine covenant ? 3. whether if the promise you mention be confin'd to the apostles , as church-governors , it will not exclude the civil power ? 4. what was the extent of the promise , whether it was to secure the whole church , that its governors should never impose unlawful terms of communion , or that there should never be a general defection of all the members of the catholick church ; but that there should always be some true members ? but secondly , you say , 't is absur'd to gather a church out of a church of baptized christians . by which i suppose you mean that men ought not to separate from such , and live in a distinct church-communion from any church of baptized christians ; which i conceive needs explaining . but as it was worded , i desire to know , 1. whether it is absurd for protestants to live in church-communion with each other in france , separating from the papists , whose is the national church ? 2. whether the civil power did not make a lawful reformation and separation from the popish church in england ? 3. whether as in the primitive times there was but one bishop , and consequently but one church in a city , there are not now as many churches within the national as there are bishopricks ? 4. whether is it more absurd that there should be independent or presbyterian churches within the national , than that there should be so many bishopricks ? 5. suppose it possible for every of their congregations to be a church , with sufficient church-officers and power , then may they not communicate with a sound part of the catholick-church without actual communion with the national : and consequently all that you have said of their schism will fall . 6. admit they bring but colourable proof for this , yet if it be enough to make honest-minded men believe it , dare you say that those who so believe are no true members of christ's body ? for god's sake , sir , consider this , and think with your self , whether your charity exceeds that of the romish church ? 3dly , you suppose that the independents exclude themselves from catholick communion , by requiring of their members a new contract , no part of the baptismal vow-upon this i ask , 1. whether any obstacle to catholick communion brought in by men , may not be a means of depriving men of it , as well as covenant or contract ? 2. if it may , which i suppose you will not deny , will you not then , upon this account , make the church you live in more guilty than you do the independents ? baptism you own is the only thing which admits into the catholick church ; but they require no new covenant at baptism , ergo , they admit into the church without any clog or hindrance of humane invention . but query , whether if an adult person may not be received to baptism without being sign'd with the sign of the cross : which some , at least , may honestly scruple , especially such as read the canon , which explains the sense in which 't is used . how is this justifyable upon your ground ? lastly , i take leave to ask a few questions about the meaning of your text and context . 1. query . whether to say ye are the body , and ye are of the body , be the same ? 2. whether therefore the individual church of corinth is not here made an entire body , of which every christian in communion with it was a particular member ? 3. and whether 't is absurd that our saviour should have a metaphorical body , which is in him , and he in it ; where-ever there is a number of true believers following all the institutes , and exercising all the discipline which they can have , according to the best of their understanding and means ? 4. whether when schism is in the 25th verse used in opposition to having the same care for one another , it does not shew that schism consists not in the dividing communion through difference of opinions , but through want of charity , and that care which christians in the same neighbourhood ought to have of each other . after all that i have offer'd to your consideration , i must own that these are the sudden thoughts of one who believes he may be saved without understanding the notion of church-government as 't is intreagu'd between clergy-men of all sides . and believes the church of england to be a true church , notwithstanding it and the romish might formerly have been antichristian ; though a learned london minister pretends not to understand how then this should come to be true . jan. 30. 168. the second letter . sir , not doubting your candor and integrity , i went to church this day with full expectation of your attempting , at least , to clear your way from the objections i had sent you , before you expatiated upon your , as i may call it , uncharitable hypothesis . surely every thing which i urged is not to be contemned ; but i must needs say , i could not meet with one passage in your last sermon which look'd like so much as an offer towards my satisfaction : wherefore i conjure you , as a protestant divine , to answer my doubts categorically . for which end , i hope you will not refer me to what mr. d — or any profest papist has wrote on this subject , unless you will avow all that they have said on the necessity of the intention of the priest to concur with his acts , or otherwise . your last discourse occasions only my adding this farther query . whether if the nature of catholick communion requires a readiness to communicate with any sound church , and yet a church obliges us to communicate with that alone , while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent communion with others ? is not that church guilty of schism in such an injunction , contrary to the nature of catholick communion ? or at least is it not impossible that he who communicates sometimes with one true church , sometimes with another , can be a schismatick , or any more than an offender against a positive humane law. be pleased to send me your thoughts upon the particulars of my enquiry to &c. directed to , sir , your servant , anonymus . feb. 4. 1682 / 3. the third letter . feb. 19. 1682 / 3. sir , since it is more than probable that i have occasioned the speedy printing of your discourses concerning church-communion . i am now become a debtor to the churches of god , to publish those objections which arose in my mind , and which you have not yet thought fit to answer , though earnestly press'd thereunto . and me-thinks you who have heretofore been a zealous patron for universal grace , should be very ready to clear your self from the least imputation of stinting it more than our most gracious god , nay than your most narrow principled adversaries have ever done . though he who questions the dictates of his spiritual guids , had need run to the protection of obscurity ; yet one would think , that he who prints in the dark what he publish'd on the house top , before the face of the congregation , brings a foul suspition upon his doctrine . 't is well known that the pulpit is more licensed from contradiction than the press ; wherefore the former is most properly assigned for a clergy-mans recantation : nor indeed did i think you far from making publick satisfaction , when you own'd , ( in your sermon preach'd feb. 11. on luke 12. vers . 4 , 5. ) that the censures of the church are formidable only when duly applied ; and that god almighty has not trusted fallible men with a power of shutting out those whom he will receive . keep to this , and make good your notion of schism if you can : if schism be , as you say , a very great sin , and such as will damn us , as soon as adultery and murder , god forbid that it should consist in such ticklish points as would place many thousands of truly charitable and pious men within the fatal roll. but to my thinking , while you blame men for having no notion at all of a church , or no notion of one church , and that they know not wherein the unity and communion of this church consists , you remove their guilt , and grant that their schism is involuntary , and only an error of their understandings . alas ! mistaken honest men , how unhappy is your condition , who must be damn'd for not understanding dr. sherlock , when he fancies that he puts matters past all doubt ! tho others may think he only amuses people with equivocal words and terms . i beg of you to consider , whether you do not impose upon your self , or would not upon others by a confused notion of the church , and of separation from it , wherein you make schism to consist . great is diana of the ephesians , and great is the use of the word church , when good crafts-masters have the handling of it ; and of all men those of rome have succeeded best at this play of words . by the using it indefinitely as you do , the pope keeps the kevs of heaven and hell at his girdle ; and truly this in some cases comprehends things as different as heaven and hell are , such as shall be sav'd , and such as are already under the dominion of satan . if you use it for several purposes , i hope for the future you will define what you mean by the church , when you are to consider it as catholick and universal , what when you take it in a more restrain'd sence , otherwise you speak not like a minister of the gospel , but as one that would pervert that use of words which in you especially god almighty designed for instructing us candidly in the truth . indeed you may play a little more securely with the word schism , because ( unless it be taken to lie wholly in want of charity ) people may not so well understand what it is , how distinctly soever the notion of churches be taught them ; surely 't is much a question whether it lies wholly in causless separation from a sound part of the catholick church . to my thinking , st. paul when he speaks of it , supposes a continuance still of the same body , and ascribes it to christians continuing such , nay , and communicating with each other . thus writing to the corinthians , of whom he says ; ye are the body of christ , and members in particular . he tells you , to this effect , that there is but one spirit which communicates it self amongst them in various dispensations , and enables them , according to their different capacities and attainments , to promote each others growth in grace . and then having compared them to the several parts of a natural body ; god , saith he , hath tempered the body together , having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked . that there should be no schism in the body , but that the members should have the same care for one another . which seems no more than that god obliges the members of his church to live together charitably , and to be ready to assist each other from the consideration of the distribution of his gifts and graces in such manner , that even the meanest and most despised christian may administer aid and comfort to those that are in the highest station . but all this was written to the church at corinth , that body of christ there , which assembled together in the same place , and yet the apostle charges them with real schism ; for , says he ; whereas there is among you envying , and strife , and divisions ; are ye not carnal , and walk as men ? but from the apostle's notion of schism , i shall come to yours , as you have jumbled it together with the equivocal word church ; of which you would make one believe , that there can be no true idea , but as particular visible , nay , and that national too ; wherefore be pleased to weigh a little with your self : 1. whether you do not appropriate that to the national church , which belongs to the catholick visible and invisible ? as where you say , no man has a right to any act of christian communion , but he who is in a state of communion with the christian church . that no man is in communion with a church which he is not a member of : and that he is no member of the church , who is not at least visibly admitted into god's covenant by baptism . now i would ask you this plain question . whether a man has a right to be of a particular church , as he is a christian ; that is , i should think , a true member of the catholick church : or becomes a christian only as receiv'd into a particular church ? i take it , infants are received with us , by virtue of the federal right in the parents ; and as the apostle says , the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband , else were the children unclean . nor i conceive doth our church receive any adult person , whom it does not believe to be a true christian before ? but to make your fallacy the more evident , you tell us ; the divine spirit confines his influences and operations to the unity of the church , as the same apostle tells us , that there is but one body , and one spirit ; which plainly signifies that the operations of this one spirit are appropriated to this one body , as the soul is to the body it animates . i would fain know what need any man has to deny this for avoiding the consequence , that therefore 't is an improper way for edification , to forsake communion with a national sound church where he lives ; for the apostle makes it as plain as words can make it , that he speaks of the invisible , as well as visible church . for the passage you cite , ephes. 4. 4. is but a continuation of what the apostle taught in the foregoing chapter , where he says ; for this cause i bow my knees unto the father of our lord jesus christ. of whom the whole family in heaven and in earth is named . this which is there called a family , is elsewhere the whole body of which christ is the head , the increase and edifying of which body in love is ascribed to his influence . if i should enter my self of another family , not owned by christ , i thereby should renounce all claim to the promises of the gospel : but admit several parts of this great family live by different customs and rules , not owning each others members for their own ; in which case you will have them separate churches , as well as upon the account of doctrine , government , or worship , provided the things wherein they differ , and for which they make distinct communions , are not destructive of common christianity ; doth he put himself out of christ's family , who can and actually doth comply with the rules and customs of both ? one would think that a member of the church of england communicating with presbyterians here , does not thereby enter into a state of separation , even from this particular church , because he does not thereby so much as virtually renounce the communion of our church , being nothing is required of him to capacitate him for communion with them which is not required in our church , much less any thing contrary to it ; and perhaps the independents may come within the last circumstance : but to be sure , neither of them forsake our church in what essentially constitutes it a church of christ : and therefore it does yet remain a question , whether this can be a separation from the communion of catholick church , that happy family above-mentioned . you know even , in the primitive times , about the end of the second century , there fell out a division between the latin and asian churches , and that upon what one would think were neither matter of doctrine , of government , nor of worship , for it was only about the time of keeping easter holy-day . victor the bishop of the latin church , in a council , or as some will have it , a full representative of that church excommunicates the poor asians for a little mistake in arithmetick ; each church was far from owning the others members as its own . here was a schism . perhaps on both sides , especially on theirs who were so peremptory in imposing their own computation for catholick . but what should the poor lay christians do in this divided state , could they not communicate with both , or either , without danger of schism themselves ? or , was it as necessary to know which was in the right , as to know which is the true religion ? 't was not enough in such case to know which of these divided communions was a true and sound member of the catholick church ; which when known , they were bound to communicate with ; for here both were sound members , at least they might be , notwithstanding this difference : and yet according to you , they who communicated with both these , were contrary to themselves , and on one side or other went sure to be schismaticks : and if you please , you may say the prayers and sacraments in those churches , were not acts of christian communion , but of schismatical combinations . but , secondly , i must desire you to consider , whether you do not enforce the necessity of communicating with the national church , from arguments which prove no more , than that men ought to serve god in publick in distinct congregations , as well as in private and so apply that to a national church , which belongs to the church in a more limited sense ? but this is no wonder , since you manifestly go upon the supposition , that there can be no true church which is not national , at least , which is not the only true church within the nation or city where one resides . upon which ground you affirm ; that , actual communion , during our residence in any certain place , must be confined to that particular church in which we live , if it be a sound part of the christian church ; or , as you elsewhere vary it , the sound and orthodox part of the catholick church which he finds in that place . now if there be a possibility that there should be several sound and orthodox parts in the same place , be it the same city or same nation , all your building here falls to the ground . wherefore i desire you to consider , whether it is not possible that at aleppo , for the purpose , or any other place where the national religion is ethnick , there may be several sound parts of the catholick church , as the greek or the french protestants , and the english churches , with either of which one may communicate as sound parts of the catholick ? but to come back to your method of bringing all into the national , you tell us that you suppose no man will deny but that every christian is bound to worship god according to our saviour's institution ; and what that is , we cannot learn better than from the example of the primitive christians ; of whom st. luke gives us this account , they continued stedfast in the apostles doctrine and worship , and in breaking of bread. according to your own argument here , would it not seem that the only church of our saviour's instituting , is such an one as is described 1 cor. 14. 23. where 't is said , if therefore the whole church be come together into one place , and all speak with tongues , and there come in those that are unlearned , or unbelievers , will they not say that ye are mad ? pray , sir , is it absurd to suppose , that there should be several such churches in a city ? may not every one of these have lawful terms of communion , such as an honest minded christian may submit unto , though some of them may have harder than others ? may not such a man be more especially united in communion , ( be it as a member , or how you will call it ) to that which he thinks the best , and yet occasionally communicate with others , without being an occasional member of christ's body which , is but one , united in charity under differences of opinions and practices ? admit that two of these churches divide from each other by separate communion , and by making more things necessary to communion with either than christ made , make a schism and rent in christ's body ; why does it follow that he who can and does communicate with both , as requiring nothing of him which he looks upon as sinful , must needs be guilty of schism ? which if you think it a clearer expression , you may call communicating in a schism . to follow you in your repetitions , to this purpose you assert , that we must perform the constant acts of communion in that part of the catholick church , in which we constantly live and communicate occasionally , with that part of the church where we are occasionally present . and that , there cannot be two distinct churches in the same place , one for occasional , and another for constant communion without schism : for it is evident those two are distinct communions , and that our relation to them is as different as it is to an house we live in , and to an inn where we lodg for a night . but it is evident that one of these must need be cut off from christ's body ; if not , why may i not communicate with one , or both , and thereby communicate with the catholick church ? but besides , how came you here to talk of a different relation , and as if that look'd like occasional membership , by which you elsewhere would expose such communion ? when before you had told us , that the communion of the church does not make us members of any particular church . then again , how does it appear that it is necessary to communion with the catholick church , that we must perform the constant acts of communion , in that part of the catholick church where we constantly lives . farther , is it self-evident that i am bound to communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of the catholick church , because i live where there is such an one ? you may remember vvhat mr. chillingworth said to this purpose , with the approbation of the great learned men of this time. if , says that admirable author , your require the belief of any error among the conditions of your communion , our obligation to communicate with you ceases , and so the imputation of schism to us vanishes into nothing , but lies heavy upon you for making our separation from you just and necessary , by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of communion . truly i should think that that which essentially makes one a member of christ , and so of his church , is the faith of the lord jesus christ , this is fundamental to it , intrinsecal and essential . what is external and visible in respect of the members which are gathered to christ the head of the church , is subject to changes and various circumstances of this outward world. and 't would be an hard case with us , if what is not within our power , as the derivation of an uninterrupted succession of church-officers , or the like , should be the concernment of our souls . to this purpose , i cannot omit another passage of mr. chillingworth's . i believe , says he , our saviour ever since his ascension , hath had , in some place or other , a visible true church on earth , i mean , a company of men that professed at least so much as was necessary to salvation ; and i believe there vvill be somevvhere or other such a church to the world's end . i am sure your notions tend to the destroying the foundation of all mr. chillingworth's arguments : and methinks you should be loth to deprive protestantism of such a champion , though by the bafling him , you might the more securely triumph over that part of it to which you seem to oppose your self . i will not here dispute ( because it alters not the state of any question which i sent you ) whether i mistook you , or you have since corrected what you preach'd concerning the rites of admission into the church . now you tell us that the persons invested with power and authority to receive others into the church-covenant , must do it according to the terms and conditions of the covenant ; and by such covenant-rites , and forms of admission , as he , viz. god , is pleased to institute ; which under the gospel is baptism , as under the law it was circumcision . truly i had thought you had said , such rites as they , viz. the church-governors , fallible men , had thought fit , which is but needful to your hypothesis . but if the rites and forms of admission must be of god's institution , what think you of the sign of the cross , of which dr. stilling fleet says , as baptism is a rite of admission into christ's catholick church , so the sign of the cross is into our church . but then , as baptism is compared unto circumcision , does not the apostle decide the question , when he tells us , that circumcision is that of the heart ? i have only one farther consideration to press to you , which is , that you would seriously bethink your self , whether your method of converting these damnable schismaticks , who are in your opinion as bad as murderers and adulterers , be not the most effectual means of keeping up the schism ? if want of charity makes schismaticks , surely this is not the way to convince them that that guilt lies at their door . certainly if our church required conformity to its rites and ceremonies as necessary to salvation , it could not blame men for dividing from it ; and he who tells us , or he says nothing , that the divine spirit confines his influences and operations to the unity of the church , in such conformity , not only makes such conformity necessary to salvation , but imputes to the church the damnation of many thousands of souls , who might expect to be saved upon other terms . i hope you are none of those that think dissenters come in too fast , and that they are to be preach'd out again . i heartily wish they could conquer all their scruples , that we might not only have such love and sympathy as is peculiar to the members of the same body : which i hope all good christians have as members of christ's body , though of different communions , but that all might be able to go to the house of god together , as friends , of one mind and one heart . for my part , if i had any scruples of this kind , they would arise from what our church-men infuse ; and when you talk of the danger of communicating in a schism , it would make me bethink my self , whether the church with which i communicate , may not be guilty of imposing something or other contrary to the nature of catholick communion , or beyond the power entrusted with it , for edification and not for destruction . if you had pleas'd , this controversy had bin managed in a more private manner ; but since you have thought fit to print , you have hereby determined the choice of ( sir ) your humble servant , &c. postscript . since my writing the foregoing letter , i received your book , particularly directed to anonymus : by which i am obliged to believe , either that you avow the consequences which i formerly urg'd to you , or think them not rightly inferr'd : if the first , i have nothing more to say to you , only to entreat you to consider , whether you would not perswade men to uniformity , by means which tend to the begetting a low opinion of god himself , and of all reveal'd religion ? if the last be made appear to me , assure your self i will not long conceal my conviction . feb. 24. 1682 / 3. finis . errata . page 17. l. 11. read christian-charity . lb. l. 22. read them . page 21. l. 13. add the before catholick . advertisement . there is now published the third edition of the conformist's plea for the nonconformists . or a just and compassionate representation of the present state and condition of the nonconformists . as to 1. the greatness of their sufferings , with some relations thereof . 2. hardness of their case , as to what i● enjoined . 3. reasonableness of their proposals of amendments . 4. qualifications , and worth of their persons . 5. peaceableness of their behaviour . 6. the church's prejudice by their exclusion , &c. with an humble apology for their publick preaching , and suspension of the penal laws against them . by a beneficed minister of the church of england . to this edition is added a full vindication of the nonconformists , from the foul charge of the murder of the late king , the whole matter of fact is here related , viz. the london ministers , about sixty in number , with many more from several counties , appeared and presented their testimony to the council of officers , declaring their utter abhorrency of the army's proceedings against the king's life , and monarchical government . and the author hath also thought fit to give a full account out of the writings of dr. du-moulin , and others , that the jesuits ( assisted by a faction in the army ) contrived and executed that horrid villany . printed for jonathan robinson , at the golden lion in st. paul's church-yard . 1683. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a26184-e120 acts 10. 34 , 35. resol . of cases of conscience , &c. pag. 5. lbid . pag. 33. p. 5. supra . pag. 48. cave's antiq . apostol . fol. 211. ib. fol. 210. 2dly . 19th artic. dr. stilling . answer to several treatises occasion'd by his book about idolatry . pag. 275. pag. 276. dr. tillotson's sermon 1 cor. 3. 15. last ed. pag. 59. dr. stilling . rational account . p. 359. notes for div a26184-e1150 the 30th canon calls it , a lawful outward ceremony and honourable badg ; whereby the infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the cross. v. jovian . notes for div a26184-e2540 1 cor. 9. 16. the dr's . resol . of cases of conscience , with respect to church-com . p. 49. ib. pag. 50. 1 cor. 12. vers. 24. vers. 25. 1 cor. 14. 1 cor. 3. 3. cases of conscience concorning church commun . p. 10. pag. 13. pag. 5. pag. 48. eph. 3. 14. vers. 15. eph. 4. 16. pag. 23. pag. 22. pag. 37. pag. 39. pag. 40. pag. 17. 2dly . pag. 23. pag. 33. acts 2. 42. pag. 49. ibid. pag. 41. pag. 42. pag. 39. pag. 14. pag. 15. pag. 13. pag. 5. mischief of separat . p. 351. rom. 2. 29. pag. 49. vers. 48 ▪ pag. 47. an apology for writing against socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the holy trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1693 approx. 58 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59791 wing s3265 estc r21192 12054584 ocm 12054584 53128 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59791) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 53128) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 580:2) an apology for writing against socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the holy trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 32 p. printed for will. rogers ..., london : 1693. marginal notes. advertisement: prelim. p. [1]. reproduction of original in cambridge university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng trinity. incarnation. socinianism. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-01 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2005-01 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against socinians , &c. imprimatur , geo. royse , r. r mo . in christo patri ac dom. dom. johan . archiep. cant. à sacris domest . jan. 17. 1692 / 3. an apology for writing against socinians , in defence of the doctrines of the holy trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . london : printed for will. rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's church in fleet street . 1693. an apology for writing against socinians , &c. after a long silence , and patient expectation what the learned writers of some controversies at present ( as a late author calls them ) would bring forth , i intend by the assistance of the holy trinity , and the incarnate jesus , whose blessing i most earnestly implore , to resume the defence of the catholick faith ; which i shall publish in some few short treatises , as i can find leisure for it , that i may not discourage my readers by too voluminous a work. but before i venture to dispute these matters any farther , it is necessary to make some apology for disputing ; which is thought very unchristian and uncharitable , and of dangerous consequence , especially when we undertake the defence of the fundamentals of our faith , against the rude and insolent assaults of hereticks . sometime since , a melancholy stander-by would be a stander-by no longer , but interposed an earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance , to the learned writers of some controversies at present . these learned writers of controversy , are the socinians , who ridiculed without any learning or common sense , the athanasian creed , and the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation : the forbearance he desires , is , that no body should write against them ; though dr. wallis and my self are more immediately concerned in this suit. who this melancholy stander-by is , i shall not enquire , for my controversy is not with men , but with doctrines ; and i know by experience , that common fame is not always to be trusted , much less suspicions ; but if he be a divine of the church of england , it seems very strange , that he should profess himself a stander-by , when the fundamentals of the christian faith are in question ; and a melancholy stander-by to see some others undertake the defence of it . i confess i am always very jealous of men , who are so very tender on the wrong side ; for observe it when you will , their tenderness is always owing to their inclination . but to defend our selves , let us briefly consider what he says . he thinks , the open dissentions of its professors a great blemish to the reformation : that is , that it is a great blemish for any men openly to defend the true faith , which others openly oppose , or secretly undermine ; but certainly it would be a greater blemish to the reformation , to have old heresies revived , and the true ancient catholick faith scorned , and no body appear in the defence of it . but we know his mind , that it is for the honour of the reformation not to dispute , though it be for the most important truths . surely our reformers were not so much against disputing . but if these dissentions be so great a blemish to the reformation , whose fault is it ? theirs who dissent from the truth , or theirs who defend it ? this is a very plain case ; for no body would oppose the truth , if no body taught it : the urging too strict an union in matters of faith , begets dissentions : that is , to require an open and undisguised profession of our baptismal faith in father , son , and holy ghost , as the terms of christian communion , is the criminal cause of our dissentions . well : what shall we do then ? renounce the faith of the trinity , for the sake of peace ? this he dares not say , for that would pull off his disguise ; but christianity must be left in that latitude and simplicity wherein it was delivered by our lord and his apostles . this had been a good proposal , would he have told us what this latitude and simplicity is ; for i am for no other faith than what christ and his apostles taught : but i would gladly know what he means by the latitude of faith : for if the christian faith be such a broad faith , must we not believe the whole breadth of it ? or has christ and his apostles left it at liberty to believe what we like , and to let the rest alone ? to believe that father , son , and holy ghost are one supreme eternal god ; or to believe that the eather alone is the true god , the son a mere man , and the holy ghost nothing but a divine inspiration ? to believe that the eternal word was made flesh ; or that christ was no more than a man , who had no being before he was born of the virgin mary ? he can mean nothing else by this latitude of faith , but that christ and his apostles have left these matters so ambiguous and undetermined , that we may believe what we please ; and then indeed those do very ill , who dispute these matters : but this is such a breadth as has no depth ; for such a faith as this can have no foundation . can we certainly learn from scripture , whether christ be a god incarnate , or a mere man ? if we cannot , why should we believe either ? if we can , then one is true , and the other false ; and then there is no latitude in faith , unless christ and his apostles have left it indifferent , whether we believe what is true , or what is false ; what they have taught us , or what we like better our selves . in the same manner he leaves us to guess what he means by the simplicity of the faith. he is very angry with the school-doctors , as worse enemies to christianity , than either heathen philosophers , or persecuting emperors . pray what hurt have they done ? i suppose he means the corruption of christianity with those barbarous terms of person , nature , essence , subsistence , consubstantiality , &c. which will not suffer hereticks to lye concealed under scripture-phrases : but why must the schoolmen bear all the blame of this ? why does he not accuse the ancient fathers and councils , from whom the schoolmen learnt these terms ? why does he let st. austin escape , from whom the master of the sentences borrowed most of his distinctions and subtilties ? but suppose these unlucky wits had used some new terms , have they taught any new faith about the trinity in unity , which the catholick church did not teach ? and if they have only guarded the christian faith with a hedge of thorns , which disguised hereticks cannot break through , is this to wound christianity in its very vitals ? no , no : they will only prick the fingers of hereticks , and secure christianity from being wounded ; and this is one great cause why some men are so angry with the school-doctors ; tho the more general cause is , because they have not industry enough to read or understand them . he says , the first reformers complained of this , and desired a purer and more spiritual sort of divinity . what ? with respect to the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation ? what purer reformers were these ? i 'm sure not our english reformers , whom he censures for retaining scholastick cramping terms in their publick prayers : he means the beginning of our litany : o god the father of heaven : o god the son , redeemer of the world : o god the holy ghost , proceeding from the father and the son : o holy , blessed , and glorious trinity , three persons and one god : these are his scholastick , cramping terms , which he would fling out of our liturgy , when the season of such blessed alterations comes . i hope those excellent persons among us , who , i doubt not , for better reasons did not long since think of some alterations , will consider what a foul imputation this is upon such a design , when such a person shall publickly declare , that they ought to alter and reform the doctrine of the trinity out of our prayers . but the whole mystery of this latitude and simplicity of faith which he pleads for , is that plausible project ( which has been so much talked of of late : ) to confine our selves to scripture terms and phrases ; to use none but scripture words in our creeds and prayers , without any explication in what sense those words are to be understood : as he tells us , certainly we may worship god right well , yea , most acceptably , in words of his own stamp and coinage . now at the first proposal few men would suspect , that there should be any hurt in this ; though it would make one suspect some secret in it , to consider that hereticks were the first proposers of it , and that orthodox christians rejected it . the arians objected this against the homoousion , or the son 's being of the same substance with the father , that it was an unscriptural word ; but the nicene fathers did not think this a good reason to lay it aside : for what reason can there be to reject any words , which we can prove to express the true sense of scripture , though they are not found there ? for must we believe the words or the sense of scripture ? and what reason then can any man have to reject the words , though they be no scripture-words , if he believes the sense contained in them to be the sense of scripture ? the homoiousion , or that the son had a nature like the father's , tho not the same , was no more a scripture-word , than the homoousion ; and yet the arians did not dislike that , because it was no scripture-word ; nor are the socinians angry at any man who says , that christ is but a meer man , who had no being before he was born of the virgin mary ; tho these words are no where in scripture : and is it not strange , that a man who heartily believes , or at least pretends to believe , that father , son , and holy ghost are one eternal god , should be angry with a trinity in unity , or three persons and one god , which do as aptly express the faith which he professes , as any words he can think of ? it is very odd to be zealous for scripture-words without the scripture sense . if the scripture have any determined sense , then that which is the true sense of scripture , is the true faith ; and if we must contend earnestly for the true faith , we must contend for the true sense of scripture , and not merely for its words ; and when hereticks have used their utmost art to make the words of scripture signifie what they please , is it not necessary to fix their true sense , and to express that sense in such other words as hereticks cannot pervert ? there are but few words in common speech , but what are sometimes differently used , in a proper or metaphorical , a large or a limited sense ; and all wise and honest men easily understand from the circumstances of the place , in what sense they are used ; but if men be perverse , they may expound words properly when they are used metaphorically , or metaphorically when they are used properly ; and there is no confuting them from the bare signification of the word , because it may be , and oftentimes is used both ways ; and therefore in such cases we must consider the circumstances of the text , and compare it with parallel texts , to find out in what sense the word is there used ; and when we have found it , it is reasonable and necessary to express the true christian faith , not merely in scripture words , which are abused and perverted by hereticks , but in such other words , if we can find any such , as express the true sense in which the scripture-words are used , and in which all christians must understand them , who will retain the purity of the christian faith. we do not hereby alter the christian faith , nor require them to believe any thing more than what the scripture teaches , tho we require them to profess their faith in other words , which are not indeed in scripture , but express the true and determined sense of scripture words . and this is all the latitude of faith which this stander-by so tragically complains we have destroyed , viz. that we have brought the scripture words to a fixt and determined sense , that hereticks can no longer conceal themselves in a latitude of expression , nor spread their heresies in scripture words , with a traditionary sense and comment of their own . i would ask any man who talks at this rate about a latitude of faith , whether there be any more than one true christian faith ? and whether christ and his apostles intended to teach any more ? or whether they did not intend , that all christians should be obliged to believe this one faith ? if this be granted , there can be no more latitude in the faith , than there is in a unit ; and if they taught but one faith , they must intend that their words should signifie but that one faith ; and then there can be no intentional latitude in their words neither ; and what crime then is the church guilty of , if she teach the true christian faith , that she teaches it in such words as have no latitude , no ambiguity of sense , which hereticks may deny if they please , but which they can't corrupt in favour of their heresies , as they do scripture words ? it is an amazing thing to me , that any man who has any zeal , any concernment for the true christian faith , who does not think it perfectly indifferent what we believe , or whether we believe any thing or not , should judge it for the advantage of christianity , and a proper expedient for the peace of the church , for all men to agree in the same scripture words , and understand them in what sense they please ; tho one believes christ to be the eternal son of god , and another to be but a mere man ; which it seems has no great hurt in it , if they do but agree in the same words : but if the faith be so indifferent , i cannot imagine why we should quarrel about words ; the fairer and honester proposal is , that every man should believe as he pleases , and no man concern himself to confute heresies , or to divide the church with disputes ; which is the true latitude our author seems to aim at ; and then he may believe as he pleases too . but pray , why should we not write against the socinians ? especially when they are the aggressors , and without any provocation publish and disperse the most impudent and scandalous libels against the christian faith. he will give us some very wise reasons for this by and by , when he comes to be plain and succinct ; in the mean time we must take such as we can meet with . he is afraid pe●●le should lose all reverence for the litany , should ▪ we go on to vindicate the doctrine of the trinity in unity : i should not easily have apprehended this , and possibly some of the common people might have been as dull as my self , had he not taken care before he parted , for fear no body else should observe it , to teach people to ridicule the trinity in their prayers . dr. wallis would not undertake to say what a divine person signifies , as distinguished from nature and essence , only says , a person is somewhat , but the true notion of a person he does not know : this author commends this as ever held to by all learned trinitarians ; for indeed all the doctor meant by his somewhat is , that three persons signify three real subsistences , and are real things , not a sabellian trinity of mere names . and yet in the very next page he teaches his readers to ridicule the litany with the doctors somewhats : o holy , blessed , and glorious trinity , three somewhats , and one god , have mercy on us , &c. was there ever any thing more senseless , or more prophane ! that because the doctor would not undertake to define a person , but only asserted in general , that a divine person was somewhat , or some real being , in opposition to a mere nominal difference and distinction ; therefore in our prayers we may as well call the three divine persons , father , son ; and holy ghost , three somewhats . nobis non licet esse tam disertis . i am sure he has reason heartily to pray , that these three somewhats , as he prophanely calls them , would have mercy on him . in the next place he says , he is well assured , that the late ( socinian ) pam●●lets would have died away , or have been now in few mens hands , had not divers persons taken on them the labour to confute them . but did his socinian friends , who were such busie factors for the cause , tell him so ? did they print them , that no body might read them ? were they not dispersed in every corner , and boasted of in every coffee-house , before any answer appeared ? however , were it so ; is there no regard to be had to hereticks themselves ? and is it not better that such pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an answer , than in five hands without one ? i should think it at any time a good reward for all the labour of confuting , to rescue or preserve a very few from such fatal errors ; which i doubt not but is a very acceptable service to that merciful shepherd , who was so careful to seek one lost and straggling sheep . heresies and vices dye by being neglected , just as weeds do ; for we know the parable , that the devil sows his tares , while men sleep . but this is no new charge ; the good bishop of alexandria met with the same censures for his zeal against arius ; for it seems that heresie would have died too , if it had not been opposed . i doubt this author judges of other mens zeal for heresy , by his own zeal for the truth , which wants a little rubbing and chafing to bring it to life ; but heresy is all flame and spirit , will blow and kindle it self , if it be not quenched . but yet if what he says be true , that by our unskilful way of confuting heresie , we run into those very absurdities which our adversaries would reduce us to ; this i confess is a very great fault , and when he shews me any of those absurdities , i will thankfully correct them ; for all the obloquies in the world will never make me blush to recant an error : but before he pretends to that , i must desire him , that he would first read my book , which i know some men censure without reading it . such general accusations are very spiteful , and commonly have a mixture of spite both against the cause , and against the person . his next argument is very observable : we must not dispute now against socinians , because these controversies about the trinity have been above thirteen hundred years ago determined by two general councils ( the nicene , and first constantinopolitan ) , which are owned by our church , and their creeds received into our liturgy . ergo , we must not defend this faith against hereticks , because it is the faith of two general councils which are owned by our church . did athanasius think this a good argument against writing and disputing against the arians , after the council of nice had condemned arius and his doctrines ? did st. basil , gregory nazianzen , nyssen , st. chrysostom , st. jerom , st. austin , think this a good argument , who wrote so largely against these heresies , which former councils had condemned ? but this author thinks the best way is to let the matter stand upon this bottom of authority ; that is , let hereticks ridicule our faith as much as they please , we must make them no other answer , but that this is the faith of the nicene and constantinopolitan councils , and the faith of the church of england . and can he intend this for any more than a jest , when he knows how socinians despise the determinations of councils , and particularly with what scorn they treat the nicene fathers ? is this an age to resolve our faith into church authority ? or would he himself believe such absurd doctrines as they represent the trinity in unity to be , merely upon church authority ? for my part i declare i would not . i greatly value the authority of those ancient councils , as credible witnesses of the traditionary sense of the church before those controversies were started ; but were not these doctrines taught in scripture , were they manifestly repugnant to the plain and evident principles of reason , all the councils in the world should never reconcile me to them , no more than they should to the doctrine of transubstantion . and therefore methinks he might have at least allowed us to have challenged the scriptures as well as general councils on our side ; and to have vindicated our faith from all pretended absurdities and contradictions to reason . but would any man of common sense , who had not intended to expose the faith of the holy trinity , have told the world at this time of day , that we have no other safe and sure bottom for our faith , but only the authority of general councils ? nay , that the council of nice it self , on whose authority we must rest , had little else themselves for their determinations but only authority , that it was authority chiefly carried the point . and thus for fear we should have believed too much upon the authority of councils , which is the only bottom he will allow our faith , he gives them a secret stab himself , and makes their authority ridiculous . that the several bishops declared , what faith had been taught and received in their churches is true ; that this authority chiefly carried the point , is false : athanasius grew famous in the council for his learned and subtile disputations , which confounded the arians ; and what arguments he chiefly relied on , we may see in his works : and whoever does but look into the fathers , who wrote against the arians in those days , will find , that their faith was resolved into scripture and reason , and not meerly or chiefly into authority . and thus he comes to be plain and succinct , and tells us , that of all controversies we can touch upon at present , this of the trinity is the most unreasonable , the most dangerous , and so the most unseasonable . it is the most unreasonable : 1. because it is on all hands confess'd , the deity is infinite , unsearchable , incomprehensible ; and yet every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this controversy , professes to make all comprehensible and easy . i perceive he is well versed in mr. hobbs's divinity ; though i can discover no marks of his skill in fathers and councils . for this was mr. hobb's reason , why we should not pretend to know any thing of god , nor inquire after his attributes , because he has but one attribute , which is , that he is incomprehensible ; and as this author argues , it is a small favour to request of persons of learning , that they should be consistent with , and not contradict themselves : that is , that they would not pretend to know any thing of god , whom they acknowledge to be incomprehensible , which is to pretend to know , what they confess cannot be known . now i desire to know , whether we may dispute about the being and nature of god , and his essential attributes and perfections ; and vindicate the notion of a deity from those impossibilities , inconsistencies , absurdities , which some atheistical philosophers charge on it , notwithstanding that we confess god to be incomprehensible ? and if the incomprehensibility of the divine nature does not signifie , that we can know nothing of god , and must inquire nothing about him ▪ ; the trinity of divine persons is as proper an object of our faith , and modest inquiries , as the unity of the divine essence , for they are both incomprehensible . and to say , that every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this controversy , professes to make all comprehensible and easy , may with equal truth and authority be charg'd on all those who undertake to vindicate the notion and idea of a god , or to explain any of the divine attributes and perfections . a finite mind cannot comprehend what is infinite ; but yet one man may have a truer and more perfect notion of the nature and attributes of god than another : god is incomprehensible in heaven as well as on earth , and yet angels and glorified spirits know god after another manner than we do . there must be infinite degrees of knowledge , when the object is infinite ; and every new degree is more perfect than that below it ; and yet no creature can attain the highest degree of all , which is a perfect comprehension : so that the knowledge of god may increase every day , and men may write plainer about these matters every day , without pretending to make all that is in god , even a trinity in unity , comprehensible and easy . this is a spiteful and scandalous imputation , and is intended to represent all those who undertake to write about the trinity , and to vindicate the primitive faith of the church from the scorn and contempt of hereticks , as a company of vain-conceited , presuming , but ignorant scriblers ; who pretend to make the incomprehensible nature of god , comprehensible and easy . but the comfort is , we have so good company , that we are able to bear this charge without blushing ; even general councils , and those great lights of the church , athanasius , st. hillary , st. basil , the gregories , st. chrysostom , st. austin , and many others , besides all those who in all succeeding ages to this day , have with equal zeal and learning defended the same cause ; and yet never profess'd to make all comprehensible and easy . all that any man pretends to in vindicating the doctrine of the trinity , is to prove that this faith is taught in scripture , and that it contains no such absurdities and contradictions , as should force a wise man to reject it , and either to reject the scriptures for its sake , or to put some strained and unnatural senses on scripture to reconcile it to the principles of reason ; and this , i hope , may be done by those , who yet acknowledge the divine nature , and the trinity in unity to be incomprehensible . but here he had a very fair opportunity , had he thought fit to take it , to correct the insolence and presumption of his learned writers of controversy ; who will not allow the divine nature to be incomprehensible , and will not believe god himself concerning his own nature , beyond what their reason can conceive and comprehend : who deny prescience for the same reason , that they deny the trinity , because they can't conceive it , nor reconcile it with the liberty of human actions ; and for the same reason may deny all the attributes of god , which have something in them beyond what we can conceive : especially an eternity without begining , and without succession , which is chargeable with more absurdities and contradictions , than the trinity it self : for a duration , which can't be measured ; and an eternal duration , which can be measured ; and a succession without a beginning , a second or third without a first , are unconceivable to us , and look like very plain and irreconci●●ble contradictions . this is the true use of the incomprehensibility of the divine nature ; not to stop all enquiries after god , nor to discourage our studies of the divine nature and perfections : for we may know a great deal , and may every day increase our knowledge of what is incomprehensible , thô we cannot know it all ; but to check the presumption of some vain pretenders to reason , who will not own a god , nor believe any thing of god , which their reason cannot comprehend ; which must not only make them hereticks , but , if pursued to its just consequences , must make them atheists , or make such a god , as no body will own , or worship , but themselves , a god adequate and commensurate to their understandings , which must be a little , finite , comprehensible god. in the next place , to prove how unreasonable it is to dispute in vindication of the trinity , he observes again , that this matter has been sufficiently determined by due authority : but having answered this once , i see no need to answer it again . to back this he adds , that the present issue shews ▪ that in this world it never will be better understood : for it seems , as he says , the master of the sentences , and some modern writers , have made very sad work of it . and yet he does not seem to be very intimately acquainted with the master of the sentences , nor some of these modern writers . but all that he means is , that no body can say any thing to the purpose for so absurd a doctrine , as a trinity in unity ; and therefore he plainly adds , the more men draw the disputacious saw , the more perplexed and intricate the question is ; and therefore the only secure way is , to leave off disputing for the trinity and let socinians dispute against it by themselves . but such stuff as this , deserves another sort of answer than i can give it . but he concludes this argument of unreasonableness very remarkably . and lastly , hereby our church at present , and the common christianity ( it may be feared ) will be more and more daily exposed to atheistical men ; for this being but the result of the former particulars , and such kind of men daily growing upon us , it cannot be believed , they can over-look the advantages which is so often given them . the sum of which is , that to vindicate the doctrine of the trinity against socinians , will make men atheists . this is a very bold stroke for a christian , and a divine , and i shall beg leave to expostulate this matter a little freely with him . 1st , i desire to know , whether he thinks the doctrine of the trinity to be defensible or not ? if it be not defensible , why does he believe it ? why should we not rather openly and plainly reject the doctrine of the trinity , which would be a more effectual way to put a stop to atheism , than to profess to believe it , but not to defend it ? if it be defensible , and there be no fault in the doctrine , but that some men have defended it ill , would it not much more have become him to have defended it better , than only to quarrel with those who have defended it , as well as they could ? 2dly , why does he not tell the socinians , what injury they do to common christianity , by ridiculing the faith of the holy trinity , and exposing it to the scorn of atheists ? does he think that they are no christians , and ought not to be concerned for common christianity ? or does he think , that atheists will like the doctrine of the trinity ever the better , for its being despised by socinians as an absurd contradictory faith , without having any defence made by trinitarians ? or does he think , that the defences made by trinitarians expose the faith more than the objections of socinians ? i wish i knew his mind , and then i could tell what to say to him . 3dly , how are atheists concerned in the disputes of the trinity ? or how are we concerned to avoid scandalizing atheists , who believe that there is no god at all ? must we be afraid of defending the faith of the trinity , lest atheists should mock at it , who already mock at the being of a god ? what shall we have left of christianity , if we must either cast away , or not defend every thing , which atheists will mock at ? surely he has a very contemptible opinion of the doctrine of the trinity , that he thinks all the defences that are , or can be made for it , so ridiculous , that they are enough to make men atheists . but i can tell him a secret , which possibly he may be privy to , though in great modesty he conceals his knowledge , viz. that atheists and deists , men who are for no religion , or at least not for the christian religion , are of late very zealous socinians ; and they are certainly in the right of it : for run down the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation , and there is an end of the christian religion , and with that an end of all revealed religion ; and as for natural religion , they can make and believe as much , or as little of it as they please . and this is one reason , and i am sure a better than any he has given against it , why we are , and ought to be so zealous at this time in opposing socinianism , because it is the common banner under which all the enemies of religion and christianity unite . this makes that little contemptible party think themselves considerable , that all the atheists and infidels , and licentious wits of the town , are their converts ; who promise themselves a glorious triumph over christianity , and particularly over the church of england , by decrying and scorning the catholick faith of the trinity and incarnation . ii. thus much for the unreasonableness of this controversie about the holy trinity ; in the next place he tells us the danger of it : and he has thought of such an argument to evince the danger of disputing for the holy trinity , as , i believe , was never dreamt of before ; and that is , that it is one of the fundamentals of christian religion ; now to litigate touching a fundamental , is to turn it into a controversie ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsettling the whole superstructure . now i am perfectly of his mind , that it is a dangerous thing to unsettle foundations ; but is it a dangerous thing too , to endeavour to preserve and defend foundations , when hereticks unsettle them , and turn them into dispute and controversie ? let us put the being of god , instead of the holy trinity , and see how he will like his argument himself . the being of a god is the foundation of all religion , and therefore it is dangerous to dispute with atheists about the being of god , because this is to turn a fundamental into a controversie , that is , to unsettle , or to endanger the unsetling the whole superstructure : and thus we must not dispute against atheists , no more than against socinians : and what is it then we must dispute for ? what else is worth disputing ? what else can we dispute for , when foundations are overturned ? what is the meaning of that apostolical precept , to contend earnestly for the faith ? jud. 3. what faith must we contend for , if not for fundamentals ? what faith is that which can subsist without a foundation ? but i would desire this author to tell me , whether we must believe fundamentals with , or without reason ? whether we must take fundamentals for granted , and receive them with an implicite faith , or know for what reason we believe them ? if our religion must not be built without a foundation , like a castle in the air , it is certain , that the fundamentals of our faith ought to have a very sure foundation , and therefore we are more concerned to understand and vindicate the reasons of our faith , with respect to fundamentals , than to dispute any less matters in religion , for the roof must tumble , if the foundation fail . what shall christians do then , when atheists , infidels , and hereticks , strike at the very foundations of their faith ? ought not they to satisfie themselves , that there is no force in the objections , which are made against the faith ? or must they confirm themselves with an obstinate resolution , to believe on without troubling themselves about objections , in defiance of all the power and evidence of reason ? this is not to believe like men ; christianity had never prevailed against paganism and judaism upon these terms ; for they had possession , authority , and prescription on their side , which is the only reason and security he gives us for the faith of the trinity , that the established church is in possession of it . if private christians then must endeavour to satisfie themselves in the reasons of their faith , when fundamentals are called in question , is it not the duty of christian bishops and pastors to defend the faith , and to defend the flock of christ from those grievous wolves st. paul prophesied of ? is not this their proper work and business ? and when the faith is publickly opposed and scorned in printed libels , ought it not to be as publickly defended ? when hereticks dispute against the faith , must we be afraid of disputing for it , for fear of making a controversie of fundamentals ? thanks be to god , our excellent primate is above this fear , and has now in the press a defence of that faith , which this writer would perswade all men to betray by silence ; and i hope so great an example may at least prevail with him , to let us dispute on without any more earnest and compassionate suits . iii. his last argument is , the unseasonableness of this controversie . he says , all controversies are now unseasonable ; and i say a little more , that they are always so ; for there is no juncture seasonable to broach heresies , and to oppose the truth : but if hereticks will dispute against the truth unseasonably ; there is no time unseasonable to defend fundamental truths . but why is it so unseasonable in this juncture ? because under god , nothing but an union of councils , and joyning hands and hearts , can preserve the reformation , and scarce any thing more credit and justifie it , than an union in doctrinals . to begin with the last first : is the union in doctrinals ever the greater , that socinians boldly and publickly affront the faith of the church , and no body appears to defend it ? will the world think that we are all of a mind , because there is disputing only on one side ? then they will think us all socinians , as some forreigners begin already to suspect , which will be a very scandalous union , and divide us from all other reformed churches . let union be never so desirable , we cannot , we must not unite in heresie ; those break the union , who depart from the faith , not those who defend it . when heresies are broached , the best way to preserve the unity of the church , is to oppose and confute , and shame heresie and hereticks , which will preserve the body of christians from being infected by heresie , and the fewer there are , who forsake the faith , the greater unity there is in the church . but nothing but union of counsels , and joyning hands and hearts , can preserve the reformation . must we then turn all socinians , to preserve the reformation ? must we renounce christianity , to keep out popery ? this stander-by is misinformed , for socinianism is no part of the reformation ; and so inconsiderable and abhorred a party , when they stand by themselves , that all parties who own any religion , will joyn counsels , and hands and hearts to renounce them . but what he would insinuate is , that we shall never joyn against a common enemy , whose successes would endanger the reformation , while there are any religious disputes among us . i hope he is mistaken , or else we shall certainly be conquered by france , for twenty such compassionate suits as this , will never make us all of a mind ; and whether we dispute or not , if we differ as much as if we did dispute , and are as zealous for the interest of a party , the case is the same . but he has unwarily confess'd a great truth , which all governments ought to consider , that every schisin in the church , is a new party and faction in the state , which are always troublesome to government when it wants their help . but these disputes about the trinity make sport for papists . it must be disputing against the trinity then ; not disputing for it ; for they are very orthodox in this point ; and never admitted any man to their communion who disowned this faith , or declared , that he thought it at any time unreasonable , dangerous , or unseasonable to dispute for it , when it was violently opposed . i doubt this protestant church-man has made more sport for papists , than all our other disputes ; for it is a new thing for such men to plead for socinians , but no new thing to dispute against them ; and new sports are always most entertaining . but he has himself started an objection , which if he could well answer , i could forgive him all the rest . but it will be said , what shall we do ? shall we tamely by a base silence give up the point . this is the objection , and he answers , there is no danger of it , the established church is in possession of it , and dispute will only increase the disturbance . but is there no danger that the church may be flung out of possession , and lose the faith , if she don't defend it ? no , the adversaries to the received doctrine ( why not to the true faith ? ) cannot alter our articles of religion ; but if they can make converts , and increase their party , they may in time change our articles , and then we shall hear no more of compassionate suits for forbearance . but they can dispute everlastingly ; and let them dispute on , we fear them not . but they are men subtil , sober , industrious ; many of them very vertuous , and ( as all must say ) setting aside their opinions , devout , pious , and charitable . i perceive he is very intimately acquainted with them , though st. paul commands all christians , to mark those which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned , and avoid them , 16 rom. 17. but let them be never so good men , as some of the heathen philosophers were , must we therefore tamely suffer them to pervert the faith ? but they are very zealous , and the presses are open , and they will never be silent . they are zealous against the truth , and therefore we must not be zealous for it ; they will write and print , and speak against the truth , and will never be silent ; and therefore we must be silent , and neither write , nor say any thing for the truth . was there ever such a reason thought of as this ? well! how long must we be silent ? neglect them till a fit time and place : but why is not this as fit a time , as ever we shall have , to prevent their sowing tares , or to pluck them up before they have taken too deep root ? can there be a fitter time to oppose heresies , and to defend the true christian faith , then when hereticks are very bold and busie in spreading their heresies , and opposing the faith ? but when this fit time is come ( for i know not what he means by a fit place ) what shall we do then ? will he then give us leave to write and dispute against such hereticks ? this he will not say ; but then let that be done , which shall be judged most christian and most wholesome . but what is that ? will it ever be most christian and most wholesome , to dispute for the faith against heresie ? if ever it will be so , why is it not so now ? if this never will be christian and wholesome , what else is to be done to hereticks in fit time and place , unless he intends to physick ' em ? and it seems he has a dose ready prepared , to lay all these controversies to an eternal sleep ; and it is , what he calls a negative belief , a pretty contradiction , but never the less proper cure for heresie . the project is this , as far as i can understand him , that the socinians shall not be required to own the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation , but shall so far agree , as not to contradict them , nor teach contrary to them : now i should like this very well , that they would not oppose the received doctrine of the church , but i believe he knows some little clattering tongues , which all the opiates he has , can never lay asleep ; and had he remembred what he had just before said concerning their zeal , and their eternal disputing , and that they will never be silent , he would never have proposed so impracticable a thing , as the imposing silence on them ; which makes me suspect , that he intends something more than what he says , and therefore to prevent mistakes , i must ask him a question or two . 1. whether he will allow us , who , as he grants , are in possession of this faith of the trinity and incarnation , to keep possession of it , and teach , explain , and confirm it to our people : we will answer none of their books , if they won't write them ; but if he expects that we should say nothing of , or for the trinity , as he would have them say nothing against it , we must beg his pardon ; we do not think the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation to be of so little concernment , as to be parted with , or buried in silence . we believe christian religion to be built on this faith , and therefore think ourselves as much bound to preach it , as to preach the gospel ; and if they will oppose the faith , as long as we preach it , we can have no truce with them . 2dly , i hope he does not propose this negative belief , as he calls it , as a term of communion ; that tho' we know they deny the trinity and the incarnation , yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this faith , we shall receive them to our communion , and fling the worship of the holy trinity , and of a god incarnate , out of our liturgies for their sake . i grant there may be such things , as articles of peace , when men joyn in the same communion , notwithstanding some less material differences , while the substantials of faith and worship are secure , and oblige themselves not to disturb the peace of the church with less disputes ; but to make the essentials of faith and worship meer articles of peace , to receive those to our communion , who deny the very object of our worship , is as senceless , and as great a contradiction to the nature and end of christian communion , as it would be to receive heathens , jews , mahometans into the christian church , by vertue of this negative belief . this i know he will not allow ; for he says , we are agreed in the other parts of our common christianity : whereas it is absolutely impossible , that we should agree in any thing , which is pure christianity , while we differ in the fundamental doctrines of the trinity and incarnation , the owning or denying of which makes an essential difference in religion . it alters the object of our worship , as much as the worship of one and of three persons in the godhead , and as much as the worship of a god incarnate , and of a deified meer man , differ . it alters the way of our salvation , as much as faith in the blood and sacrifice of the son of god , to expiate our sins , differs from believing a great and excellent prophet , and obeying his laws . it alters the motives and principles of our obedience , as much as the love of god , in giving his son , differs from his goodness in sending an excellent man to be our prophet and saviour ; as much as the love , humility , and condescension of the eternal son of god , in becoming man , and in dying as a sacrifice for our sins , differs from the love of a meer man , in preaching the gospel , and bearing testimony to it by his own blood. it changes the hopes and reliances of sinners , as much as the security of a meritorious sacrifice offered by the eternal son of god for the expiation of our sins , differs from the promises of an extraordinary man sent as a prophet from god ; and as much as the intercession of a high priest , who is the eternal son of god , and intercedes in the merits of his own blood , differs from the intercession of a meer , though of an excellent man , who has made no atonement for our sins , and has no other interest in god , than what an innocent and obedient man can pretend to . it were easie to enlarge on this argument ; but i have directed in the margin , where the reader may see it discoursed at large . now if this author , for these reasons , will allow us to instruct our people in the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation , and not desire us to receive socinians into our communion , he will do good service , if he can bring them to his negative belief , and perswade them to be silent ; if he can't , we will try to make them so in time , if they have wit enough to understand , when it is fit to be quiet . in the next place he takes sanctuary in the act of parliament in favour of dissenters , which he conceives has done very much , if not full enough . but had he considered , how severe this act is upon his beloved socinians , he might much better have let it alone . for no dissenters have any benefit by that act , who do not renounce socinianism : but he pretends to give account of acts of parliament , as he does of other books , without seeing them . but we may see what a hearty good will he has to the cause : if the act has excepted socinians , it is more than he knew , and more than he wished ; for he hoped it had not been done , and endeavoured to perswade the world , that all the bishops of england had allowed it ; for he cannot believe , that the body of the bishops disallowed , or did not with good liking consent to the act , viz. to give liberty to socinians , as he supposed . this is such a scandalous representation of the bishops of england , as i 'm sure , they don't deserve , and which in due time they may resent . and here , without any provocation , he sets up the authority of bishops , against the lower house of convocation , who never differed upon this point , and i hope never will , nor will ever be tempted by such a forward undertaker , to dispute the bounds of their authority , but content themselves with the ancient constitution of the church of england . but if he understands the practice of the primitive and truly apostolick church , which he threatens these unruly presbyters with , no better than he does k. edw. vi.'s reformation , which he supposes to be made by the body of the bishops , in opposition to the presbyters ( or else i know not how he applies it ) he is capable of doing no great good nor hurt . only i can tell him one thing , that had he fallen into the hands of k. edw.'s reforming bishops , they would have reformed him out of the church , or have taught him another sort of compassionate suit than this . he concludes with a heavy charge upon myself , and dr. wallis , ( for he mentions none else ) as if we had receded from the doctrine taught even in our own church , about the holy trinity . do we then deny , that there are three persons and one god ? no , our business is to prove it , and explain and vindicate it ? but he thinks we explain it otherwise , than it has been formerly explained . and yet that very account he gives us of it , out of mr. hooker , is owned by myself , and particularly explained by my hypothesis . he has given us no just occasion to vindicate ourselves , because he has not vouchsafed to tell us , why he dislikes either of us . he has cited some broken passages out of my vindication , about three eternal minds , which are essentially one eternal mind . and what is the hurt of this ? is not every divine person who is god , a mind , and an eternal mind ? is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the eternal and uncreated word and wisdom of god , an eternal and uncreated mind ? is not the substantial word and wisdom of god a mind ? is not the eternal spirit , which searcheth the deep things of god , as the spirit of a man knoweth the things of a man , a mind ? and if i can give any possible account , how three eternal minds should be essentially one , does not this at least prove , that there may be three divine persons , in the unity of the divine essence ? and should i have been mistaken in this account , as i believe i am not , must i therefore be charged with receding from the doctrine of the church of england ? as for dr. wallis , he has nothing to say against him , but his calling the divine persons somewhats , with which he has very profanely ridiculed the litany , which i gave an account before . and now can any man tell , what opinion this melancholy stander-by has of the doctrines of the trinity , and incarnation ? he dares not speak out , but gives very broad signs , what he would be at . he discourages all men from defending these doctrines , declares , that all new attempts cannot satisfie the old difficulties , which he declares to be unsatisfiable , and unsoluble : that when we have moved every stone , authority must define it . and yet this authority extends no farther than to a negative belief ▪ which , he says , is all that can reasonably be required of men , of such mysteries as they cannot understand : and thus far he professes himself bound by our church articles for peace sake . and this is his faith of the trinity , not to believe it , but only not to oppose it . he complains of the scholastick cramping terms of three persons , and one god , and thinks the unity of three persons in one essence , to be only a more orthodox phrase ; so that he leaves us no words to express this doctrine by , and therefore it is time to say nothing about it . it is a controversie which exposes our liturgy , and is not only unprofitable , but corruptive of , and prejudicial and injurious to our common devotion : so dangerous is it to pray to the holy , blessed , and glorious trinity , three persons and one god. but then on the other hand , he carefully practises that forbearance , which he perswades others to , towards his learned writers of the socinian controversies , tho' they were the assailants : never perswades them to forbear exposing and ridiculing the faith of the church , which would have provoked his indignation , had he any reverence for the holy trinity , and a god incarnate ; but only thinks by the charm of a negative faith , that they may be required quietly to acquiesce in the publick determinations . he tells us over and over , how unseasonable and dangerous it is to meddle with such high matters , or to offer at any explication of what is incomprehensible ; but it is no fault in them , to talk of absurdities and contradictions in what they do not understand : nay , he all along insinuates , that these absurdities and contradictions , which they charge upon the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation , are unsatisfiable , and unsoluble ▪ he bestows high encomiums upon these enemies of the faith , but speaks with wonderful contempt of those who defend it , as far as he dares ; the fathers and councils are out of his reach , but the master of the sentences , and the school-men , and all modern undertakers , must feel his displeasure : to defend the trinity exposes our liturgy , and corrupts our common devotion ; but to ridicule it , makes them very pious and devout men. god preserve his church from wolves in sheeps clothing . and now having vindicated our ancient rights and liberties , which the church always challenged , of defending the truly catholick and apostolick faith , from the assaults of hereticks , i shall apply myself , as i have leisure , to the defence of my vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god. the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59791-e290 earnest suit , p. 1. p. 2. p. 2. p. 3. p. 3. p. 16. p. 3. p. 4. p. 5 ▪ page 7. page 7. page 8. page 8. page 9. see the vindication of the defence of dr. stillingfleet's unreasonableness of separation , pag. 256 , &c. page 11. page 13. page 7. page 6. page 2. page 6. page 17. page 9 , 10. a sermon preached before the queen at white-hall, june 26, 1692 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 29 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59883 wing s3354 estc r11058 12032298 ocm 12032298 52769 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59883) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52769) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:17) a sermon preached before the queen at white-hall, june 26, 1692 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 30, [2] p. published for will. rogers ..., london : 1692. reproduction of original in huntington library. advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -sermons. bible. -o.t. -proverbs xviii, 14 -sermons. sermons, english -17th century. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-08 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-08 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached before the queen at vvhite-hall , iune 26. 1692. by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . publish'd by her majesties special command . london : printed for will. rogers , at the san over-against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcii . the dean of st. paul's sermon before the queen , june the 26th , 1692. prov . xviii . 14. the spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity , but a wounded spirit , who can bear ? one great objection against providence , is taken from the many evils and calamities which mankind suffer ; which would be a reasonable objection , were they more than are deserved , or more than are necessary for the wise government of the world . but besides other answers that may be given to it , the wise-man's observation in my text , furnishes us with two very plain answers . 1. that the sufferings of this life are not disproportioned to our strength to bear them ; and when afflictions and misfortunes are necessary to the wise government of the world , it is a sufficient vindication of providence , that god lays no more on us , than what the spirit of a man can bear ; the spirit of a man will sustain his infirmities . and 2dly , that the only evils that are intolerable and insupportable , are wholly owing to our selves ; and then we have no reason to quarrel at the divine providence , when god is more merciful to us , than we are to our selves . but a wounded spirit , who can bear ? for the explication and improvement of these words , i shall 1. enquire what is meant by sustaining infirmities . 2. by what means the spirit of a man can sustain his infirmities . 3. what is meant by a wounded spirit . 4. how unsupportable a wounded spirit is . 5. conclude with some practical inferences from the whole . 1. what is meant by sustaining infirmities : now infirmities in this place being opposed to a wounded spirit , must signifie only external sufferings , whatever is grievous and afflicting , excepting the disorders and troubles of our own minds . and by sustaining infirmities , is not meant , that we must not feel them , nor have any afflicting sense of them ; for the stoicks themselves would not say , that pain was not pain ; for then there would be no need of patience to bear it ; but that patience , if there be any such thing , can conquer pain . and therefore to sustain infirmities , is to feel , but not to sink under the weight of them ; as that man sustains his burden , who can go upright , and not stagger , at least not fall ; though he feels the weight of it on his shoulders : that is , he who can in any measure enjoy himself under suffering , does so far sustain it ; and the more perfectly we can enjoy our selves , though the brightness and gaiety of our spirits may be a little sullied and overcast , the more compleat and perfect is our conquest over all the calamities of life . 2dly . but the great enquiry is , how the spirit of a man can sustain his infirmities ; and that is done three ways : 1. by natural courage , and strength of mind . 2. by the powers of reason . 3. by the diviner aids and succours of religion . 1. natural courage , and strength of mind : a man of spirit thinks it a reproach to be easily disturbed and ruffled , to be put out of humour by every accident , to sink under the common calamities of life ; nay , to be wholly mastered by the most extraordinary and formidable events . there is an inbred greatness in human nature , which does not care to confess its own weakness , which will not yield , or submit , or own a conquest ; an untaught courage , which supports the rude and illiterate part of mankind , even without reason and discourse ; which is improved by a sense of honour in men of fortune , increases by exercise and discipline , by hard labour , and difficult trials , and is lost by ease and luxury , and softness , which makes the mind as tender as the body , to feel all the vicissitudes of fortune , as a crazy and distempered body does the change of weather . god has put a spirit into man , which can bear his infirmity ; and if we have it not , it is our own fault . 2dly . the spirit of a man sustains his infirmities by the power of reason , which adds to our natural courage , gives us a more confirmed sense of decency and honour , teaches us the true value of things , quiets our passions , undeceives our abused imaginations , convinces us that some fancied evils are none at all , others not so great as we thought , and that the worst condition has its allays , which make it tolerable to a wise and good man. i am far from thinking , that the mere power of natural reason , and moral arguments , is able to support us under all events , much less , that the arguments of the heathen philosophers , though they said a great many wise and good things , were sufficient to this purpose ; but yet it is certain , that reason is the strength of the mind , and it is the mind which must bear up under external sufferings ; and it is as certain , that nature furnishes us with a great many arguments to bear them easily without fainting : as for instance : we must consider the state of the world , which is in a continual flux and motion , and does not long shew the same face of things ; that the various lusts and passions of men among whom we live , will create a great deal of trouble to us ; and that our mortal bodies are liable to pain and hunger , and many calamities . this is the state of all mankind in this world ; and if after all , it be desirable to live , to come into , and to continue in this world , upon these terms , we must make the best of our condition , and bear our sufferings patiently , and not repine , if we escape as well as the generality of mankind : in such a state of life we must not promise to our selves a compleat and undisturbed happiness ; for then we must be disappointed , and be very uneasie and impatient at such a disappointment ; but we must expect to suffer more or less , and that will make us think we escape well , when our sufferings are but light ; and teach us to arm our selves against those which are greater with courage and patience . thus a wise man sees through the frightful or flattering disguises of things , and judges by nature , not by fancy and opinion ; and then he finds no mighty reason to be disturbed about many things , which are judged and resented as great calamities by unthinking men. reason teaches them , that nature is contented with a little , and that poor men enjoy themselves , and have their pleasures and satisfactions , as well as the rich ; and therefore poverty without pressing wants , is not so great an evil , as it is thought by some men : and then it can be no intolerable evil neither , to fall from a high and prosperous fortune to a meaner state. reason teaches them , that a good man , who is conscious to himself of his own vertue and integrity , ought not to be concerned for unjust reproaches , which are the effects of ignorance or malice . that undeserved honours , unjust praises and commendations are only the entertainments of fools ; and that unjust reproaches ought not to put wise men out of countenance . and thus it is in other cases ; there is a vast difference between the natures of things , and mens opinions ; and were our passions and resentments governed by reason , and proportioned to the nature of things , not to the opinions of men about them , it would make our condition in this world much more easie and tolerable . but i cannot now particularly shew you all the variety of arguments , whereby men may support themselves under several calamities of life ; it is sufficient to my present purpose , that reason gives a new strength and vigour to the spirit of a man to sustain his infirmities . thirdly , but the greatest supports of all , are the arguments religion furnishes us with ; as to name but two at present . 1. that whatever we suffer is not the effect of a blind chance , or fatal necessity , but is ordered by a wise and good providence . 2. that if we bear our present sufferings with patience and submission to the will of god , and make a wise use of them to our improvement in grace and vertue , our very sufferings shall be greatly rewarded in the next world. these two principles are the foundations of all religion , and as certain as any thing in religion ; all other arguments without this belief cannot support us , and there are no sufferings too great for a man to bear , who is throughly possessed with a firm belief and vigorous sense of these . can we our selves , or the kindest friend in the world , chuse better for us than god ? do we suspect his wisdom , or his goodness ? can he mistake our condition , who knows our frame ? can he be wanting in his care of us , or in good will to us , who made us ? what is it we desire , but to be happy ? and if god intends our happiness in his severest corrections , why should we complain ? religion teaches us , that the care of our souls is of much greater concernment to us than bodily ease or pleasure ; and if god sees pain and sickness , poverty and disgrace , necescessary to cure , or restrain our vicious and distempered passions , or to improve and exercise our graces , have we any reason to complain that god takes such severe methods to save our souls ? had we rather be miserable for ever , than suffer some present want and pain ? the soul is the best part of man ; and to take care of a man , is to improve his better part ; and this is the design of god's providence towards particular men , to train them up to vertue by such methods of kindness or severity , as he sees them want . this i confess may be very grievous and afflicting at present , but then we have the hopes of immortal life to support us ; and can that man be miserable , can he sink under present sufferings , who has the hope of immortal life , as the anchor of the soul , both sure and stedfast ? to believe , that all things at present are intended for our good , and shall work together for our good , if we love god ; and that when we have out-rid the storms of this world , by faith , and patience , and hope , these light afflictions , which are but for a moment , shall work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory : this , if any thing , will make all the sufferings of this life easie : if natural courage , or natural reason fail , the spirit of a man , supported by religion , will sustain his infirmity . thirdly , let us now consider what is meant by a wounded spirit : this is a metaphorical expression , and signifies a spirit which suffers pain and trouble . a wound in the body , is a division of one part from another , which is always painful ; and tho a spirit cannot be thus divided , yet because a wound causes pain ; a spirit which is disordered , and suffers pain , is said to be wounded : as for instance , some mens spirits are wounded with the disorders and violence of their own passions ; they love , or hope , or fear , or desire , or grieve immoderately ; and all passions are very painful , when they are in excess . upon this account the wicked are said to be like a troubled sea when it cannot rest , whose waters cast up mire and dirt : there is no peace , saith my god , to the wicked . other mens spirits are wounded with a sense of guilt ; their own consciences reproach and shame them , and threaten the vengeance of god against them ; they have gratified their lust , or revenge , their ambition , or covetousness ; and dreamt of nothing but ease and pleasure ; the temptation was very charming as it came towards them , but now the heat and impetus is allay'd , and the enjoyment over , they can't reveiw what they have done , without horror ; their affrighted consciences draw the most amazing scenes of judgment , and paint their fancies with all the blackest images of terror ; the sinners of sion are afraid , fear hath surpriz'd the hippocrites , who shall dwell with devouring fire , who shall dwell with everlasting burnings ? 3dly , this is the wounded spirit , and such a wounded spirit , who can bear ? this is matter of sense , and therefore for the proof of it , we must appeal to the sense of mankind ; and there is no danger in this appeal ; for though some men may scorn to confess , what they feel , yet if all mens minds be of a make , we can feel in our selves , what other men feel : and then we all know , that anger when it grows immoderate , and encreases into rage and fury , worries the mind , and sharpens it self into such a keenness , as cuts deep into our own souls ; that an immoderate love of riches or honours or pleasures creates us infinite trouble , torments with an impatient thirst , with restless and uneasie expectations , distracts us between hopes and fears , kills with delays and disappointments ; and there are but few men , who can long dissemble their inward pain and uneasiness , but confess it in their looks , and words , and behaviour , by external and visible symptoms of frenzy and distraction . and yet all this is nothing to the agonies of a guilty mind , as any man must confess who knows what it is to be self-condemned , and to live under the apprehensions of god's wrath , and the terrible expectations of endless torments ; for with what courage and patience can any man bear such a thought as this , that he must be miserable for ever ? some men may laugh away the thoughts of hell , but it is certain , that no man who believes in good earnest , that there is a hell , and that he himself is in the most apparent danger of falling into it , that can bear this thought : the many sad examples of despairing sinners , who at the last moment groan out their souls in agonies and horrors , are an undeniable proof of this . men who do not believe a hell may laugh at it , till they feel it ; but for experiments sake let them only suppose that there were a hell , and that hell were to be their portion , and then let them tell me , how they can bear such a thought . this is sufficient to satisfie us , how unsupportable a wound spirit is , but to give us a deeper and more lasting sense of it , i shall further observe , that a wounded spirit has no refuge or retreat , has nothing left to support it self with . the spirit of a man can bear his infirmities , but when the spirit it self is wounded , there is nothing to support that ; this wounds our courage , our reason , makes all external comforts tastless , and deprives us of all the comforts of religion . for 1st . what courage can any man have against himself , against the wounds and disorders of his own mind ? courage is nothing else , but a firmness of mind to govern its own resentments and passions ; to suffer pain , and reproach , and other evils without immoderate grief , and to encounter dangers without an amazing fear ; but when the mind it self is oppressed with grief and fears and cares , the disease which courage should prevent has already seized the spirits . courage fortifies us against external evils to keep them at a distance from wounding our spirits , but the disorders of our own passions are inward wounds , which we must feel and languish under . when our own consciences reproach , chide , and threaten us , the good opinion and courtships of the world cannot defend us from our selves , we cannot stop our ears against it , we cannot harden our selves against its terrors , it is a domestick fury , which when it is provoked and awakened , will be heard , and will make us tremble , will make us judge and condemn our selves , and begin our own torments in frightful horrors and agonies of mind . 2dly , whereas reason can fortifie the mind against all external calamities , when our spirits are wounded , that little reason we have left proves our tormentor . when we are under the transports of violent and disorderly passions , reason can't be heard , or is bribed by passion to justifie its own excesses . wise counsels are lost on such men , as much as a lecture of philosophy would be in the noise and distraction of an alarm or battel . what a sullen and obstinate thing is grief ! how does it pore on its own misfortune , nourish its disease , and despise all arts of diversion , that it is commonly above the cure of any thing but time , which weakens the impression , or tires men with their own complaints . when our consciences are wounded with guilt , this arms all the reason we have against us , for reason in such cases can never be on our side ; then reason discovers our shame and danger , aggravates our sins , and many times drives such awaken'd sinners into the very horrors of dispair , disputes against the possibility of their pardon , and blots their names out of all the promises of the gospel , how large and universal soever they be . the guides of souls , who are always consulted upon such occasions , ( how much soever they are despised at other times ) could tell a great many sad stories of this kind , enow to convince sinners , that even wit and reason is a very dangerous enemy , when a guilty conscience turns the edge of it against our selves . 3dly , when there is no ease and comfort within , there is no other remedy , but to seek for support and comfort from abroad ; and there are a great many pretty diversions in the world to entertain men , who are at leisure to attend them , but these are no entertainments to a wounded spirit . when men are galled by their own passions , by fear , emulation , jealousie , discontent , in the very midst of laughter the heart is sorrowful . as great as haman was , all his riches and power availed him nothing , while he saw mordecai the jew sitting at the kings gate , 5 esth. 13. the good things of this world are very considerable , when there is an easie and cheerful mind to enjoy them ; but they cannot make a man easie and happy , whose mind is disturbed ; they may entertain an easie mind , but cannot quiet the tumults and disorders of passions , nor give any ease to a wounded spirit . much less can external things appease the horrors of a guilty conscience . away all ye vain delights will such a man say , what have i to do with pleasure , when torments , everlasting torments , must be my portion ? why do ye tell me of riches and honours , when the great god is my enemy , when i am despised and abhorred of my maker , and am thought worthy of no better portion than eternal flames ? i am not at leisure to attend the flattering courtships of this world ; my thoughts are taken up with a more dreadful prospect of things to come . o eternity , eternity , the never-dying worm , the never-dying death ! 4thly , nor can a wounded spirit find any support from the considerations of religion , unless it find its cure there . if the belief of a divine providence and another world can cure our love to present things , it will give us quiet and easie passions too , but without this a wounded and distemper'd spirit will reproach god as well as men , and rage against heaven it self ; like that wicked king , this evil is of the lord , why should i wait on the lord any longer ? as solomon observes , the foolishness of man perverteth his ways , and his heart fretteth against the lord. if the fear of god , and of those punishments he has threatned against sin , makes us true and sincere penitents , conquers our vicious habits , and reforms our lives , this is such a wounded spirit , as god will bind up again , such a broken and contrite heart as god will not despise ; but the thoughts of god and of a future judgment are very terrible to impenitent sinners . it is a dreadful prospect to look into the other world , and to see those lakes of fire and brimstone , prepared for the devil and his angels . and this is all that bad men can see in the next world. thus we see how supportable all external evils and calamities are , how insupportable a wounded spirit is ; and the comparing these two cases will suggest some very useful thoughts to us . as , first , this is a great vindication of the providence of god , with respect to those evils and calamities that are in the world. sufferings are very necessary in this corrupt and degenerate state of mankind , but though god sees it necessary to punish sinners , yet he has made abundant provision to support us under all external sufferings : he inflicts nothing on us , but what the spirit of a man can sustain , and support it self under ; but our greatest sufferings are owing to our selves , and no more chargeable on the providence of god than our sins are . nothing that is external can hurt us , while our minds are sound and healthful , but it is only a disordered or guilty mind which gives a sting to afflictions : god corrects in measure , as we are able to bear , but we our selves tye the knots , or add the scorpions to the scourge ▪ secondly ▪ this greatly recommends the divine wisdom , in that provision god has made for our support under sufferings . as , 1st , since the generality of mankind were not likely to prove any great philosophers , god hath bestowed on them such a measure of natural courage , as will bear afflictions better than the reason and philosophy of more thinking men , and we may generally observe , that those who make the least use of their reason , and have the least share of external comforts , have the greatest portion of this untaught courage , because they need it most . 2. god has provided the greatest supports for the best men . those who use their reason , and examine the nature of things , will more easily bear poverty , and disgrace , and such other evils , than men who judge by opinion and popular mistakes . those who live by reason , and govern their sensual appetites and inclinations , and use the things of this world , so as not to be mastered by them , retain that courage and strength of mind , which is lost by softness and effeminacy . but a truly devout man , who believes the wisdom and goodness of providence , and the rewards of the next life has the greatest support of all . whereas an impenitent sinner , who wounds his conscience with guilt , and an atheist , who believes neither a god nor a providence , have nothing but sottishness and stupidity to support them ; and could things be better ordered for the encouragement of virtue and religion . good men , whatever their condition be , have the advantage of the wicked , even as to this present life ; they may be easie , and enjoy themselves in all conditions , for god has provided for their present support ; but if bad men be sufferers , they have nothing to support them ; and though they be prosperous , they feel such disorders of passions , or such guilty fears , as sowre all their other enjoyments . 3. god has so wisely ordered things , that we cannot support our selves under sufferings without making a wise and good use of them ; for the best arguments to comfort us under sufferings , will afford us no comfort unless they make us better . it is a great comfort that afflictions are appointed by a wise and good god : but he who considers this , will naturally inquire into the reason , why god strikes , will search and try his way and turn unto the lord , will hear the rod and who it is , that hath appointed it . that afflictions are ordered for our good will make us endeaveour to reap the spiritual benefit of them : for that afflictions are useful is no comfort at all , unless we make a wise use of them ; unless they bring forth the peaceable fruits of righteousness . no man can take comfort in the rewards of the next world , without bearing his sufferings well in this ; for our sufferings will have no reward , unless they make us better ; unless they purifie our minds , and exercise our faith and patience and submission to the will of god. 3dly , i observe , that it is better to suffer then to sin even with respect to our present ease , because sufferings may be born by an innocent and vertuous mind , but guilt inflicts an unsupportable wound upon the spirit , and those sufferings which the spirit of a man can bear , are rather to be chosen , than what the spirit of a man cannot bear . lastly , i observe , that the government of our own passions contributes more to our happiness than any external enjoyments . while our minds are disordered with violent and tumultuous passions we can never be easie and happy , whatever else we enjoy : for this gives such a wound to the spirits , as no external enjoyments can heal : but he who has his passions under government , who knows how to love and fear and desire and hope , though he may be a great sufferer , can never be miserable , because he can support himself under all other sufferings . what a wrong course then do the generality of mankind take to make themselves happy : they seek for happiness without , when the foundation of happiness must be laid within , in the temper and disposition of our minds . an easie quiet mind will weather all the storms of fortune ; but how calm and serene soever the heavens be , there is no peace to the wicked , who have nothing but noise and tumult and confusion within . to god the father , god the son , and and god the holy ghost , be honour , glory , and power now and for ever , amen . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. pauls , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . an answer to a discourse , entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . second edition . 4to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . 4to . a sermon at the funeral of the reverend benjamin calamy , d. d. 4to . a vindication of some protestant principles and church-unity and catholick-communion from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . 4to . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts with the vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . 4to . a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. 4to . a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor , and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday november 4th . 1688. 4to . a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god , &c. the second edition . 4to . the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers stated and resolved according to scripture , reason , and the principles of the church of england . sixth editior . quarto . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers , &c. quarto . a sermon preached at whitehall before the queen , on the 17th . of iune , 1691. being the fast-day . quarto . a practical discourse concerning death . the fifth edition . octavo . a practical discourse concerning a future judgment . second edition . octavo . a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons at st. margarets westminster , ianuary 30th . 1691 / 2. quarto . a sermon preached before the queen at whitehall , febr. 12. 1691 / 2. quarto . the charity of lending without usury , and the true notion of usury stated , in a sermon preach'd before the right honourable the lord mayor at st. bridget's church , on tuesday in easter-week , 1692. quarto . a sermon preached at the temple-church , may 29th . 1692. and printed at the desire of the bench-table of the honourable society of the inner-temple . quarto . printed for w. rogers . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59883-e240 non ego dolorem , dolorem esse nego , cur enim fortitudo desideraretur , sed eum opprimi dico pationtia , si modo est aliqua patientia . cicer. observations upon mr. johnson's remarks, upon dr. sherlock's book of non-resistance sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1689 approx. 43 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 12 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59833 wing s3305 estc r9591 12029879 ocm 12029879 52740 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59833) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52740) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:8) observations upon mr. johnson's remarks, upon dr. sherlock's book of non-resistance sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 21 p. [s.n.], london : 1689. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng johnson, samuel, 1649-1703. -remarks upon dr. sherlock's book, intituled the case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved. obedience. divine right of kings. allegiance -great britain. nonjurors. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo and andrew kuster sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo and andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion observations upon mr. johnson's remarks , upon dr. sherlock's book of non-resistance . 1 samuel , chap. 26. verse 16. this thing is not good that ye have done , as the lord liveth ye are worthy to dye , because ye have not kept your master the lord 's anointed . london , printed in the year , 1689. observations upon the preface to mr. johnson's remarks , upon dr. sherlock's book of non-resistance . mr. johnson , my former knowledge of your person and manner of conversation , raised my desire of reading your life of julian , and the little piece you have since published against the learned dr. sherlock , and both together have confirmed me in this opinion , that you are certainly next mr. oats the fittest person in the world to write the life of julian , having so exactly transcrib'd it in your own , he being that to the catholick church , what you have so industriously approv'd your self to the church of england , a perfidious apostat . you are pleased to call your little book ( and such it is upon more accounts than one ) remarks upon dr. sherlock's book of non-resistance , and remarks indeed they are , but such as our young trifling novices , make in their journies through france or italy , which have no other effect upon a wise reader than to persuade a belief they have been there ▪ and scarcely that : they are such remarks as would tempt a man to think you were retain'd on both sides , or at least were in fee with your adversary , or bribed by a partial affection to his person and reputation ; but this conjecture you can easily confute . you are pleas'd to tell us ( page the 25th ) that you would run over all the doctors scripture proofs ( in the excellent management of which lies the strength of the cause , and the learning of the author ) whereas you have taken no notice of any more than two , and only nibled at them without any impression or hurt , but with what ingenuity is not easily comprehended , much less justifi'd without your old friend 's secret against blushing : and thus you have indeed rid your hands easily of the bafled cause of non-resistance ; which , if it receive no deeper wound than those your feeble passes yet have made , will outlive your forward triumphs , and conquer , as much as it despises , the insolence that fools and knaves have treated it withall ; a doctrine that commenc'd together with religion either jew or christian , ( as the pious and learned archbishop usher has irrefragably prov'd . ) a doctrine that shall know no end , but when all things must confess their ashes , and then it shall be swallowed up in the glorious rewards of confessors and martyrs . but you are pleas'd to give us another reason for publishing your book , that is , to offer your service to some men's new-fashioned loyalty , which , you say , must be adopted church of england doctrine too , as well as the other : this indeed gave me great hopes of finding from so clear a casuist , and so moderate a man , irresistible satisfaction of its being my duty to take the new-oaths , which piece of service would have bound me over to as great gratitude , as can be supposed due to the charitable and seasonable preserver of my little all i have in this world : but if instead of offering one single reason evincing the duty and obligation to take this oath ; you have advanced two or three considerably cogent reasons why i should not , then i hope the government will allow your argument in some abatement to the guilt , whatever they do to the punishment of my non-complyance ; for all good men fear the guilt more than they do the punishment , and this you have done as appears by what you tell us ( page the 55 ) no man can authorise himself ; if so , i desire you to tell us by what authority this new-oath is imposed ; for the compilers of this law either do authorise themselves , or else they receive their authority aliunde ; if the first , you have already determin'd against them ; if the second , pray shew us from whence ; taking this of our saviour along with you , if i bear testimony of my self , my testimony is not true . but in the second place you tell us , that king william is the rightfullest king that ever sat upon the english throne : when in that very breath you defeat the right you would maintain , and are a very traytor to the title you would advance ; and i am content with you never to desire a greater advantage than to reduce my adversary to this absurdity , of making no difference betwixt a title and no title , which is a rowland for the oliver you gave the doctor ; law and no law : and that you have done this appears thus ; if king william be the rightfullest king that ever sat upon the throne of england , then no king ever ascended the throne by the same right , and by the same hands that he does ; for every king that came by it as he does , was just as rightful a king as he is , and then consequently he is not the rightfullest : well then , if no king was ever plac'd upon the throne by the same hand and right as he , then it is very plain he can have no right at all by the common law of england ; for common law is common usage , and sure that 's a strange common usage , that cannot shew one president ; one example at least to warrant it , which your assertion plainly supposes and acknowledges : well then , besides the common law , england knows no other but that we call the statute-law , and by that he has no title , or else the convention did him a great deal of wrong , for they never declared the right to be his by succession , but by their donation : thus you defend the present title , just as you guided your unfortunate masters conscience and honour , by betraying both ; and if king william had no better title than what in this preface you have given him , he neither could nor would expect to be obeyed ; and now if any of my brethren should look upon our obligation to complyance to be less than it was before , through the insufficiency of the arguments you have produced in its behalf , you will be responsible to us for our livings , and to his majesty for the withdrawing the service of so many men of our condition ; for i am morally certain that were these words of yours ( king william is the rightfullest king that ever sat upon the english throne ) inserted , and made a part of the oath , there would not have have been found in the whole nation , as bad as it is , an hundred men of your swallow ; i am very well satisfied that the government is not so unreasonable ( however you represent them , ) as not to be glad that , the whole body of the clergy were satisfied as well as themselves ; and i hope you are not one of those malicious blades that would insinuate , as if this new act were made only to revenge the bartholomew act in 62 , and wish it might have the same effect ; yet you have given us a very fair specimen of your hatred to the present government , since you could never have wish'd for a more sweet , or taken a more effectual revenge than you have done , by turning such an hebrew advocate in their behalf ; methinks 't is great pity there is no law obliging all men to hang the keys of their consciences at your girdle ! and as it is to be hoped they will chastise the maliciously affected weakness of your defence , so it were seriously to be wish'd , that before the time comes , they would provide us some learned and conscientious casuist , that might be able by the conviction of scripture , reason and law , to promote those good inclinations we in the presence of god sincerely profess to have of living under our superiours , a sober and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty . and i do promise in my own , and ( as i believe i may ) in the name of all my brethren , that are yet unsatisfied , that our refusal to comply shall lie no longer hid in lurking scruples , and reasons best known to our selves ( as you out of your abundant charity would insinuate ) than till our superiours shall be pleased with indemnity to allow us to bring them forth , ( for though truth never seeks , it may be driven into corners ) to men of their own nomination and appointment , with an obligation to the severest penalties , if we can be prov'd to have divulg'd them any farther . therefore all the spiteful flourishes you make in the 2d . page of your preface , and the malicious as well as silly questions that you ask , are but so many instances of your natural incivility and rudeness towards us , as well as of an ungentile insolence in provoking him whose hands are tyed , which is very true in reference to the danger he must lye under , who dares be so hardy as to answer your questions , which yet i my self dare engage to do upon good security of freedom and indemnity , and to back those answers with such reasons as shall ensure me the priviledge of being ( for you ) unanswerable , or else i will forfeit my head where yours is due : you need not wonder at this caution in me ( in whom it is too seldom a fault ) who am not now to be told the danger of making my tongue or my pen too familiar with my thoughts ; i am not so much in love with jayls , and pilloreis , and whipping-posts , as needlesly to court mr. colliers first answer , or the no less pennance of reading his second ; besides mr. oats and your self have given us a fair instance what ineffectual methods those are of reducing men to sobriety ; if ever such or greater punishments should be our lot , our prayers are that god would enable us to bear them with such magnanimity , meekness , and resignation , as becomes those who profess the doctrine of passive obedience , taught and practised by christ and his apostles , the primitive and the best reformed christians ; but surely god has a very great controversie with this nation of ours , surely our sins are ripe for the severest judgments ; the land is divided into two extreme sinful parts , one by our sins are fitted to suffer under the doctrine of resistance ; others sinful enough to be permitted to preach , believe and prosecute it : i meekly thank god , that though my sins are strangely great , and deserve more than i can suffer , yet he hath not given me up to the latter judgment of teaching it , and i trust he never will. indeed mr. johnson , your apparently contrary behaviour in the very subject matter of this discourse , has not been so amiable and inviting as to render it exemplary , but has rather prejudic'd and hinder'd that enforcement , which your suffering name and fallacious reasons might otherwise have given it : no good christian can approve , or indeed with patience hear , and no crown'd head will endure your barbarous usage of king james , in which you have out-done your own forgeries and ill pack'd stories in your life of julian . is it thus that you curse not the king , no not in your heart ? is it thus that you commit your self and your cause to him that judgeth righteously ? is it thus that you heap coals of fire upon the head of your enemy ? and do you thus overcome evil with good ? no , no , the apparent marks of an unchristian resentment , and an ungenerous revenge make up the whole contexture of your preface , and by this means you have under your own hand renounc'd to the merits of your sufferings , forefaulted your right of compensation , abdicated your religion together with your king , and sign'd a kind of posthumous apology for your judges , and almost justify'd the inhumanity of your sentence . you say ( page the sixth of your preface ) that if king james had been a rightful king when he took possession of the crown ( as he was not but a publick enemy ) he has since that time broken the fundamental contract : in these words there is one of the boldest and most notorious falshoods that ever was broach'd , for he was certainly rightful king after the death of his brother , even though your malicious insinuation from his outliving him , had ( which it has not ) either weight or truth in it : the very votes of both houses of convention acknowledge so much when they insisted upon the abdication , without ever calling his title into question ; besides if he had no right to succeed in the throne , your lord and the other gentlemen of the exclusion were much in the wrong ; had you made as much appear then , as you confidently assert now , you had sav'd the two houses a great many angry debates , and the important fortress of tangier had been still in our hands , and undemolished ; and the lower house knew the importance of that place very well when they set the bill of exclusion upon it's head as the price of its relief or redemption rather ; and what necessity there was to shut out by law , one that by law had no right to come in , surpasses my discerning : yet farther , you prayed for him as king as oft as you did your duty in reading common-prayer ; now men of mettle are seldom hypocrites , and i cannot persuade my self you could in your prayers to god acknowledge him to be king , whom in your conscience you did not think rightfully and lawfully to be king : all prevarication is disengenuous and cannot become a christian , much less one that waits at the altar , and still less in the service of god ; so that this consequence is self-evident , either you were a hypocrite then , or worse now : as for what you say of his being excluded by three successive houses of commons , you might as well have told us that he was excluded by the diet at ratisbone , or the swiss cantons , for their power was as great to exclude him as that of the commons of england alone without the consent of the king and lords : you have made as much of it as the case will bear , when you tell us it was a caveat , and i suppose you know the nature of a caveat so well as not to stand in need of information what manner of treatment they commonly meet with in all places where they are entred . page the 11th . you say , the oath of allegiance is the counterpart of the coronation oath , and that it is of the nature of covenants , and that it is a conditional oath . now if all this could be substantially prov'd , it would go a great way towards a conviction of those whose consciences ( for want of information in this very point ) will not give them leave to take the new oath : now i could tell you this looks very like begging the question , or at least a haughty imposition of your sentiments upon other men , having not been pleased to produce one medium to prove so great an assertion by , but you pronounce magisterially your opinion and expect all your readers should subscribe to you , as to an infallible dictator ; but when we took that priviledge from the old gentleman at rome we did not intend to naturalize it at home , we have long since emancipated our selves from that piece of slavery , and are something unwilling to be brought again under the same yoke of bondage we so effectually cast off ; nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri , is our motto , and whatsoever conceit you may have of your own authority , you must not expect the same extravagant civility should be paid it by other men ; you have given us but too just a cause to examine a little narrowly into the very best reasons you have yet thought fit to produce , and having not found them sterling , you must not take it ill if we bring the rest to the touchstone . how pitifully you trifle with us in this paragraph with a silly instance of a master and an apprentice , where you wisely suppose the master to turn his apprentice out of doors , and yet expect the performance of his service ; did king james ever banish any man to mevis or the barbadoes , and yet at the same time expect his attendance , either in the court or camp ; or did he commit any clerk to jayl , and then punish him for non-residence ? your instances and your arguments are all of a piece , and you have very ill luck with both ; had you prov'd that a son's obedience to his father had held no longer than pater se bene gesserit , and then constituted the son the judge of his fathers good or male-administration ; or that the wife was discharged of her subjection to her husband , if she can plead actions of unkindness against him , then you had done something to the purpose , then you might have confuted the apostle and passive obedience , which have taught submission not only to the good and gentle , but also to the froward ; then you might have boldly deny'd the happiness the apostle tells us shall be the reward of them who suffer patiently in and for well-doing , since according to you , no man ought to suffer any longer than till he can either hinder or revenge his sufferings : i always thought religion had been intended to restrain and correct our unruly passions , not to give up the reins and let them loose ; such doctrine is neither the wisdom nor the peace that comes from above , nor the way thither , but comes from below , and is earthly , sensual , devilish . you tell us pag. 11 & 12 you are able to prove that the oath of allegiance taken to a tyrant , would be a void unlawful and wicked oath ; void , because it is an obligation to obedience according to law , which a tyrant makes it his business to destroy , so that it is swearing to things inconsistent ; unlawful , because the english constitution will not admit such a person to be king , it knows no king but such as can do no wrong ; wicked , because it strengthens his hands in the destruction of our countrey , so far you : now this needs only to be twice read to shew the absurdity , the weakness and the malice of it , especially if you design the application ( as by the drift of your discourse appears you do ) to be made to king james , and to all that swore allegiance to him , but especially to them ( if any such there be ) who think themselves still bound by that oath ; for we who swore allegiance to him at his first coming to the crown , did it to a king not to a tyrant ; nay , it was almost impossible he should be a tyrant when some of us took those oaths , unless susceptio coronae facit tyrannum , which for some body's sake i know you won't aver : he had then but just begun his reign , and had given us assurance of his intentions to govern according to law : nay , even they who swore allegiance to him after he had begun to break his word , and had made some inroads upon property and religion , still swore to a king and not to a tyrant ; for it would be a very difficult task even for you ( whose hatred to his person has given you the pen of a ready writer ) to assign by what individual action he commenc'd tyrant , and the very moment wherein he ceas'd to be king : vertue and vice dwell in each others neighbourhood , and their boundaries are to be distinguished by every eye : yet farther , what though my oath of allegiance be an obligation of obedience according to law ? and what though the king to whom i swear goes about to destroy the law ? is therefore my swearing allegiance to him , swearing to things inconsistent ? by no means : am i bound by that oath to be one of his instruments that shall help him to subvert the law , and enslave my fellow subjects ? or am i perjured if i refuse ? by no means ; i am indeed if i resist : and thus you may easily see the bafled doctrine of passive obedience would have found out an excellent medium betwixt these two , to suffer when according to conscience ( and that i will allow to be directed by law ) i can do no longer the pleasure of my king ; thus an oath to a king who afterwards proves a tyrant , is not void , because it is not swearing to things inconsistent . next you say , an oath of allegiance sworn to a tyrant is unlawful , and for so saying you give this merry reason , because the english constitution admits no such person to be king ; which takes away the very subject matter of our dispute ; for if this tyrant can be no king , i am as sure that no king can be no tyrant ; there can be no oath of allegiance sworn in a monarchy but to the king : so for once you are in the right ; for nullius juramenti nulla est obligatio . lastly you say , an oath of allegiance sworn to a tyrant is wicked , and for this reason , because it strengthens his hands in the destruction of our countrey : which i flatly deny , because ( as i told you before ) there is a medium betwixt a sinful obedience to an unlawful command , and perjury , which is passive obedience ; but that medium you don't love , and therefore won't admit it . again you say , as soon as the realm has declared him a tyrant , our oath of allegiance becomes void , but for what reason , according to what law , and by what authority , some body else must tell , for you cannot : what you say in this is gratis dictum , and must be swallowed upon your sole authority ; but that i do and always shall except against as insufficient , even if it could not be suspected of partiality , as in this last it vehemently is : pray what authority have you to affirm , which your readers have not to deny ? but your next is a delicate flight in these words , speaking about the oath of allegiance sworn to king james , an oath which ought not to have been made , and is now as if it never had been made , which was ill made , and would be worse kept , i suppose , than it was made ; now there seems no other answer required to this but a little of your own jargon , which a friend of mine has done to my hands — when a corder a cording , encord's him a cord , in cording that cord , he three cords doth encord ; but if one of the cords that encordeth , uncord , then the cord that uncordeth , uncordeth the cord. but to be serious , though it be very difficult amidst such stuff as this , let me ask you , do you seriously believe , that the oath of allegiance made to king james did never bind ? whom do you arraign when you say that oath ought never to have been made ? did he make or enact it himself ? or was it not made and enforced in the good days of queen elizabeth , and his grandfather king james the first ? or was the exacting that oath any part of the accusation laid to the charge of charles the martyr ? or did the bloody preachers of your doctrine of resistance in those days suppress any of his crimes out of a tender regard to his person or credit ? besides you say , it was ill made and would be worse kept , without considering the strange incongruity of that expression ; indeed a thing that is ill made may be ill kept , but how that which is ill made can be worse kept , i find not ; the guilt of keeping , must bear proportion to the guilt of making a law , because the effect must be commensurate to the cause ; and though the stream may fall lower , it cannot naturally rise higher than the fountain ; so that we who believe our selves under an obligation to keep it , are for so doing just as guilty ( and no more ) as those parliaments that made it : if then it was lawfully imposed , and lawfully taken ; then as there needs no angel to oblige us to keep it , ( our obligation arising from a greater authority than theirs , ) so none of that glorious order either can or will oblige us to break it , for they are the ministers of good , not evil . you say , page the 13th . the maxim of those you are pleased to call male-contents , is better popery than perjury . if my perfect agreement to the truth of that proposition will render me a male-content , i am and shall be , i hope , one all the days of my life ; nay , i will go one step farther , if there be any thing on this side hell worse than popery , i had rather it should befall me , than that it should be kept out , or prevented by any unlawful , unjust , or wicked means of mine whatever ; believe me , he is either a mean scholar in religion , or a very bold man that dares say god stands in need of our vertues ; but he must be a man of a more than ordinary assurance ( of your mettle , ) that dares say god stands in need of our vices . — si pergama dextra defendi possint , etiam hac defensa fuissent . with his own right hand , and with his holy arm , he can get himself the victory : if he sees it good for us to enjoy the blessing of a publick and free exercise of our religion ; he can do it without any offence or fault of ours at all ; but if not , we have been always taught , and will constantly maintain and teach , that we are in no case to do evil , that good may come of it ; not to break gods laws , to maintain his worship ; not to turn bankrupts to loyalty , to drive the greater trade in religion ; not to shake hands with the gospel , to take the firmer hold of christ ; not to forsake the church of england , to secure the reformation ; not to bring in a bill of exclusion of the next rightful heir , to secure an hereditary monarchy ; not to think the observation of the second and fourth , a valuable composition for the breach of the fifth and tenth commandments ; these are slow hebrew methods of divinity to me ; as if all religion were analytical , and the only way of progression in christianity , were to be retrograde in the duties of it : for what good can our religion do us , when we defend it by means that dishonour both it , and its author ? you desire us to remember that the popery and the perjury have gone always together , and have always been both of a side ; i agree with you entirely as to this matter ; and i have long fear'd the coming in of popery , and i thank you for discovering from what quarter we are to expect it ; i have in all places , and upon every fair opportunity freely declared , that popery could never come into england , unless carried upon protestants shoulders , and the four last years reign has not in the least confuted , but confirm'd and strengthned that opinion : alas ! what a silly poor feeble thing is popery in its proper colours ? how easily was it driven out without a blow ? did we not laugh at and despise , the reverse of fabius's wisdom manifested in their no less foolish than hasty and forward methods to bring popery in ? when all the protestants in the world could not have taken a more effectual course ( than themselves did ) to keep it out : but popery in its borrowed light confesses anack , whilst we protestants by our divisions lend it fatal colours , and a gigantick proportion , and power ; in this she boasts like archimedes , she is able to turn the world upside down , but she must sharpen her instruments at your forge , and our animosities must give her room whereon to set her foot : must the church of england be weakned for fear the protestant interest should be strong ? and will she not be weakned by the deprivation of so many as are resolv'd to make a conscience of keeping the oaths that they have taken , and from the obligation of which they have sworn , that no power upon earth is able to absolve them ? so that if perjury and popery go always together , and are of a side , you have fairly acquitted us from any share in the guilt of introducing it , unless refusing to swear to a new oath , in direct contradiction to one we have lawfully sworn already , be perjury , and methinks you might as well call it any thing else . see now what your argument will amount to : thus , the fears or interest of a roman catholick have overcome him , and prevail'd upon him to take an oath wherein he does from his heart acknowledge supremacy in all causes , and over all persons whether ecclesiastical or civil , to be lodged in the person of a protestant king in whose dominions he lives , and upon oath declares that he believes no person or persons upon earth have any power to release him from this oath , or from any part of it ; and that therefore as he ought , so he will bear faith and true allegiance to that king whilst he lives , and to his heirs and lawful successors when he is dead ; now comes julian johnson and tells him , after some other discourse , wherein he persuaded him not to think he lay under any obligation to that oath ; pish sir , you are a young christian , and a stranger to that liberty wherewith christ hath made you free ; the king you are sworn to , hates your religion and persecutes your person ; the church has declared him a heretick , and the state a tyrant , and an oath made to a tyrant is void , unlawful and wicked ; the time of our redemption is come , and redemption is a title though conquest is not , and will make your redeemer the rightfullest king that ever sat upon the throne : why man , are you not satisfi'd yet ? your want of satisfaction lies hid in lurking places , and reasons best known to your self , for i am able to prove if occasion required . ( non tali auxilio ne defensoribus istis tempus eget . ) — that your oath did never bind ; that it is an oath which ought not to have been made , and is now as if it were never made , which was ill made , and would be worse kept — and by this time my blade begins to relent ; truly sir , i have been always taught , and always believed otherwise , but for the preservation of catholick religion and the good of holy church , i must submit to your unanswerable arguments ; and then he breaks an oath , which he had but little inclination to keep . now let any man in the world judge , whether this be any more than fair turning of the tables , and giving just the same sauce to the goose , that you gave to the gander ; for what protestant king in the world has any reason to think this perjury in his popish , which any popish king has not to think this perjury in his protestant subjects , with this aggravation of the matter into the bargain , that the protestants have constantly accused the church as prevaricating in this matter , and have abhorr'd her upon that very score , which ought to set that example at the greatest distance from us ; and every word of this the catholicks in queen elizabeth's days might well have pleaded , if the spanish invasion had succeeded ; and no doubt they would have had their appointed days of thanksgiving also , and have celebrated philip of spain as their great and glorious deliverer from heresy and slavery : thus by laying the scene under another reign , we may take a just estimate of the unaccountable partiality we are guilty of in our own cause , whereas there ought to be legitima personarum mutatio in order to the true understanding and practising the greatest and the most comprehensive rule of righteousness , whatsoever you would that men should do unto you , do you even so unto them : now if all the priests in the church of rome were just such casuists as you are , and all the people of that communion could believe them , and would be directed by them , you might as well shackle the hellespont , and commit the sea to the gate-house , or make any other gotham-act to hedge in these cuckows ; for they upon this principle bid the same defence to any law , oaths or tests that the power or wit of man can make , that you have done ( with less reason ) to cambridge , and the church julia shall spead the rest ; the heathen poet corrects the christian priest. sunt qui in fortunae jam casibus omnia ponunt , et nullo credunt mundum rectore moveri , fortuna volvente vices , & lucis , & anni , atque ideo intrepidi quaecunque altaria tangunt , hic putat esse deos , et peierat . — your 14 and 15 pages are a glorious apothesis of those men who were executed according to law , for the meritorious crimes of treason and rebellion . oh! that the mastership of the canonization-office were but divided betwixt mr. baxter and you , we must quickly reform and correct our calendar , and in the room of the twelve apostles , ( those church of england preachers of passive obedience , ) insert the names of cromwell , bradshaw , ravilliack , and milton , in the company of some now alive ; but , — quos dicere nolo , experiar quid concedatur in illos , quorum flaminia tegitur cinis atque latina . you have this expression concerning some you hate , — who shed that more than innocent blood ; without adverting , that every drop of blood in man that pretends to be more than innocent , is for that very reason , less ; you would do well to answer if you can , that which you ignorantly call an infamous libel , the magistracy and government of england vindicated , and then perhaps we may call the execution of that unfortunate , ( but by his own confession not very innocent ) lord , the murther of a great man : i cannot indeed blame your concern for the death of a man , whom you first seduced , ( as is credibly reported ) and then confirm'd in the fatal doctrin of resistance against the supreme power , in case the religion established by law were invaded , ( which i cannot but believe that lord then thought ) contrary to the then sentiments of dr. burnet , and the reverend dean of canterbury , as evidently appears by mr. deans letter to that unfortunate nobleman , — and in that letter he lays down these three propositions . first , that the christian religion doth plainly forbid the resistance of authority . secondly , that though our religion be established by law , ( which your lordship urges as a difference between our case and the case of the primitive christians , ) yet in the same law which establishes our religion it is declared , that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up arms : besides , that there 's a particular law declaring the power of the militia to be solely in the king. and this ties the hands of subjects , though the law of nature , and the general rules of scripture had left us at liberty ; which i believe they do not , because the government and peace of humane societies could not well subsist upon these terms . thirdly , your lordships opinion is contrary to the declared doctrin of all protestant churches ; and though some particular persons have taught otherwise , yet they have been contradicted herein and condemn'd for it by the generality of protestants ; — this is part of that excellent letter dr. tillotson wrote to my lord , to persuade him to repent of that dangerous mistake , by which he says , his lordship might prevent a mighty scandal to the reformed religion , — whether either or both of these great men have changed their opinion since , and upon what motives , is neither my duty nor my present business to enquire ; however no mans example shall shock me who know that truth , like its eternal author , is unchangeable , the same yesterday and to day for ever . what you seem to conjecture some few lines after , may for ought i know , come to pass . committunt eadem diverso crimina fato , and though we are indeed guilty of misnomers now , it is to be hoped we shall not be always so , but may enjoy the priviledge we claim from adam , of giving things names proper to their natures . — mentiri nescio , librum si malus est , nequeo laudare & poscere — besides , the holy scriptures pronounce a dreadful wo to all such as call good evil , or evil good. there are some persons in the world who will not thank you for the unseasonable mention you make of sheriffs de facto , and not de jure ; i am afraid there is a spice of malice or discontent upon some disappointment , that made you furnish us with such an ill natur'd hint , provoking us to an undutiful enquiry , what things there are else at present in the world that are de facto and not de jure , and how many and great things depend upon the solution of that question , no less than what the authority is of that court , which you say ( for i have no acquaintance there ; ) the black guard can make amongst themselves every day , ( pag. the 17th ) of your preface : surely he that writes as you do , must measure things as you do , by success ; i am not without hopes , that god will indeed restore justice to this lost nation , and make it run down like a mighty stream : for otherwise , as appears by the repeated choice of sir p. w. and others ; there are a set of men must have the priviledge of destroying this church and nation in 89 , only to justifie their having done it once before in 48. hoc ithacus velit & magno mercentur atridae , and then every honest man could repeat , and truly apply one of the greatest lines in the world. victrix causa diis placuit , sed victa catoni . now sir , i have run through some , if not most of the material passages in your scurrilous preface ; and upon the whole matter it plainly appears , that you hate even the very name of king , since you have as rudely treated , though more covertly , the title of king william , as you have done the person of king james ; and the boldest freedom that the late private pamphlets are furnished withal , comes very short of that with which you have treated the late proceedings . would not a man think you a great courtier when you tell us , the convention did not choose king william , as the persians did darius by the ' neighing of a horse , ( page the 3d. ) to their immortal honour : but you were resolved that their election should not want what confirmation could be given it , by the same instrument wherewith samson and you have slain your enemies . there are other things that need corrections , but neither the times nor you can bear them now ; but in reference to them i must only say as the governour did to st. paul , go thy way for this time , when i have a more convenient season i will send for thee . and after all , it would grieve me very much , were i conscious to my self that i had measured even to you the same measure that you measured to your , once at least , lawful king , and i should be very sorry that ever i descended to read your preface , fearing the infection of the example ; i cannot , ( though but for half an hour ) put on ill nature enough , to write up to that pitch of satyr , you have both deserved and provok'd , and am but hardly reconcil'd to my very ink , because like you 't is made of copperass and galls : but i dare not give way to the farther progress even of a just indignation , nor had i spoke so far , or in the least engag'd my self either with your book or you , could i have stood unconcern'd at the sight of a degenerous son , like nero , ripping , and like the vulture preyng upon the bowels of his two tender mothers , the university and the church : and here indeed i must break out and say , if grief , though silent , have a voice , if anguish without a tongue be vocal , if sorrow be loud to elah , or the groans of an expiring church , and a consumptive monarchy can be accented ; if a mighty amazement and consternation of an honest mind , but reasonably solicitous for my own and for the publick safety , may be allowed to have any emphasis ; then the injuries which religion and kings suffer from such doctrins , and such men as these , can never want arguments nor orators ; and he that pleads this cause shall sooner be at a loss where to begin , than what to say ; — inopem me copia fecit ; these are miscreant persecutors of crowns , who will not permit the primitive christians to wear those glorious rewards of their martyrdom , any more than they will let them sit quietly upon the heads of kings ; you take as much pains to justifie , as the apostles did to clear themselves of the imputation of being men , whose religion taught them to turn the world upside down ; and therefore before you undertake to answer dr. sherlock , you should do well to answer christ and his apostles in their doctrin and practice , and the truly primitive christians in their writings and examples , you should confute the apologies of tertullian and justin martyr , and the writings of the first and best reformers , the articles of the church of england in general , and in particular the canons of 40. you should answer bishop usher , sanderson , hammond , and a whole cloud of witnesses in the late rebellious times ; the judicium oxoniense drawn up by sandersou , the decretum oxoniense drawn up by dr. jane the present regius professor ; you should answer dr. scot's sermon at the assizes of chelmesford ; if you are not at leisure , get him to do it himself ; the forementioned letter to the lord russel , dr. falkner , sir robert filmer , the learned and brave judge jenkins , dr. hick's jovian in answer to your julian , and all the acts of parliament that lodge the supremacy and militia in the king alone : this when you have done fairly , and acquitted your self according to the merits of the cause , you shall know more of my mind : but let me advise you to be sincere in your quotations , candid in your inferences , close in your arguments , impartial in your determination , and very modest in your personal reflection ; envy no man who knows more , pity every man who knows less than your self , triumph over the infelicities of no man of what kind soever they be , especially such as are occasion'd by endeavouring to keep a conscience void of offence towards god and man : shun all prevarications in religion , and misrepresentations of persons and things ; it is disingenuously and barbarously done by the author of the history of the convention , he pretends word for word to quote mr. collier's desertion discuss'd , and yet in the twenty first section he has foisted in the word ( popish ) apply'd to judges and justices , and at once deprav'd his meaning , and weakned the force of his argument ; and nothing can be a greater evidence of a bad cause , than making it stand in need of lies and forgeries to support it , without which they could never have driven their master away . criminibus terrere novis , & spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas , & quaerere conscius arma. finis . the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers further consider'd, and defended with a more particular respect to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive-obedience : together with a seasonable perswasive to our new dissenters / by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1691 approx. 68 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59803 wing s3277 estc r13361 12389301 ocm 12389301 60955 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59803) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 60955) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:4) the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers further consider'd, and defended with a more particular respect to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive-obedience : together with a seasonable perswasive to our new dissenters / by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [3], 27, [1] p. printed for w. rogers, london : 1691. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng divine right of kings. allegiance -great britain. great britain -history -william and mary, 1689-1702. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 andrew kuster sampled and proofread 2005-02 andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers , further consider'd , and defended : with a more particular respect to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive-obedience . together , with a seasonable perswasive to our new dissenters . by will. sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london , printed for w. rogers , 1691. d r. sherlock's defence of his case of allegiance , &c. the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers , defended , &c. there is nothing more evident , than that god set up a supreme and soveraign power in the jewish nation , as could not , and ought not to be resisted by the fundamental laws of their government ; not that the supreme and soveraign power is alwaies to be in a single person , but that where-ever it is , it is irresistible ; and that whenever this supreme power by the laws of the nation is invested in a single person , such a prince must not , upon any pretence whatsoever , be resisted . to prove this , i shall begin with examples out of the old testament . the first governour god set over the children of israel , when he brought them out of the land of egypt , was moses ; and i think i need not prove how sacred and irresistible his authority was . this is sufficiently evident in the rebellion of korah , dathan , and abiram , against moses and aaron , when god caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow them up , numb . 16. and least this should be thought an extraordinary cafe , moses and aaron being ●xtraordinary persons , immediately appointed by god , and governed by his immediate direction , the apostle st. jude alledges this example against those in his daies , who were turbulent and factious , who despised dominions , and spake evil of dignities , jud. v. 11. which he could not have done , had not this example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary cases ; had it not been a lasting testimony of god's displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against the soveraign powers . but moses was not alwaies to rule over them , and therefore god expresly provides for a succ●ssion of soveraign powers , to which they must all submit . the ordinary soveraign power of the jewish nation aft●r moses's death , was devolved either on the high priest , or those extraordinary persons , whom god was pleased to raise up , such as joshua , and the several judges , till in samuel's days it settled in their kings . for , as for the jewish sanhedrim , whose power is so much extolled by the jewish writers , who are all of a late date , many years since the destruction of jerusalem , and therefore no competent witnesses of what was done so many ages before ; it does not appear from any testimony of scripture , that there was any such court of judicature , till after their return from the babylonish captivity . but yet god took care to secure the peace and good government of the nation , by appointing such a power as should receive the last appeals , and whose sentence in all controversies should be final and uncontroulable ; as you may see in the 17th . of deut 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. ver . there were inferiour magistrates and judges appointed in their several tribes and cities , which moses did by the advice of jeth●o his father-in-law , and by the approbation of god , exod. 18. but as the supreme power was still reserved in the hands of moses , while he lived , so it is here secured to the high priest or judges after his death ; for , it is expresly appointed , that if those inferiour judges could not determine the controversie , they should come unto the priests and levites ; that is , the priests of the tribe of levi , ( who by the 12. ver . appears only to be the high priests ) ●nd to the judge that shall be in those days ; that is , if it shall be at such a time , when there is an extraordinary judge raised by god ( for there were not alwaies such judges in israel ; as is evide●t to any one who reads the book of judges ) and of them they should enquire , and they shall sh●w the sentence of judgment , and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place ( which the lord shall chu●● ) shall shew thee ; and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee . where the place which god shall chuse , signifies the place which he should appoint for the ark of the covenant , and for the l●vitic●l worship ; which was the place where the high priest , and the chief judge or ruler of israel , when there was any such person , had their ordinary residence ; which was first at shilo , and afterwards at jerusalem . the authority of the chief priests , or of the judge , when there was one , in those days , was as absolute authority as the most absolute monarch in the world can challenge , v. 12. that disobedience to their last & final determination , whatever the cause be , shall be punisht with death : and what place can there be for resistance in such a constitution of government as this ? it is said indeed , in v. 11. according to the sentence of the law , which they shall teach thee , and according to the judgment that they shall tell thee , thou shalt do . and hence some conclude , that they were not bound to abide by their sentence , nor were punishable if they did not , but only in such cases , when they gave sentence according to the law of god. but these men do not consider , that the matter in controversie is supposed to be doubtful , and such as could not be determined by the inferiour courts , and therefore is submitted to the decision of the supreme judge , and as he determined , so they must do , and no man , under the penalty of death , must presume to do otherwise : which takes away all liberty of judging from private persons , though this supreme judge might possibly mistake in his judgment , as all human judicatures are liable to mistakes ; but it seems god almighty thought it necessary , that there should be some final judgment , from whence there should be no appeal , notwithstanding the possibility of a ●istake in it . so that there was a supreme and soveraign , that is , unaccountable and irresistable power in the jewish nation appointed by god himself ; for indeed it is not possible that the publick peace and security of any nation should be preserved without it . and i think it is as plain , that when the jews would have a king , their kings were invested with this supreme and irresistible power ; for when they desired a king , they did not desire a meer nominal and titular king , but a king to judge them , and to go out before them , and fight their battels ; that is , a king who had the supreme and soveraign authority , 1 sam. 8.6 , 19 , 20. a king who should have all that power of government , excepting the peculiar acts of the priestly office , which either their high priest or their judges had before . and therefore , when samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their king , v. 11. though what he saies does necessarily suppose the translation of the soveraign and irresistible power to the person of their king , yet it does not suppose that the king had any new power given him , more than what was exercised formerly by their priests and judges . he does not deterr them from chusing a king , because a king should have greater power , and be more unaccountable and irresistible than their other rulers were ; for samuel himself had had as soveraign and irresistible a power as any ki●g , being the supreme judge in israel , whose sentence no man could disobey or contradict , but he incurred the penalty of death , according to the mosaical law. but the reason why he dissuades them from chusing a king , was because the external pomp and magnificence of kings was like to be very chargeable and oppressive to them . he will take your sons , and appoint them for himself , for his chariots , and to be his horsemen , and some shall run before his chariots . and he will appoint him captains over thousands , and captains ov●r fif●ies , and will set them to ear his ground , and to reap his harvest . and thus in several particulars he acquaints them what burthens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a king , which they were then free from : and if any prince should be excessive in such exactions , yet they had no way to help themselves : they must not resist , nor rebel against him , nor expect , that what inconvenience they might find in kingly government , god would relieve and deliver them from it , when once they had chose a king : ye shall cry out in that day , because of your king which ye have chosen you , and the lord will not hear you in that day , v. 18. that is , god will not alter the government for you again , how much soever you may complain of it . this , i say , is a plain proof that there kings were invested with that soveraign power which must not be resisted , though they oppress their subjects to maintain their own state , and the grandeur and magnificence of their kingdom . but i cannot think that these words contain the original grant and charter of regal power , but only the translation of that power which was formerly in their high priests or judges , to kings . kings had no more power than their other governours had ; for there can be no power greater than that which is irresistible ; but th●s power in the hands of kings was likely to be more burthensome and oppressive to them , than it was in the hands of their priests and judges , by reason of their different way of living ; which is the only argument samuel uses to dissuade them from transferring the supreme and soveraign power to princes . and therefore i rather chuse to translate mishpat , as our translators do , by the manner of the king , than as other learn●d men do , by the right of the king , thereby understanding the original charter of kingly power : for it is not a regal power which samuel here blames , which is no other but the very same which he himself had , while he was supreme judge of israel ; but their pompous way of living , which would prove very oppressive and burthensome to them , and b● apt to make them complain , who had not been used to such exactions . let us now proceed to consider , how sacred and irresistible the persons and authority of kings were under the jewish government ; and there cannot be a plainer example of this , than in the case of david . he was himself anointed to be king after saul's death , but in the mean time was grievously persecuted by saul , pursued from one place to another , with a design to take away his life . how now does david behave himself in this extremity ? what course does he take to secure himself from saul ? why , he takes the only course that is left a subject ; he flies for it , and hides himself from saul in the mountains and caves of the wilderness ; and when he found he was discovered in one place , he removes to another : he kept spies upon saul , to observe his motions , not that he might meet him to give him battel , or to take him at an advantage , but that he might keep out of his way , and not fall unawares into his hands . well , but this wa● no thanks to david , because he could do no otherwise . he was too weak for saul , and not able to stand against him ; and therefore he had no other remedy but flight . but yet we must consider , that david was a man of war , he slew goliah , and fought the battels of israel with great success ; he was an admired and beloved captain , which made saul so jealous of him ; the eyes of israel were upon him for their next king , and how easily might he have raised a potent and formidable rebellion against saul ! but he was so far from this , that he invites no man to his assistance ; and when some came uninvited , he made no use of them in an offensive or defensive war against saul . nay , when god delivered saul two several times into david's hands , that he could as easily have killed him , as have cut off the skirts of his garment at engedi , 1 sam. 24. or as have taken that spear away which stuck in the ground at his bolster , as he did in the hill of hachilah , 1 sam. 26. yet he would neither touch saul himself , nor suffer any of the people that were with him to do it , though they were very importunate with him for liberty to kill saul ; nay , though they urged him with an argument from providence , that it was a plain evidence that it was the will of god that he should kill saul , because god had now delivered his enemy into his hands , according to the promise he had made to david ▪ 1 sam. 24.4.26 . ch . ver . 8. we know what use some men have made of this argument of providence , to justifie all the villanies they had a mind to act : but david , it seems , did not think that an opportunity of doing evil , gave him license and authority to do it . opportunity , we say , makes a thief , and it makes a rebel , and it makes a murderer . no man can do any wickedness , which he has no opportunity of doing ; and if the providence of god , which puts such opportunities into mens hands , justifies the wick●dness they commit , no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does ; and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as rebellion , and the murder of princes . we are to learn our duty from the law of god , not from his providence ; at least , this must be a settled principle , that the providence of god will never justifie any action which this law forbids . and therefore , notwithstanding this opportunity which god had put into his hands to destroy his enemy , and to take the crown for his reward , david considers his duty , remembers , that though saul were his enemy , and that very unjustly , yet he was the lord's anointed . the lord forbid , saies he , that i should do this unto my master , the lord 's anointed , to stretch forth my hand against him , seeing he is the lord 's anointed . nay , he was so far from taking away his life , that his heart smote him for cutting off the skirt of his garment . and we ought to observe the reason david gives , why he durst not hurt saul , because he was the lord's anointed ; which is the very reason the apostle gives in the 13. rom. 12. because the powers are ordained of god , and he that resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god. for to be anointed of god , signifies no more , than that he was made king by god. thus josephus expounds beinganointed by god , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one who had the kingdom bestowed on him by god ; and in another place , one who was ordained by god : for it seems by this phrase , he looked upon the external ceremony of anointing , to be like imposition of hands , which in other cases consecrated persons to peculiar offices : for this external unction was only a visible sign of god's designation of them to such an office ; and when that was plain , they were as much god's anointed without this visible unction as with it . cyrus is called god's anointed , though he never was anointed by any prophet , but only designed for his kingdom by prophecy , 45. isa. 1. and we never read in scripture , that any kings had this external unction , who succeeded in the kingdom by right of inheritance , unless the title and succession were doubtful ; and yet they were the lord 's anointed too , that is , were placed in the throne by him . so that this is an eternal reason against resisting ▪ soveraign princes , that they are set up by god , and invested with his authority , and therefore their persons and authority are sacred . but yet there are some men , who from the example of david , think they can prove the lawfulness of a defensive , though not an offensive war. for david , when he fled from saul , made himself captain of four hundred men , 1 sam. 22.2 . which number soon encreased to six hundred , 1 sam. 23.13 . and still every day encreased by new additions , 1 chron. 12.1 . now , why should he entertain these men , but to defend himself against the forces of saul ? that is , to make a defensive war whenever he was assaulted by him . 1. in answer to this , i obs●rve , that david invited none of these men after him , but they came voluntiers after a beloved captain and general ; which shews how formidable he could have made himself ▪ when such numbers resorted to him of their own accord . 2. when he had them , he never used them for any hostile acts against saul , or any of his forces ; he never stood his ground , when he heard saul was coming , but alwaies fled , and his men with him ; men who were never used to flee , and were very ready to have served him against saul himself , would he have permitted them . and , i suppose they will not call this a defensive war , to flie before an enemy , and to hide themselves in caves and mountains ; and yet this was the only defensive war which david made with all his men about him : nay , all that he would make , according to his professed principles , that it was not lawful to stretch out his hand against the lord 's anointed . and when these men are pursued , as david was , by an inraged and jealous prince , we will not charge them with rebellion , though they flie before him by thousands in company . 3. yet there was sufficient reason why david should entertain these men , who voluntarily resorted to him , though he never intended to use them against saul : for some of them served for spies , to observe saul's motions , that he might not be surprized by him , but have timely notice to make his escape . and the very presence of such a number of men about him , without any hostile act , preserved him from being seized on by some officious persons , who otherwise might have delivered him into saul's hands . and he being anointed by samuel to be king after saul's death , this was the first step to his kingdom , to have such a retinue of valiant men about him ; which made his advancement to the throne more easie , and discouraged any opposition which might otherwise been made against him ; as we see it proved in the event , and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by god , for that very end . it is certain , that gad the prophet , and abiathar the priest , who was the only man who escaped the fury of saul , when he destroyed the priests of the lord , were in david's retinue ; and that david enterprized nothing , without first asking counsel of god : but he who had anointed him to be king , now draws forces after him , which after saul's death should facilitate his advancement to the kingdom . 2 dly , it is objected further , that david intended to have stayed in keilah , and to have fortified it against saul , had not he been informed , that the men of the city would have saved themselves , by delivering him up to saul , 1 sam. 23. now , to maintain any strong hold against a prince , is an act of war ; though it be but a defensive war. and i grant it is so , but deny that there is any appearance , that david ever intended any such thing . david and his men , by god's appointment and direction , had fought with the phil●●tins , and smote them with a great slaughter , and saved keilah from them ; and as it is probable , did intend to have stayed some time in keilah : but david had heard that saul intended to come against keilah , to destroy the city , and take him , and enquires of the lord about it , and receives an answer , that saul would come against the city . he enquires again , whethe● the men of keilah would deliver him up to saul , and was an●wered , that they would . and upon this , he and his men leave keilah , and betake themselves to the strong holds in the wilderness . but now , it is likely , that if david had had any design to have fortified keilah against saul , he would have been afraid of the men of the city : he had six hundred men with him in keilah , a victorious army , which had lately destroyed the philistines , who oppressed them ; and therefore could easily have kept the men of keilah too in awe , if he had pleased , and have put it out of their power to deliver him to saul . but all that david designed was , to have stayed there as long as he could , and , when saul had drawn nigh , to have removed to some other place : but when he understood the treacherous inclinations of the men of keilah , and being resolved against all acts of hostility , he hastened his remove , before saul drew near . so that these men must find some other example than that of david , to countenance their rebellion against their prince : for david never rebelled , never fought against saul ; but when he had a very potent army with him , he and his men alwaies fled , and ●●d themselves in the wilderness and places of difficult access . the sum is this : god , from the very beginning , set up such a supreme and soveraign power in the jewish nation , as could not , as ought not to be resisted . this power was at ●●rst in the hands of moses , and when korah and his company rebelled against him , god vindicated his authority by a miraculous destruction of those rebels ; for the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up . afterwards , when they came into canaan , the ordinary exercise of his power was in the high priests and judges , whom god raised up , whose sentence and judgment was final , and must not be resisted , under penalty of death , when the children of israel desired a king , this soveraign and irresistible power was transferred to him , and settled in his person . saul was the first king who was chosen by god , and anointed by samuel ; but for his disobedience , was afterwards rejected by god , and david the son of jess● , was anointed king to succeed after saul's death : but in the mean time david was persecuted by saul , who sought after his life . and though he himself was anointed by god , and saul rejected by him , yet he durst not p●rsist nor oppose him , nor defend himself by force against the most unjust violence , but fled for his life , and hid himself in caves and mountains . nay , when saul was delivered into his hands by god , he durst not stretch out his hand against the lord 's anointed . let us now consider what christ and his apostles taught and practised about obedience to soveraign princes ; whereby we may learn how far christians are obliged by these laws of subjection and non-resistance . 1. i shall consider the doctrine of christ , while he lived on earth : and here are several things very fit to be obser●●d . first , we have no reason to suspect , that christ would alter the rights of soveraign power , and the measures of obedience and subjection , which were fixt and determin'd by god himself . this was no part of his commission , to change the external forms and polities of civil governments , which is an act of secular power and authority , and does not belong to a spiritual prince . he who would not undertake to decide a petty controversie , or to divide an inheritance between two contending brethren , 12. luk. 13 , 14. can we think that he would attempt any thing of that vast consequence , as the changes and alterations of civil power , which would have unsettled the fundamental constitutions of all the governments of the world at that time ? our saviour tells us , that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets , but to fulfil it ; to fill it up , to compleat and perfect it ; mat. 5.17 . that is , to fulfill the anci●nt types and prophesies in his own person , to perfect an external and ceremonial by a real and evangelical righ●●ousness ; to perfect the moral laws with new instances and degrees of vertue ; but he abrogated no moral law , and therefore not the laws of obedience and subjection to princes , which has alwaies been reduced to the fifth commandment . nay , he abrogated no laws , but by perfecting and fulfilling them ; and therefore he could make no alteration in the doctrin of non-r●sistance , which is as perfect subjection as can or ought to be paid to soveraign princes . his kingdom was not of this world , as he told pilate : though he was a king , he neither was an enemy nor rival to caesar ; but had he absolved his disciples from their obedience to princes , had he made it in any case lawful to resist ( which was so expresly forbid the jews by god himself , and which is such a contradiction to the very nation of soveraign power ) he had been somewhat worse than a rival to all the princes of the earth ; for though he had set up no kingdom of his own , yet he had pulled down theirs . whereas he took great care that his religion should give no disturbance to the world , nor create any reasonable jealousies and suspicions to princes , who had been very excusable for their aversion to christianity , had he invaded the rights and royalties of their crowns . this makes it very improbable , that our saviour should make any alterations in civil powers , or abridge the rights of soveraignty ; which is so foreign to his design of coming into the world , and so incongruous to the person which he sustained ; and yet he could not alter the duties of subjects , but he must alter the rights of princes too ; he must take away the soveraign power of princes , at the same time that he makes it lawful for subjects in any case whatsoever to resist . we may safely then conclude , that our saviour has left the government of the world as he found it : he has indeed given such admirable laws , as will teach princes to govern , and subjects to obey better ; which is the most effectual way to secure the publick peace and happiness , to prevent the oppression of subjects , and rebellions against princes : but he has not interposed in new modelling the governments of the world , whic● is not of such consequence as some men imagine ▪ it is not the external form of government , but the fatherly care , and prudence , an● justice of governours , and the dutiful obedience of subjects , which can make any people happy . if princes and subjects be good christians , they may be happy ●nder most forms of government ; if they be not , they can be happy under none . had our saviour given subjects liberty to resist , to depose , to murder tyrannical princes , he had done them no kindness at all ; for , to give liberty to subjects to resist , is only to proclaim an universal license to factions and seditions , and civil wars ; and if any man can think this su●h a mighty blessing to the world , yet methinks it is not a blessing proper for the prince of peace to give : but he who instructs princ●s to rule as god's ministers and vicegerents , and to express a fatherly care and concernment for the happiness of their subjects , and that teaches subjects to reverence ▪ and obey their princes , as the image of god , and quietly submit and yield to his authority , and that enforces these laws , both on princes and subjects , in the name and authority of god , and from the consideration of the future judgment , when princes who abuse their power , shall give an account of it to their great master , when subjects who resist , shall receive to themselves damnation ; and those who patiently and quietly suffer for god's sake , shall have their injuries redrest , and their obedience rewarded ; i say , such a person as this takes a more effectual course to reform the abuses of the civil power , and to preserve good government in the world ▪ than all our wise politicians and state-menders , who think to reform the government of the world by some state-spells and charms , without reforming those who govern , and those who are governed . this our saviour has done , and this is the best thing that could be done , nay , this was all that he could do in this matter . he never usurpt any civil power and authority , and therefore could not new model the government of the world : he never offers any external force and compulsion to make men obey his laws , and therefore neither forces princes ▪ to rule well , nor subjects to obey ; but he has taken the same care of the government of the world , as he has done of all the other duties of piety and vertue ; that is , he has given very good laws , and has threatned those that break them with eternal punishments ; and as the laws and religion of our saviour prevail , so will the governments of the world mend , without altering the model and constitution of them . 2. but yet we have some positive evidence what our saviour taught about obedience to the higher powers ; i shall give you two instances of it , which are as plain and express as can be desired . first , the first is that answer our saviour gave to the pharisees and herodians , when they consulted together to intangle him in his talk , mat. 22.15 , &c. they come to him with great ceremony and address , as to an infallible oracle , to consult him in a very weighty case of conscience . they express a great esteem and assurance of his sincerity , and faithfulness , and courage , as well as of his unerring judgment , in declaring the will of god to them . master , we know that thou art true ▪ and teachest the way of god in truth , neither carest thou for any man , for thou regardest not the person of man : that is , thou wilt not conceal nor pervert the truth for fear nor favour : and then they propose an insnaring question to him ; tell us therefore , what thinkest thou ? is it lawful to give tribute to caesar , or not ? they thought it impossible that he should give any answer to this , which would not make him obnoxious , either to the roman governours , if he denied that the jews might lawfully pay tribute to caes●r , or ●o the pharisees and people if he affirmed that they might : for there was a very potent faction among th●m , who thought it unlawful for the jews to own the authority or usurpations of any foreign prince , or to pay tribute to him , as to their king ▪ they being expresly forbid by their law , to set a stranger over them for their king , who is not their brother , ( i. e. ) who is not a natural jew , deut. 17.15 . and it seems they could not distinguish between their own voluntary act in chusing a stranger for their king , ( which was indeed forbid by their law ) and their submitting to a foreign prince , when they were conquered by him . our saviour , who knew their wicked intention in all this , that they did not come with an honest design to b● instructed in their duty , but to seek an advantage against him , expresses some indignation at it ; why tempt ye me , ye hypocrites ? but yet , to return them an answer to that their question , he bids them shew him the tribute-money , that is , the money in which they used to pay tribute , and enquires whose image and superscription it had ; for coining of money was as certain a mark of soveraignty , as making laws , or the power of the sword. well , they acknowledg that the image and superscription on the tribute-money was caesar's ; upon which he replies , render therefore unto caesar the things that are caesar's , and unto god the things that are god's . the plain meaning of which answer is this , that since by the very impres●ion on their money , it is evident , that caesar is their soveraign lord , they must render to him all the rights of soveraignty , among which , tribute is one , as st. paul tells us , render therefore unto all their dues , tribute to whom tribute is due , custom to whom custom , fear to whom fear , honour to whom honour , rom. 13.7 . whatever is due to soveraign princes , and does not interfere with their duty to god , that they must give to caesar , who at this time was their soveraign . in which answer there are several things observable . 1. that our saviour does not examine into caesar's right , nor ●ow he came by this soveraign power ; b●t as 〈◊〉 found him in possession of it , so he leaves him , and requires them to render to him all the rights of soveraignty . 2. that he does not particularly determine what the things of caesar are , that is , what his right is ▪ as a soveraign prince . hence some men conclude , that this text can prove nothing ; that we cannot learn from it , what our saviour's judgment was in this point ; that it is only a subtil answer , which those who ask the question could make nothing of ; which was a proper return to their ensnaring question . this i think is as great a reproach to our saviour , as they can well cast upon him , that he , who was the wisdom of god , the great pro●het and teacher of mankind , should return as sophistical and doubtful answers as the heathen oracles and that in a case , which required , and would admit a very plain answer . it is true , many times our saviour , when he discourst of what concern'd his own person , or the mysteries of his kingdom ▪ which were not fit at that time to be publisht in plain terms , used a mistical language ; as when he called his body the temple , or he taught them by parables , which were not obvious at the first hearing , but still what he said , had a certain and determined sense , and what was obscure and difficult , he explained privately to his apost●es , that in due time they might explain it to others ; but to assert , as these men must do , that christ gave them such an answer as signified nothing , and which he intended they should understand nothing by , shews that they are not so civil to our saviour as these pharis●es and herodians were , who at least owned in compliment , master we know that thou ar● true . and teachest the way of god in truth , neither carest thou for any man , for thou regard●st not the person of men. but certainly the pharisees did believe , that there was something in our saviours answer , for they marvelled , and left him , and went their way : and yet those who had wit enough to ask such ensnaring questions , could not be so dull as to be put off wi●h a sophistical answer , ( an art below the gravity of our saviour's pers●n and office ) but would have urged it a little f●r●her , had they not been sensible , that they were sufficiently answered , and had nothing to reply . for indeed can any thing be plainer than our saviour's answer ? they ask him whether it were lawful to pay tribute to caesar ? he does not indeed in express words say , that they should pay tribute to caesar , but he gives them such an answer , as withal convinc'd them of the reason and necessity of it . he asks whose image and superscription was on the tribute-money ; they tell him caesars ; from whence he infers , render therefore unto caesar the things that are caesar's . therefore ? wherefore ? because the tribute-money had caesars image on it ; therefore they must render to caesar the things that are caesars ; which certainly signifies that tribute was one of those things which belonged to caesar , and must be rendred to him , as appeared by having caesar's image : not as if every thing that had caesar's mark and stamp on it , did belong unto caesar , and must be given to him , ( as some men profanely enough , how wittily soever they imagine , burlesque and ridicule our saviour's answer ) for at this rate all the mony of the empire , which bore his image , was caesars ; but the money which was stampt with caesar's image , and was the current money of the nation , was a plain sign , as i observed before , that he was their soveraign , and paying tribute was a known right due to soveraign princes ; and therefore the very money which they used , with caesar's image on it , resolved that question , not only of the lawfulness , but the necessity of paying tribute : and this was so plain an answer , that the pharisees were ashamed of their question , and went away without making any reply ; for they no more dared to deny that caesar was their king , than they thought he dared either to own or deny the lawfulness of paying tribute to caesar. and this was all the subtilty of our saviour's answer but then , our saviour not confining his answer meerly to the case of paying tribute , but answering in general , that we must render to caesar the things that are caesar's , extends this to all the rights of soveraign princes , and so becomes a standing rule in all cases , to give to caesar what is caesar's due . and when our saviour commands us to render to caesar the things which are caesar's , w●thout telling us what caesar's things are , this is so f●r from making his answer doubtful and ambiguous , and of no use in this present controversie , that it suggests to us three plain and natural consequences , which are sufficient to end this whole dispute . 1. that our saviour did not intend to mak●●ny alteration in the rights of sove●aignty , but what rights he found soveraign princes possest of , he leaves them in the quiet possession of ; for had he intended to make any change in this matter , he would not have given such a general rule , to render to caesar the things which are caesar 's , without specifying what these things are . 2. and therefore he leaves them to the known laws of the empire , to determine what is caesar's right . whatever is essential to the nation of soveraign power , whatever the laws an● customs of nations determine to be caesar's right , that they must render to him ; for he would make no alteration in this matter . so that subjection to princes , and non-resistance , is as plainly determined by our saviour in this law , as paying of tribute ; for subjection and non-resistance is as essential a right of soveraign power , and as inseparable from the notion of it , as any thing can be . so it is acknowledged by the laws and customs of nations ; and so it is determined by the apostle st. paul ; as i shall shew hereafter . 3. i observe farther , that when our saviour enjoins our duty to our prince , with our duty to our god , render to caesar the things which are caesar 's , and to god , the things which are god's . he excepts nothing from caesar's rights , which by the laws of nations is due to soveraign princes , but what is a violation of , and an encroachment on god's right and soveraignty ; that is , we must pay all that obedience and subjection to princes , which is consistent with our duty to god. this is the only limit our saviour sets to our duty to princes . if they should command us to renounce our religion , and worship false gods ; if they sho●ld challenge divine honours to themselves , as some of the roman emperors did ; this we must not do , because it is to renounce obedience and subjection to god , who has a more soveraign power , and a greater right in us than our prince : but all active and passive obedience , which is consistent with a good conscience towards god , and required of us by the laws of our country , and the essential rights of soveraignty , is what we owe to our prince , and what by our saviour's command we must render to him . this , i hope , is sufficient for the explication of our saviour's answer to the pharisees and herodians ; which evidently contains the doctrin of obedience and subjection to princes , enforced on us by the authority of our saviour himself . having seen what the doctrin of our saviour was , let us now consider his practice : and we need not doubt , but our saviour lived as he preacht . he taught his disciples by his example , as well as by his laws . his life was the best comment upon his sermons ; was a visible lecture of universal righteousness and goodness ; and it is impossible to conceive a more perfect and absolute example of subjection and non-resistance , than our saviour has set us . when our saviour appeared in the world , the jews were very weary of the roman yoke , and in earnest expectat●on of their messias , who , as they thought , would restore the kingdom again unto ifrael ; and this expectation of their messias , whom they mistook for a temporal prince , made them very apt to joyn with any one , who pretended to be the messias , and to rebel ag●inst the roman government . su●h most likely were th●●d●s and judas of galilee , of whom we have mention , ast. 5.36 , 37. an● it is not impossible , but the egyptian , who led 4000 men into the wilde●n●ss , act. 38. either pretended to be the messias , or some fore-runner of him : to be sure , such were those false christs , and false p●ophets , of whom our saviour warns his disciples , mat. 24.23 . then if any man shall s●y unto you , lo , here is christ , or there ; be●ieve him not . this being the temper of the jewish nation at that time , so extreamly inclined to s●ditions and rebellion against the roman powers , how easie had it been for our saviour , had he pleased ; to have made himself very potent and formidable ? how easie cou●d he have gained even the scribes and pharisees to his party , ( whose great quarrel was at his meanness and poverty ) would he once have declared himself a temporal prince , and invaded the throne ? but he was so far from this , that when he perceived the people had an intention to take him by force ; and make him a king , he withdrew himself privately from them , and departed into a mountain himself alone , john ▪ 6.15 . and yet i presume there might have been as many plau●●ble preten●es to have justi●ied a rebellion then , as ever there were in any nation since . he had at that time fed five thousand men besides women and children , with five barly loaves , and two small fishes : and what a formidable enemy would he have been , who could victual an army by miracles , and could , when he pleased , conquer by the same miraculous power also ? this the people , whom he had miraculously fed , were very sensible of , and did hence conclude , that he was the prophet that should come into the world , and that it was time to take him , and set him upon the throne : but though our saviour was indeed the messias , yet he was not such a messias , as they expected ; he was not a temporal prince , and therefore would not countenance their rebellion against caesar , though it were to make himself a king. it is sufficiently known , that christ submitted to the most unjust sentence , to the most ignominious and painful death , rather than resist the higher powers , though he could so easily have called for legions of angels to his rescue ; but he went as a lamb to the slaughter , and as the sheep before the shearer is dumb , so he opened not his mouth : when he was reviled , he reviled not again : when he suffered , he threatned not , but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously . he rebuked peter when he drew his sword in his defence , and tells pilate the reason why he was so easily apprehended , and used at their pleasure , without any resistance and opposition , though he had been formerly attended with such crowds of his disciples ; because he was no temporal prince , and therefore did not require his disciples to fight for him , as other temporal princes used to do . iesus answered , my kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world , then would my servants fight , that i should not be delivered to the jews ; but now is my kingdom not from hence , joh. 18.36 . which plainly shews , that our saviour's subjection was not matter of force and constraint , because he wanted power to resist ; but it was matter of choice , that which was most agreeable to the nature of his kingdom , which was not to be propagated by carnal weapons , but by suffering and death . and when our saviour has set us such an example as this , it is wonderful to me , that any , who call themselves his disciples , can think it lawful to rebel against their prince , and defend themselves from the most unjust violence , by a more unjust resistance . but there are few men , who are contented to follow christ to the cross ; they do not like that part of his example , and are willing to perswade themselves , that they are not bound to imitate it . and there are two things which i find urged by some men to this purpose , which must be briefly considered . 1. that it is no wonder , that christ suffered patiently and quietly , without resisting the most unjust violence , because he came into the world to die , and to make his soul an offering for sin. and how could so innocent a person die , but by the hands of vnjust and tyrannical powers ? and it was inconsistent with his design of dying for sin , to resist and oppose . this is the account our saviour himself gives of his patient suffering . when st. peter drew his sword in his defence , he tells him , thinkest thou that i cannot now pray to my father , and he sha●l pres●ntly give me more than twelve legions of angels ? but how then sh●ll the scriptures be fulfilled , that thus it must be ? mat. 26.43 , 54. and the cup which my father has given me , shall i not drink it ? john 18.11 . having thus concluded what the doctrin and example of o●r saviour was , about subjection to the higher powers , let us now consider the doctrin and example of h●s apostle st. paul ; not as if the authority and example of our saviour were not sufficient , of it self , to make a law , but stood in need of the confirmation and additional authority of his own apostles ; but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the meaning of our saviour's words , or in the intention and design of his sufferings , had none of his apostles , who were immediately instructed by him●elf , and acquainted with the most secret mysteries of this kingdom , ever preacht any such doctrine as this , of subjection to princes . and therefore to give you the more abundant assurance of this , i shall plainly shew you , that the apostles taught the same doctrin , and imitated the example of their master . st. paul has as fully declared himself in this matter , as it is possible any man can do by words , rom. 13.1 , 2. let every soul be subject unto the higher powers , for there is no power but of god : the powers that be , are ordained of god. whosoever therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god ; and they that resist , shall receive to themselves damnation . this is a very express testimony against resistance , and therefore i shall consider it at large ; for there have been various arts used to pervert every word of it and to make this text speak quite contrary to the design and intention of the apostle in it : and therefore i shall divide the words into three ge●eral parts . 1. the doctrine the apostle instructs them in : le● every soul be subject to the higher powers . 2. the reason why he proves and forces this doctrin : for there is no power but of god ; the powers that be , are ordained of god. whoso●v●r therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god. 3. the punishment of such resistance : and they that resist , shall receive to themselves damnation . 1. i shall begin with the doctrin , that every soul must be subject to the higher powers . and here are three things to be explained : 1. who are contained under this general expression of every soul. 2. who are meant by the higher powers . 3. what is meant by being subject . 1. who are contained under this general expression of ●v●ry soul , which by an ordinary hebraism , signifies every man ; for m●n is a compounded creature of body and soul , and either part of him is very often in scripture put for the whole . some●imes flesh , and sometimes soul signifies the man ; and when eve●y soul is opposed to the higher powers , it must sig●ifie all men , of what rank or condition soever they be , who are not invested with this higher power . popes and bishops , and bishops and priests , as well spiritual as secular persons ; the whole body of the people , as well as every single individual : for , when every soul is commanded to be subject , without any exception or limitation , this must reach them in all capacities and conditions . the design of the apostle , as you shall hear more presently , was to forbid all resistance of soveraign princes ; and had he known of any men , who might lawfully r●sist , he ought not to have exprest it in such general terms , as to forbid all without exception . had st. paul known the prerogative of st. peter , and his successors the bishops of rome , would he have written to the c●ristians of rome , to be subje●t to their emperors , without making any provision for the greater authority of their bishops ? the reason he assigns why every soul must be subject to the higher powers , is , becaus● all powers are of god ; so that whosoever is bound to be subject to god , must be subject to their prince , who is in god's stead . and this , i think , will reach the pope of rome , as well as any private christian ; unless he will pretend to have more authority on earth than god himself has ; for the prince has god's authority , and therefore cannot be resisted , but by a greater authority than god's . and , by the same reason , if the whole body of the people be subject to god , they must be subject to their prince too , because he acts by god's au●hority and commission . were a soveraign prince the peoples creature , that might be a good maxim : rex major singulis , sed minor universis ; that the king is greater than any particular subject , but less than all together : but if he be god's minister , he is upon that account as much greater than all , as god is . and that the whole body of the people , all together , as well as one by one , are equally concerned in this command , of being subject to the higher powers , is evident , from this consideration : that nothing less than this will secure the peace and tranquility of human societies : the resistance of single persons is more dangerous to themselves than to the prince , but a powerful combination of rebels is formidable to the most puissant monarchs . the greater number of subjects rebel against their prince , the more too they distress his government , and threaten his crown and dignity , and his person and authority be sacred , the greater the violence is which is offered to him , the greater is his crime . had the apostle exhorted the romans after this manner : let no private and single man be so foolish , as to rebel against his prince , who will be too strong for him ; but if you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him ; if you can all consent to depose or murder him , this is very innocent ▪ and justifiable , nay , an heroical atchievement , which becomes a free born people : how would this secure the peace and quiet of the world ? how would this have agreed with what follows , that princes are advanced by god , and that to resist our prince , is to resist the ordinance of god , and that such men shall be severely punisht for it , in this world or the next ? for , can the apostle be thought absolutely to condemn resistance , if he makes it only unlawful to resist , wh●n we want power to conquer ? which yet is all that can be made of it , if by every soul , the apostle means only particular men , not the united force and power of the subjects . nor can there be any reason assigned , why the apostle should lay so strict a command on particul●r christians , to be subject to the higher powers , which does not equally concern whole na●ions ; for if it can ever be lawful for a whole nation to resist a prince , it may , in the same circumstances , be equally lawful f●r a particular man to do it . if a nation may conspire against a prin●e , who invades their rights , their liberties ; or their religion , why may not any man , by the same reason , resist a prince , when his rights and liberties are invaded ? it is not so safe and prudent indeed , for a private man to resist ▪ as for great and powerful numbers ; but this makes resistance only a matter of discretion , not of conscience : if it be lawful for th● whole body of a nation to resist in such cases , it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it ; but he does it at his own peril , when he has only his one single force to oppose aga●nst his pri●ce . so that our apostle must forbid resistance in all or none ; for , single persons do not use to resist or rebel , or there is no grea● danger to the publick if they do ; but the authority of princes , and the security of publick government , is only endangered by a combination of reb●ls , when the whole nation , or any considerable part for numbers , power , and in●erest , take arms against their prince . if resistance of our prince be a sin , it is not the less , but the grea●er sin , the greater , and the more formidable , the resistance is ; and it would very much unbecome the gravity and sacredness of an apostolical precept , to enjoin sub●ection to private christians , who dare not , who cannot resist alone , but to leave a powerful combination of rebels at liberty to resist : so that every soul , must signifie all subjests , whether single or united : for , whatever is unlawful for every single person , considered as a subject , is unlawful for them all together ; for the whole nation is as much a subject to the higher powers , as any single man. thus i am sure it is in our government , where lords and commons assembled in parliament own themselves the subjects of the king , and have by publick laws disclaimed all power of raising any war , either offensive or defensive against the king. having heard what st. paul's doctrine was , let us now consider what st. peter taught about this matter : he had as much reason to learn this lesson as any of the apostles , our saviour having severally rebuked him for drawing his sword against the lawful powers , as you have already heard . and indeed his rash and intemperate zeal in this action cost him very dear ; for we have reason to believe , that this was the chief thing , that tempted him to deny his master . he was afraid to own himself to be his disciple , or that he had been in the garden with him ; because he was conscious to himself , that by drawing his sword , and smiting the servant of the high-priest , he had incurred the penalty of the law , and had he been discovered , could expect nothing less , but to be severely punish'd for it , it may be to have lost his life for his resistance . and indeed , this has very often been the fate of those men , who have been transported with a boistrous and intemperate zeal to draw their swords for their master and his religion , against the lawful powers , that they commonly deny their master , and despise his religion , before they put their swords up again . but st. peter having , by our saviour's reproof , and his own dear-bought experience , learnt the evil of resistance , neve● drew his sword more , and took great care to instruct christians , not to do so ; 1 pet. 2.13 , 14 , 15 , 16. submit your selves to every ordinance of man , for the lord's sake , whether it be to the king , as supreme ; or unto governours , as to them that are sent by him , for the punishment of evil-doers , and for the praise of them that do well . for so is the will of god , that with well-doing ye may put to sil●nce the ignorance of foolish men . as free , and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness , but as the s●rvants of god. this is the very same doctrin which st. paul taught the romans : let every soul be subj●ct to the higher powers ; for the same word is used in the original , and therefore to submit , and to be subject , is the same thing , which , as st. paul tells us , signifies non-resistance ; only st. paul speaks of not resisting the higher powers ; that is , emperors and soveraign princes , herein including all those who act by their authority ; s. peter , to prevent all cavils and exceptions , distinctly mentions both , that we must submit to all humane power and authority , not only to the king as supreme , that is , in st. paul's phrase , to the higher powers , to all soveraign princes , who are invested with the supreme authority ; but also to those who are sent by him , who receive their authority and commission from the soveraign prince . st. paul tells us at large , that all power is of god , and that the power is the minister of god ; and he that resisteth the power , resisteth the ordin●nce of god ; and therefore we must needs be subjest , not only for wrath , ( that is , for fear of being punisht by men ) but also for conscience sake , out of reverence to god , and fear of his judgment . this st. peter comprises in one word , which includes it all ▪ submit your self to every ordinance of man , for the lord's sake : for , how is god concerned in our obedience to princes , if they be not his ministers , who are appointed and advanced by him , and act by his authority , and if it be not his will and command that we should obey them ? and therefore he adds , for this is the will of god , that with well-doing , ( that is by obedience and subjection to princes ) ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men ; that is , that you may put to silence those foolish men , who ignorantly accuse you , as fond of changes , and troublesome and dangerous to government . but then , st. peter observing , that christian liberty was made a pretence for seditions and treasons , he cautions them against that also ; as free , but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness ; that is , to cover and excuse such wickedness as rebellion against princes , but as the servants of god : you must remember whatever freedom christ has purchased for you , he has not delivered you from obedience and subjection to god ; you are his servants still , and therefore must be subject to those , who receive their power and authority from god , as all soveraign princes do . this is as plain , one would think , as words can make it ; but nothing can be so plain , but that men , who are unwilling to understand , and who set their wits on work to avoid the force and evidence of it , may be able to find something to say , to deceive themselves , and those who are willing to be deceived : and therefore it will be necessary to consider what false colours some men have put upon these words , to elude and baffle the plain scope and design of the apostle in them . as , first , they observe , that st. peter calls kings and subordinate governours an ordinance of man , or a human creature , and from hence they conclude , that kings are only the peoples creatures ; they are made by the people , and receive their power from them , and therefore are accountable to them if they ●●use their power . in answer to this , we may consider , 1. that this interpretation of st. peter's words , is a direct contradiction to st. paul , who expresly asserts , that there is no power but of god , the powers that be , are ord●ined of god ; but , according to this exposition of hu●an creature , or the ordin●nce of man , there is no power of god , but all pow●r is derived from the people . kings and princes may be chosen by men , as it is in elective kingdoms , and as it was at that time in the roman empire , but they receive their power from god : and thus st. paul ▪ and st. peter may be reconciled . but to affirm , that st. peter calls kings an ordinance of man , because they receive their ower and authority from men , is an irreconcilable contradiction to st. paul , who affirms , that they ●eceive their power from god ; that they are god's , and not the peoples ministers . now , though st. peter and st. paul did once differ upon a matter of prudence , it would be of ill consequence to religion , to make them differ in so material a doctrine as this is ; and yet there is no way to reconcile them , but by expounding st. peter's words , so as to agree with st. paul's ; for st. paul's words can never be reconciled with that sence which these men give of st. peter's ; and that is a good argument to me , that is not the true interpretation of st. pe●er ; for i verily believe , that these two great apostles did not differ in this point . 2. st. peter exhorts them to submit to every ordinance of man ; for the lord's sake ; which plainly signifies , that whatever hand men may have in modelling civil governments , yet it is the ordinance of god , and princes receive their power from him . for it is no act of disobedience to god , to resist our prince , nor of obedience to god to submit to him , if he does not derive his power from god , and act by his authority and commission ; especially in such cases , when he opposes the government of god , and the interest of rel●gion , and oppresses not only god's creatures , but his most faithful and obedient people , who are his peculiar care and charge : in such cases as these , if princes do not receive their power from god , they are oppo●●te and rival-powers , and we can no more submit to them for god's sake , than we can submit to a reb●l , for the sake of — that is , out of duty and loyalty to our natural prince . and therefore , when the apostle exhorts them , for god's sake , to submit to their king , he plainly supposes what st. paul did particularly express , that kings receive their p●wer from god , and therefore are god's ministers , even when they abuse their power ; and he that resists , resists the ordinance and authority of god. 3. but suppose we should grant , that when st. peter calls kings the ordinance of man , he means , that they receive their power and authority from men ; yet i cannot see what good this will do them ; for he plainly disowns their consequence , that therefore princes are accountable to the people , as to their superiors , and may be resisted , deposed , and brought to condign punishment , if they abuse this power ; as will appear from these two observations . 1. tha● he gives the king the title of supreme , who is above them all , and is invested with the supreme and soveraign power . now , the supreme power , in the very notion of it , is i●resistible and unaccountable ; for otherwise it is not supreme ▪ but subject to some superiour jurisdiction ; which , it is ev●dently known , the roman emperors , of whom the apostle here speaks , were not . and , 2. that he requires subjection to this human ord●nance ; which , as appears from st. paul , signifies non-resistance : so that tho' we should grant , that the king derives his power from the people , yet , it seems , god confirms and establishes the crown on his head , and will not suffer people to take it off again , when the● please . a seasonable admonition to our new dissenters . let us have a care of our zeal , that we may not mistake an earthly fire , which burns and consumes , for that divine and harmless flame , which is kindled at god's altar . a true zeal for religion is nothing more , nor less , than such a hearty love for it , as makes us very diligent in the practice of it our selves , and very industrious to promote the knowledg and practice of religion in the world , by all lawful and prudent means . a true christian zeal will not suffer us to transgress the strict bounds of our duty to god , or of our duty to men , especially to kings and princes , whatever flattering prospect of advantage it may give . to lye , to forswear our selves , to hate and revile each other ; to reproach and libel governours in church and state ; to stir up or countenance , with the least thought , any seditious practices against the king or government , is not a zeal for god , nor for religion ; for , this wisdom is not from above , but is earthly , sensual , and devilish ; for where strife and contention is , there is c●nfusion , and every evil work . let us be wary how we begin to entertain , or to whisper our discontents ; how we begin to listen to suspicions of our prince , or of his government , and to hear with pleasure any scandalous stories or reflections on either . god , of his infinite mercy , preserve our king and queen , and these kingdoms , our liberties , laws , and religion , from the wicked conspiracies of all our enemies . which is the last thing i shall recommend to you , to praise god for his preservation of our king hitherto , and earnestly beg , that the same providence would still watch over him for the time to come . let us bless god , and let us honour our king , and receive him with joy and thanksgiving , as a new gift and present from the hands of god. when we are heartily thankful for the mercies we have already received , this will ma●e our prayers more effectual for the continuance of them . o lord ▪ save the king and queen , who putteth their trust in thee ; send them help ●rom thy holy place , and evermore mightily defend them : let their enemies have no advantage against them , nor the wicked approach to hurt them . which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord jesus christ , to whom , with the father , &c. finis . the protestant resolution of faith being an answer to three questions : i. how far we must depend on the authority of the church for the true sense of scripture? ii. whether a visible succession from christ to this day makes a church, which has this succession, an infallible interpreter of scripture, and whether no church, which has not this succession, can teach the true sense of scripture? iii. whether the church of england can make out such a visible succession? sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1683 approx. 72 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 23 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59860 wing s3332 estc r22228 12570110 ocm 12570110 63434 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59860) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63434) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:12) the protestant resolution of faith being an answer to three questions : i. how far we must depend on the authority of the church for the true sense of scripture? ii. whether a visible succession from christ to this day makes a church, which has this succession, an infallible interpreter of scripture, and whether no church, which has not this succession, can teach the true sense of scripture? iii. whether the church of england can make out such a visible succession? sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [6], 37, [1] p. printed for f. gardiner ..., london : 1683. advertisement: p. [1] at end. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -doctrines. faith. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-09 andrew kuster sampled and proofread 2004-09 andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the protestant resolution of faith , being an answer to three questions . i. how far we must depend on the authority of the church for the true sense of scripture ? ii. whether a visible succession from christ to this day makes a church , which has this succession an infallible interpreter of scripture ; and whether no church , which has not this succession , can teach the true sense of scripture ? iii. whether the church of england can make out such a visible succession ? london , printed for f. gardiner , at the white-horse in ludgate-street , 1683. the preface to the reader . these papers , which are here presented to thee , were writ for the use of a private person , and by the advice of some friends , are now made publick . we find how busie the romish emissaries are to corrupt our people , and think our selves equally concerned to antidote them against popery and fanaticism : two extreams equally dangerous to the government of church and state in these kingdoms , both in their principles and practices ; and both of them very great corruptions of the christian religion , and very dangerous to mens souls . some of our clergy have already been so charitable to our dissenters , as to warn them of their danger , and by the strength and evidence of scripture and reason , to convince them of their mistakes ; and i pray god forgive those men , and turn their hearts , who will not contribute so much to their own conviction and satisfaction , as diligently and impartially to read and consider what is so charitably offered to them . ignorance and mistake may excuse men , who have no opportunities of knowing better , but such willful and resolved ignorance , which bars up mens minds against all means of better information , will as soon damn them , as sins against knowledge . and now it might justly be thought want of charity to those of the roman communion , should we take no care at all of them ; nay , want of charity to those of our own communion , and to dissenters themselves , who are daily assaulted by the busie factors for rome . for the disputes against the church of rome , as well as against dissenters , are for the most part too learned , and too voluminous for the instruction of ordinary people , and therefore some short and plain discourses about the principal matters in dispute between us , is the most effectual way we can take to confirm men in their religion , and preserve them from the crafty insinuations of such as lie in wait to deceive . some few attempts , which have been already made of that kind , give me some hope , that several other tracts will follow , that the ruine of the church of england ( if god shall please ever to permit such a thing ) whether by popery , or fanaticism , may not be charged upon our neglect to instruct people better . some persons , it seems , whose talent lies more in censuring what others do , than in doing any good themselves , are pleased to put some sinister constructions on this design ; as it is impossible to design any thing so well , but men of ill minds , who know not what it means to do good for goods sake , shall be able to find some bad name for it . some guess that we now write against popery only to play an after-game , and to regain the favour and good opinion of dissenters , which we have lost by writing against them : but i know not that any man has lost their favour by it , nor that any man values their favour for any other reason , than to have the greater advantage of doing them good . if so good a work , as confuting the errors of the church of rome , will give the dissenters such a good opinion of us , as to make them more impartially consider what has been writ to perswade them to communion with the church of england , i know no reason any man has to be ashamed to own it , though it were part of his design ; but whether it is or not , is more than i know ; i dare undertake for those persons i am acquainted with , that they neither value the favour , nor fear the displeasure either of fanaticks or papists , but yet heartily desire to do good to them both . but there is a more mischievous suggestion than this , that the design of such papers is only to raise a new cry and noise about popery , and to alarm the people , and disturb the government with new fears and jealousies : truly , if i thought this would be the effect of it , i would burn my papers presently ; for i am sure the church of england will get nothing by a tumultuary and clamorous zeal against the church of rome , and i had much rather suffer under popery , than contribute any thing towards raising a popular fury to keep it out . we profess our selves as irreconcileable enemies to popery , as we are to fanaticism , and desire that all the world may know it ; but we will never rebell , nor countenance any rebellion against our lawful soveraign , to keep out either , we leave such principles and practices to papists and fanaticks . but when we find our people assaulted by the agents of rome , and do not think our selves secure from popish designs , we think it our duty to give them the best instructions we can to preserve them from such errors , as we believe will destroy their souls ; and cannot but wonder , that any men , who are as much concerned to take care of souls as we are , should think this a needless or a scandalous undertaking . i wish such men would speak out , and tell us plainly , what they think of popery themselves . if they think this design not well managed , by those who undertake it , it would more become them to commend the design , and do it better themselves ; i know no man , but would very gladly be excused , as having other work enough to imploy his time , but yet i had rather spend my vacant minutes this way , than in censuring the good that other men do , while i do none my self . the words of the paper , which was sent to me , are these . it is my opinion that the infinite goodness of our legislator , has left to us a means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the holy scriptures , which is the church : now i judge this church must be known to be the true church , by its continual visible succession from christ till our days . but i doubt whether or no the protestant church can make out this continual visible succession , and desire to be informed . answer . that christ has left a means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the holy scriptures , i readily grant ; or else it had been to no purpose to have left us the scriptures . but the latter clause is very ambiguous , for the meaning may either be , that we may understand by the scriptures , which is the church ; or that the church is the means whereby we must understand the true sense and meaning of the scripture . the first is a true protestant principle , and therefore i presume not intended by this objector . for how we should know that there is any church without the information we receive by the scripture , i cannot divine ; and yet we may as easily know that there is a church , as we can know which is the true church without the scripture . for there is no other means of knowing , either that there is a church , or what this church is , or what are the properties of a true and sound and orthodox church , but by revelation , and we have no other revelation of this but what is contained in the holy scriptures . as for the second , that the church is the means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the scriptures , it is in some sense very true , in some sense very false . 1. it is in some sense true , and acknowledged by all sober protestants . as , 1. if by the church we understand the universal church of all ages , as we receive the scriptures themselves handed down by them to our time , so whatever doctrines of faith have been universally received by them , is one of the best means to find out the true sense of scripture . for the nearer they were to the times of the apostles , the more likely they were to understand the true sense of their writings , being instructed by the apostles themselves in the meaning of them . and thus we have a certain rule to secure us from all dangerous errors in expounding scripture . for the great and fundamental doctrines of the christian religion , are as plainly contained in the writings of the first fathers of the church , and as unanimously asserted by them , as the authority of the scriptures themselves : and therefore though we have not a traditionary exposition of every particular text of scripture ; yet we have of the great and fundamental doctrines of faith , and therefore must never expound scripture so as to contradict the known and avowed sense of the catholick church . and this course the church of england takes ; she receives the definitions of the four first general councils , and requires her bishops and clergy to expound the scriptures according to the profest doctrines of those first and purest ages of the church . 2. we ought to pay great deference to , and not lightly and wantonly oppose the judgment and authority of the particular church , wherein we live , when her expositions of scripture do not evidently and notoriously contradict the sense of the catholick church , especially of the first and best ages of it . for it does not become private men to oppose their sentiments and opinions to the judgment of the church , unless in such plain cases , as every honest man may be presumed a very competent judge in the matter ; and no church , nor all the churches in the world have such authority , that we must renounce our senses , and deny the first principles of reason , to follow them with a blind and implicite faith. and thus the church , that is , the sense and judgment of the catholick church , is a means for the finding out the true sense of scripture ; and though we may mistake the sense of some particular texts , ( which the romanists themselves will not deny , but that even infallible councils may do , who tho' they are infallible in their conclusions , yet are not always so in the arguments or mediums , whether drawn from scripture or reason , whereby they prove them ) yet it is morally impossible we should be guilty of any dangerous mistake , while we make the catholick doctrine of the church our rule ; and in other matters follow the judgment , and submit to the authority of the church , wherein we live ; which is as absolutely necessary , as peace and order and good government in the church . 2. but then this is very false , if we mean that the church is the only means of finding out the true sense of the scriptures ; or if by the church we understand any particular church , as i suppose this person does , the roman catholick , that is , the particular universal church of rome ; or if we mean the church of the present age , or by means understand , such a decretory sentence , as must determine our faith , and command our assent ; that we must seek for no other reason of our faith , but the authority of the church in expounding scriptures . i shall discourse something briefly of each of these . 1. to say that the church is the only means to find out the true sense of scripture , is very false and absurd . for , 1. this supposes the holy scriptures to be a very unintelligible book , which is a great reproach to the holy spirit , by which it was indited , that he either could not , or would not speak intelligibly to the world. 2. this is a direct contradiction to those exhortations of christ and his apostles to study the scriptures , which were made to private men , and therefore necessarily supposes , that the holy scriptures are to be understood as other writings are , by considering the propriety of the words and language wherein they are written , the scope and design of the place , and such other means , as honest and studious inquirers use to find out the meaning of any other book . 3. if the scriptures are so unintelligible , that an honest man cannot find out the meaning of them , without the infallible interpretation of the church . i would desire to know whether christ and his apostles preach'd intelligibly to their hearers ? if they did not , to what purpose did they preach at all ? by what means were men converted to the faith ? if they did , how come these sermons to be so unintelligible now they are written , which were so intelligible when they were spoken ? for the gospels contain a plain history of what christ did , and of what he said ; and the apostles wrote the same things to the churches when they were absent , which they preach'd to them when they were present ; and we reasonably suppose , that they as much designed that the churches should understand what they wrote , as what they preach'd , and therefore that they generally used the same form of words in their writing and in their preaching : and this makes it a great riddle , how one should be very plain and easie to be understood , and the other signifie nothing without an infallible interpreter . 4. if the scriptures be in themselves unintelligible , i would desire to know how the church comes to understand them ? if by any humane means , together with the ordinary assistances of the divine spirit , then they are to be understood , and then why may not every christian in proportion to his skill in languages , and in the rules of reason and discourse , understand them also ? if the church cannot understand the scriptures by any humane means , but only by inspiration , ( for there is no medium between these two ) to what purpose were the scriptures written ? for we might as well have learnt the will of god from the church , without the scriptures , as with them . god could have immediately revealed his will to the church without a written rule , as well as reveal the meaning of that written rule , which it seems has no signification at all , till the church , by inspiration , gives an orthodox meaning to it . 5. and if we cannot understand the scriptures , till the church expounds them to us , how shall we know , which is the church , and that this church is such an infallible interpreter of scriptures ? the church is to be known only by the scriptures , and the scriptures are to be understood only by the church ; if we will know the church , we must first understand the scriptures , and if we will understand the scriptures , we must first know the church , and when both must be known first , or we can know neither , it is impossible in this way , either to understand the scriptures , or find out the church . for , suppose the church does expound scripture by inspiration , how shall we be assured that it does so ? must we believe every man , or every church , which pretends to inspiration ? this is a contradiction to the apostles rule , not to believe every spirit , but to try the spirits . how then shall they be tried ? i know but two ways , either by miracles , or by scripture . miracles are now ceas'd , unless we will believe some fabulous legends , which all wise men in the church of rome are ashamed of ; and if there were real miracles wrought , they are of no authority against a standing rule of faith , which the apostle calls a more sure word of prophesie . if then we must judge of these pretences to revelation by the scriptures , which is the only way now left , then there is a way of understanding the scriptures without this revelation ; for if we must understand the scriptures by revelation , and revelation by the scriptures , we are got into a new circle and can understand neither . obj. but do we not see how many schisms and heresies have been occasioned , by suffering every one to expound scripture for himself ? how many divisions and sub-divisions are there among protestants , who agree in little else , besides their opposition to popery ? and is it possible to cure this without an infallible interpreter of scriptures ? is it not a contradiction to common experience , to say , that the sense of scripture is plain and certain , when so few men can agree what it is ? ans. 1. yes , we do see this , and lament it , and are beholden to the church of rome , and her emissaries in a great measure for it . but yet we know , thus it has been in all ages of the christian church , as well as now ; and we take the same way to confute these heresies , and to preserve the purity of the faith , and the unity of the church , which the primitive fathers did , by appealing to scripture , and the doctrine and practice of the catholick church , which is the best way any church can take , when there is no infallible judge of controversies : and if the primitive church had known any such infallible judge , they would certainly have appealed to him , at one time or other ; and it had been impossible , that any errors or heresies should for any long time together have disturbed the church ; but we hear nothing of him for many hundred years after christ ; but the ancient fathers took the same way to confute the heresies of their days , which we do now , which is a good probable argument , that they knew no better . and the present divisions of the christian church , are no greater argument against us , than the ancient heresies were against the primitive church , or than the protestant heresies ( as they are pleased to call them ) are against the church of rome ? for what advantage has the church of rome upon this account above any other profession of christians . those who are of the same communion are of the same mind . thus it is among us , and it is no better among them ; for we are no more of their mind , than they are of ours ; nay notwithstanding all their pretences to infallibility , most of the disputes , which divide the protestant churches , are as fairly disputed among themselves , witness the famous controversie between the jansenists , and molinists ; which their infallible judge never thought fit to determine to this day : they live indeed in the communion of the same church , notwithstanding these disputes , because it is a very dangerous thing to leave it ; but they are more beholden to the inquisition , than to infallibility for this unity . 2. how do these divisions and heresies , which disturb the church , prove , that no man can be certain of his religion ? if we can certainly know what the sense of scripture is , notwithstanding there are many different opinions about it , then the diversity of opinions is no argument against us ; if we cannot be certain of any thing , which others deny , dispute , or doubt of , then how can any papist be certain that his church is infallible ? for all the rest of the christian church deny this , and scorn their pretensions to it . i may indeed safely acquiesce in the determinations of an infallible judge , whom i am infallibly assured to be infallible , how many contrary opinions soever there are in the world ; but when infallibility it self is the matter of the dispute , and i have no infallible way to know whether there be any such thing , or where this infallibility is seated , if diversity of opinions be an argument against the certainty of any thing , which i am not , and cannot be infallibly assured of , then it is a certain demonstration against infallibility it self . unless we will take the church of romes word for her own infallibility , we cannot have the decision of an infallible judge in this matter , for she will allow no other infallible judge , but her self ; and yet this is so absurd a way , that it supposes , that we believe , and that we dis-believe the same thing at the same time . for unless we before-hand believe the church to be infallible , her saying so is no infallible proof that she is infallible ; and yet the very demand of a proof supposes that we are not certain of it , that we doubt of it , or dis-believe it . when we ask the church whether she be infallible , it supposes that we are not certain of it , otherwise we should need no proof ; and when we believe the church to be infallible , because she says so , it supposes , that we did before-hand believe that she is infallible , otherwise , her saying so is no proof . the greatest champions for the church of rome , never pretended that they could produce any infallible proofs , which is the true church . cardinal bellarmine attempts no more , than to alledge some motives of credibility , to make the thing probable , and to incline men to believe it ; and yet it is impossible we can be more certain of the infallibility of the church , than we are , that it is a true church ; and if a papist have only some motives of credibility , to believe the church of rome to be a true church , he can have no greater probabilities , that it is an infallible church . now not to take notice , what a tottering foundation some high probabilities , though they amounted to a moral assurance , is for the belief of infallibility , which is to put more in the conclusion than there is in the premises . the only use i shall make of it at present is this , that we can at least be as certain of the meaning of scripture , as the papists are that their church is infallible , for they can be no more infallibly assured of this , than we are of our interpretations of scripture ; and therefore , if the diversity of opinions about the sense of scriptures , proves that we cannot be certain what the true sense of it t is , the same argument proves , that they cannot be certain that their church is infallible , because this is not only doubted , but absolutely denied by the greatest part of the christian world , and was never thought of by the best and purest ages of it . so that this argument proves too much , and recoils upon themselves , like a gun which is over-charged ; and if , for their own sakes , they will grant that we may be certain of some things , which are as confidently denied , and disputed by others ; then the diversity of opinions in the church , is no argument , that we cannot be certain of our religion , but only teaches us greater caution , and diligence , and honesty , in our inquiries after truth . 3. these divisions and heresies that are in the christian church , are no better argument against the truth and certainty of our religion , than the diversities of religions that are in the world , are against the truth of christianity . the whole world is far enough from being christian ; great part of it are jews , or pagans , or mahumetanes still ; and this is as good an argument , to prove the uncertainty of all religions , as the different parties and professions of christians are to prove , that we cannot be certain , what the true christian church , nor what true christianity is . the gospel of our saviour was not designed to offer any force or violence to mens faith or understanding , no more than to their wills. were there such an irresistible and compulsory evidence in the gospel , that wherever it were preach'd , it should be impossible for any man , though never so wicked and ill disposed , to continue an infidel , or to prove a heretick , faith would be no greater a virtue , than forc'd obedience and compliance is . the gospel has evidence enough to convince honest minds , and is plain enough to be understood , by those who are honest and teachable ; and therefore has its effects upon those who are curable , which is all that it was designed for . those , who will not believe , may continue infidels , and those , who will not understand , may fall into errors , and believe a lye ; and yet there is evidence enough to convince , and plainness enough to instruct well disposed minds , and certainty enough in each to be the foundation of a divine faith. the sum is this , though the instructions of the church are a very good means for the understanding of the sense of scripture , yet they are not the only means ; the holy scripture is a very intelligible book , in such matters as are absolutely necessary to salvation ; and could we suppose , that a man , who had never heard of a church , should have the use of the bible , in a language which he understood , by a diligent reading of it he might understand enough to be saved . 2. if by church is meant any particular church ; as suppose the roman catholick church , or the church of the present age , it is absolutely false to say , that the church , in this sense , is always a sure and safe means of understanding the scripture . what has been unversally believed by all christian churches , in all ages , or at least , by all churches of the first and purest ages of christianity , which were nearest the times of the apostles , and might be presumed best to understand the sense of the apostles in the great articles of our faith , is a very safe rule for the interpretation of scripture ; and the general practice of those primitive apostolick churches , in matters of government and discipline , before they were corrupted by worldly ambition , and secular interest , is a very safe rule for our practice also , and this is the rule whereby our church is reformed , and to which we appeal . there are but three things necessary to be understood by christians , either the articles of faith or the rules of life , or the external order and discipline of the church , and administration of religious offices . 1. as for the rules of life , all those duties which we owe to god and men , they are so plainly contained in the holy scriptures , that no honest man can mistake them ; i suppose the church of rome her self , will not pretend , that there is any need of an infallible interpreter to teach men what is meant by loving god with all our heart , and our neighbour as our selves . 2. as for the articles of faith , those which are fundamental to the christian religion , and which every christian ought to believe , are so plain in scripture , that every honest and unprejudiced man may understand them ; but however , as i observed before , we govern our selves in these things by the received doctrine of the catholick church of the first and purest ages , and if this be not a safe rule , we can be certain of nothing . and what the catholick faith was , we learn from those short summaries of faith , which were universally owned by all catholick churches . for what we now call the apostles creed , was very anciently received in all churches , with some little variety indeed of words and phrase , but without any difference of sense ; and the catholick faith was not only preserved in such short summaries and creeds , which were as liable to be perverted by hereticks , as the scriptures themselves , but was more largely explained in the writings of the ancient fathers ; and though this will not inable us to understand every phrase and expression of scripture , but we must use other means to do that , as skill in the original languages , a knowledge of ancient customs , and ancient disputes , to which the apostles frequently allude , a consideration of the scope and design of the place , &c. yet the catholick faith received and owned by the primitive church , is so far a rule , as it directs us to expound scripture to a true catholick sense . as st. paul commands the romans , that those who prophesie , should prophesie according to the proportion of faith , rom. 12. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , according to the analogie of faith : that is , that in the interpreting the scriptures of the old testament they should expound them to a christian sense , according to those doctrines of the christian faith , which he had taught them ; and this was a safe rule for expounding the old testament , which contained the types , and figures , and prophesies of the gospel-state . and thus in expounding the new testament , now it is committed to writing , we must prophesie according to the analogie of faith , or as he commands timothy in his preaching . hold fast the form of sound words , which thou hast heard from me . 2 tim. 1. 13. it seems the apostle had given him a form of sound words , according to which he was to direct his preaching ; whether this refers to a short summary of faith , such as our creed is , i cannot say , though it is not improbable it may ; but it is plain , we have a form of sound words delivered to us by the catholick church , which contains the true catholick faith , and therefore ought to be so far a rule to us in expounding scripture , as never to contradict any thing which is contained in it , for that is to contradict the faith of the catholick church . and when one great article of this faith , concerning the eternal god-head of christ the son of god , was corrupted by arius , a presbyter of the church of alexandria , it gave an occasion for a more full declaration of the sense of the catholick church about it . and though the effects of that controversie were very fatal to the church , yet it was very happy that it broke out in such an age , when it could be determined with greater certainty and greater authority , than it could have been in any succeeding age of the church ; by men , who were venerable for their age , for their wisdom , for their piety , for their undaunted confessions under heathen and persecuting emperours , who knew what the sense of the catholick church was , before this controversie broke out , and before external prosperity had , through ease and wantonness , corrupted the faith , as well as the manners of christians . 3. as for matters of external order , discipline , and government , the universal practice of the catholick church is the best and safest comment on those general rules and directions we have laid down in scripture . there is no doubt at all , but the apostles did appoint governours , and rules of order and discipline , in the churches planted by them ; what these were , the christians of those days saw with their eyes , in the daily practice of the church ; and therefore the apostles , in those epistles which they wrote to their several churches , did not give them so punctual , and particular an account of those matters , which they so-well knew before , but , as occasion served , make only some accidental mention of these things , and that in such general terms , as were well enough understood by them , who knew the practice of the church in that age , but it may be , cannot meerly by the force of the words , which may be capable of several senses , be so certainly and demonstratively determined to any one sense ( by us , who did not see what was done in those days ) as to avoid all possible cavils of contentious men . this has occasioned those disputes concerning infant baptism , the several orders and degrees of church governours , the rites and ceremonies of religious worship , and the like . those who lived in those days , and saw what the apostles did in these matters , could not doubt of these things , though it were not in express words said , that infants should be baptized with their parents , or that bishops are a superiour order to presbyters , and presbyters to deacons , or that it is lawful for the governours of the church to institute and appoint some significant rites and ceremonies , for the more decent and orderly administration of religious offices . but because there is not a precise and punctual account given of these matters , in the writings of the apostles , which there was no need of then , when these things were obvious to their very senses , some perverse and unreasonable disputers , who obstinately reject all other evidence , will judge of these things just as they please themselves , and alter their opinions and fancies , as often as they please . but now if there be any certain way to know , what the practice of the apostles was in these cases , this is the best comment we can possibly have on such texts , as are not sufficiently plain and express without it . now methinks any reasonable man must acknowledge , that the best way to understand the practice of the apostles , is from the practice of the catholick church in succeeding ages , especially while the memory of the apostles was fresh , and the church governed by apostolical men ; when we cannot reasonably suspect any deviation from the primitive practice ; and this is the rule which the church of england owns in such matters , and by which she rejects and confutes both the innovations and corruptions of the church of rome , and the wild pretences of fanaticism . so that we do in the most proper sense own the belief and practice of the primitive church , to be the best means for expounding scripture . we do not leave every man to expound scripture by a private spirit , as our adversaries of the church of rome reproach us ; we adhere to the ancient catholick church , which the church of rome on one side , and the fanaticks on the other , have forsaken : and though we reject the new invention of an infallible judge , yet we are no friends at all to scepticism , but can give a more rational account of our faith , than the church of rome can . had we no other way of understanding the sense of scripture , but by propriety of the language , and the grammatical construction of the words , and the scope and design of the texts , their connexion and dependence on what goes before , and what follows , and such like means as we use for the understanding any other books of humane composition ; i doubt not , but honest and diligent inquirers might discover the true meaning of scripture , in all the great articles of our faith ; but yet this alone is a more uncertain way , and lyable to the abuses of hereticks and impostors . the socinians are a famous example , what wit and criticism will do to pervert the plainest texts ; and some other sectaries are as plain a demonstration , what work dullness and stupidity , and enthusiasm will make with scripture ; but when we have the practice of the catholick church , and an ancient and venerable summary of the christian faith , which has been the common faith of christians in all ages , to be our rule in expounding scripture , though we may after all mistake the sense of some particular texts , yet we cannot be guilty of any great and dangerous mistakes . this use the church of england makes of the catholick church , in expounding scripture , that she religiously maintains the ancient catholick faith , and will not suffer any man to expound scriptures in opposition to the ancient faith and practice of the catholick church . but though the belief and practice of the catholick church be the best means of understanding the true sense of scripture , yet we cannot affirm this of any particular church , or of the church of any particular age , excepting the apostolick age , or those ages which immediately succeeded the apostles . notwithstanding this , the church of rome may be no good expositor of scriptures , for the church of rome , though she usurp the name of the catholick church , as presuming her self to be the head and fountain of catholick unity , yet she is but a part of the catholick church , as the church of england , and the churches of france and holland are ; and has no more right to impose her expositions of scripture upon other churches , than they have to impose upon her . if there happen any controversie between them , it is not the authority of either church can decide it , but this must be done by an appeal to scripture , and the sense of the catholick church , in the first and purest ages of it . for when we say , that the belief and practice of the catholick church is the best means to find out the true sense of scripture , we do not mean that the church is the soveraign and absolute judge of the sense of scripture , but the meaning is , that those churches , which were founded by the apostles , and received the faith immediately from them , and were afterwards , for some ages , governed by apostolical men , or those who were taught by them , and convers'd with them , are the best witnesses what the doctrine of the apostles was , and therefore as far as we can be certain , what the faith of these primitive churches was , they are the best guides for the expounding scripture . so that the authority of the church in expounding scripture being only the authority of witnesses , it can reach no farther than those ages , which may reasonably be presumed to be authentick and credible witnesses of the doctrine of the apostles , and therefore if we extend it to the four first general councils , it is as far as we can do it with any pretence of reason ; and thus far the church of england owns the authority of the church , and commands her ministers to expound the scriptures according to the catholick faith , owned and profess'd in those days ; but as for the later ages of the church , which were removed too far from the apostles days , to be witnesses of their doctrine , they have no more authority in this matter , than we have at this day , nor has one church any more authority than another . 3. and therefore , if by the church being the means of knowing the sense and meaning of the holy scriptures , be understood the judgment and sentence , and decree of the church , that we must seek no farther for the reason of our faith , than the insallible authority of the church , in expounding scripture , this also is absolutely false and absurd . this is more than christ and his apostles assumed to themselves , while they were on earth ; they were indeed infallible interpreters of scripture , but yet they never bore down their hearers meerly with their authority , but expounded the scriptures , and applied ancient prophesies to their events , and took the vail off of moses's face , and shewed them the gospel-state concealed under those types and figures ; they confirmed their expositions of scripture by the force of reason , and appealed to the judgments and consciences of their hearers , whether these things were not so ; christ commands the jews not meerly to take his own word , and to rely on his authority for the truth of what he said , but to study the scriptures themselves ; and the bereans are commended for this generous temper of mind , that they were more noble than those of thessalonica , for they daily searcht the scriptures , to see whether the doctrine the apostles preach'd were to be found there or not ? now i think no church can pretend to be more infallible than christ and his apostles , and therefore , certainly ought not to assume more to themselves than they did ; and if the church of rome , or any other church , will convince us of the truth of their expositions of scripture , as christ and his apostles convinc'd their hearers , that is by inlightning our understandings , and convincing our judgments by proper arguments , we will gladly learn of them . this course the primitive christians took , as is evident in all the writings of the ancient fathers against jews and hereticks ; they argue from the scriptures themselves to prove what the sense of scripture is ; they appeal indeed sometimes to the sense of the catholick church , not as an infallible judge of scripture , but as the best witnesses of the apostolical doctrine : thus tertullian argues against hereticks , in his book de praescriptionibus ; but when they reason about the sense of scripture , they never direct us to any infallible judge , but use such arguments , as they think proper to convince gain-sayers . nay , this is the way , which was observed in all the ancient councils ; the bishops of the church met together for common counsel and advice , and in matters of discipline and government , which were subject to their authority , they considered what was most for the publick benefit of the church , and determined them by their authority , not as infallible judges , but as supreme governours of the church . in the disputes of faith , they reason from scripture , and the sense of the catholick church , not from their own authority ; and what upon a serious debate and inquiry they found to be most agreeable to the sense of scripture , and the doctrine of the church of former ages , that they determined , and decreed to be received in all churches , as the catholick faith. that this is so , is evident from all the histories of the most ancient , and celebrated councils , which any man may consult , who pleases . now i would ask some few questions about this matter . 1. whether these councils took a sure and safe way to find out truth ? if they did not , what reason have we to believe that they determined right ? if they did , then we may use the same way , which they did ; for that which is a good way in one age , is so another , and then there is no necessity of an infallible judge , to find out the sense of scripture , because we have other certain ways of doing this ; the same which all the ancient councils observed . 2. i would know , whether it be not sufficient for every christian to receive the decrees and determinations of these councils , upon the same reason and authority which moved the fathers assembled in council to make these decrees ? whether , for instance , we must not believe the eternal god-head of christ , and that he is of the same substance with his father , for the same reasons for which the nicene fathers believed this , and required all christians to believe it ? if we must , then scripture , and the sense of the catholick church , not the authority of a general council , or any infallible judge , is the reason of our faith : for the nicene fathers , who were the first that met in a general council , could not believe this , upon the authority of any other general council , much less upon their own authority ; unless we will say , that they first decreed this , then believed it , because they themselves decreed it . if scripture , and the sense of the catholick church , antecedently to the determinations of a general council , or any other pretended infallible judge , be not a sufficient foundation for our faith , then the whole christian world , before the council of nice , which was the first general council , had no sufficient foundation for their faith , for there was no particular bishop , or church in those days , which pretended to be the infallible interpreter of scriptures . we protestants have the same way to understand the scriptures , have the same reason and foundation of our faith , which the nicene fathers themselves had , or which any christian could have , before there was any general council , and if the church of rome do not think this enough , we cannot help that , we are abundantly satisfied with it . the authority of a general council in those days , was deservedly sacred and venerable , not as an infallible judge , which they never pretended to , but as the most certain means they could possibly have to understand , what was , and in all ages had been the received doctrine of the catholick church . they met together not to make new articles of faith , which no council in the world ever had any authority to do , but to declare what was the truly ancient and apostolick faith ; and to put it into such words , as might plainly express the catholick sense , and meet with the distempers of that age. for this end grave and reverend bishops assembled from all parts of the christian world , not meerly to give their private opinions of things , but to declare what was the received doctrine of those churches , over which they presided ; and i know no better argument of an apostolick tradition , than the consent of all churches , as remote from each other as east and west , which were planted by several apostles , and differed very much from each other , in some external rites and usages , but yet all agreed in the same faith. and this is the true authority of those ancient councils , that they were most likely to understand the true sense of scripture , and of the catholick church . this is the protestant resolution of faith , and the nicene fathers themselves had no other way , nor pretended to any other . nay , the church of rome her self , as much as she talks of infallibility , makes very little use of it . she has never given us an infallible comment on scripture , but suffers her doctors to write as fallible comments , and in many things as contrary to each other , as any protestant divines do : and i cannot imagine what good infallibility does , if an infallible church has no better means of understanding scripture , than the comments of fallible men ; that is , no better means than every fallible church has ; for no man can understand the scripture ever the better for the churches being infallible , unless this infallible church improve this glorious talent of infallibility in expounding scripture ; which she has not done to this day , and i believe never will. indeed it is apparent , that infallibility , as it is pretended to by the church of rome , can be of no use , either in the resolution of faith , or in confuting hereticks , who deny this infallibility , and then i cannot imagine what it is good for , but to multiply disputes , instead of ending them . as for the resolution of faith ; suppose i ask a papist , why he believes such articles , as the divinity of christ , or the resurrection of the dead , to be contained in scripture ? if he answer , as he must do , because he is taught so by the church , which is infallible ; my next question is , how he knows the church to be infallible ? if he says he learns this from scripture ; i ask him how he comes to understand the scripture , and how he knows that this is the sense of it ? if he know this by the infallible interpretation of the church , then he runs round in a circle , and knows the scripture by the church , and the church by the scripture , as i observed before ; if he can find out the churches infallibility by the scripture , without the help of an infallible judge , then it seems the scripture is to be understood without the infallible interpretation of the church ; and if men can find out infallibility in scripture without the church , i am confident they may find out any thing else in scripture as well , without the churches infallibility ; for there is no article of our creed so hard to be found there , as the churches infallibility is . but however that be , after all this boast of infallibility , a papist has no more infallible foundation for his faith , than a protestant has , nor half so much . we believe the articles of the christian faith , because we find them plainly taught in scripture , and universally received as the sense of scripture by the catholick church in the best and purest ages of it : a papist believes the church to be infallible , because he thinks he finds it in scripture , though the catholick church for many ages never found it there , and the greatest part of the christian church to this day cannot find it there : now if they will but allow , that a protestant ( though a poor fallible creature ) may reason about the sense of scripture , as well as a papist , and that the evidence of reason is the ●●me to both , then we protestants stand upon as firm ground as the papists here , and are at least as certain of all those doctrines of faith , which we find in the scripture , and are ready to prove by it , as they are of their churches infallibility ; but then we have an additional security , that we expound the scriptures right , which they want , and that is the doctrine and practice of the primitive church , which confirms all the articles of our faith , and rules of worship and discipline , but gives not the least intimation , that the pope or church of rome , was thought infallible by them , and if the primitive church was ignorant of this , which is the best witness of apostolical tradition , it is most probable , that no such thing is contained in scripture , though some mercenary flatterers of the pope have indeavoured to perswade the world , that they found it there . so that we have a greater assurance of all the articles of our religion , from scripture and catholick tradition , than a papist can have of the churches infallibility , and yet he can have no greater assurance of any other doctrines of religion , which he believes upon the churches infallibility , than he has of infallibility it self . so that in the last resolution of faith , the protestant has much the advantage of the papist , for the protestant resolves his faith into the authority of the scriptures , expounded by the doctrine and practice of the primitive church , the papist resolves his into the infallibility of the church , which he finds out only by expounding scripture by a private spirit , without the authority of any church , but that whose authority is under dispute . and as the doctrine of infallibility is of no use in the last resolution of faith , so it is wholly useless in disputing with such hereticks as we are ; who deny infallibility : for it is a vain thing to attempt to impose any absurd , or groundless , and uncatholick doctrines upon us , by the churches infallible authority , who believe there is no such infallible judge ; but are resolved to trust our own eyes , and to adhere to scripture and the catholick faith of the primitive church in these matters . and therefore the great advocates for the church of rome , are forc'd to take the same course in confuting heresies , as they call them , that we do : they alledge the authority of scripture , the authority of fathers and councils , to justifie their innovations , and here we willingly joyn issue with them , and are ready to prove , that scripture and all true antiquity is on our side ; and this has been often and unanswerably proved by the learned patrons of the reformation . but there are some very material things to be observed from hence , for our present purpose . for either they think this a good way to prove what they intend , and to convince gain-sayers by the authority of scripture , and primitive antiquity , or they do not . if they do not think this a good way , to what purpose are there so many volumes of controversie written ? why do they produce scripture , and fathers , and councils , to justifie the usurpations of their church , and those new additions they have made to the christian faith and worship ? if this be not a good way to convince a heretick , why do they give themselves and us such an impertinent trouble ? if this be a good way , then we are in a good way already ; we take that very way for our satisfaction , which by their own confession and practice , is a very proper means for the conviction of hereticks , and to discover the truth , and after the most diligent inquiries we can make , we are satisfied that the truth is on our side . if the authority of scripture signifie any thing in this matter , then it seems hereticks , who reject the authority of an infallible judge , may understand scripture without an infallible interpreter , by the exercise of reason and judgment in studying of them , otherwise why do they pretend to expound scripture to us , and to convince us by reason and argument , what the true sense of scripture is . if the authority of the primitive church , and first christian writers , be considerable , ( as they acknowledge it is , by their appeals to them ) then , at least , the present pope or church , is not the sole infallible judge of controversies , unless they will say , that we must not judge of the doctrine or practice of the primitive church , by ancient records , ( and then baronius his annals are worth nothing ) but by the judgment and practice of the present church . the sum is this , there is great reason to suspect , that the church of rome her self , does not believe her own infallibility , no more than we protestants do ; for if she does , she ought not to suffer her doctors to dispute with hereticks , from any other topick , but her own authority ; when they vie reasons and arguments with us , and dispute from scripture and antiquity : they appeal from the infallibility of the present church , to every mans private reason and judgment , as much as any protestant does : and if the articles of the christian faith may be establish'd by scripture and antiquity , without an infallible judge , as they suppose they may be , by their frequent attempts to do it ; this plainly overthrows the necessity of an infallible judge . in a word , not to take notice now , how weak and groundless this pretence of infallibility is , it is evident , that it is a very useless doctrine ; for those who believe the churches infallibility , have no greater assurance of their faith , than we have , who do not believe it ; and those who do not believe the churches infallibility , can never be confuted by it . so that it can neither establish any mans faith , nor confute any heresies ; that is , it is of no use at all . the church of england reverences the authority of the primitive church , as the best witness of the apostolical faith and practice , but yet resolves her faith at last into the authority of the scriptures . she receives nothing for an article of faith , which she does not find plainly enough taught in scripture , but it is a great confirmation of her interpretation of scripture , that the primitive church owned the same doctrines , which she does ; and she looks upon it as a just prejudice against any expositions of scripture , if they contradict the common faith of the first christians ; and therefore when the words of scripture are fairly capable of different senses , she chuses that sense which is most agreeable with the catholick faith , and practice of the primitive church ; but should any doctrines be imposed upon her , as articles of faith , which are no where to be found in scripture , or which are plainly contrary to it , ( as the new trent creed is ) whatever pretence there be for the antiquity of such doctrines , she utterly rejects them ; she will not put out her own eyes to follow any other guide ; and thanks be to god , she needs not reject any truly catholick doctrine in this way . we still retain the faith of the primitive church , and are greatly confirmed in it , from that admirable consent there is between the scriptures , as expounded by us , and that faith which was anciently owned and received by all christians . having thus shewn in what sense the church is the interpreter of scripture : i proceed now to the second thing contained in this paper , that this church must be known to be the true church , by its continual visible succession from christ till our days . now these few words contain a great many , and very great mistakes . the subject of the inquiry is , how we may find out such a church , whose word we may safely take for the true sense and meaning of scripture . now , 1. the author of this paper , whether ignorantly , or designedly , i know not , alters the state of the question , and instead of a church , which is an unerring and infallible interpreter of scripture , which would be very well worth finding , he tells us how we may know a true church ; now i take a true church , and an infallible interpreter of scripture , to be very different things . a church may be guilty of schism and heresie , and yet may be a true church , though not a sound , orthodox , and catholick church ; for a true church is such a church , as has all things necessary , and essential to the being and constitution of a church ; this a church may have , and superadd other things , which are destructive of the christian faith , and very dangerous and fatal mistakes ; as we believe , and are able to prove the church of rome has done ; and yet we acknowledge her a true church , because she retains the true christian faith , though miserably corrupted by additions of her own ; as a man is a true man , though he be sick of a mortal disease . now if a true church may corrupt the christian faith , we have no reason to rely on the authority of every true church , for the true sense and meaning of scripture . 2. let us suppose , that by a true church , he means an infallible church , whose authority we may safely rely on in expounding scriptures ; this church , he says , is to be known by a continual visible succession from christ , till our days : now if this visible uninterrupted succession be the mark of such a true church , as is an infallible interpreter of scripture , then , 1. the greek church is an infallible interpreter of scripture ; for she has as visible and uninterrupted a succession , from christ and his apostles to this day , as the church of rome has ; and so we have two infallible churches ( not to instance in any more at present , who have as good a succession as either of them ) which are directly opposite to each other ; and what shall we do in this case ? must we believe contradictions , or must we dis-believe infallible churches ? 2. if a visible succession from christ and his apostles makes any church an infallible interpreter of scripture , then all the churches , which were planted by the apostles , were infallible . all the churches which were planted by the apostles , have an equally visible succession from christ ; those churches which were planted by the apostles , may be presumed as infallible while the apostles were present with them , as they were afterwards ; and those churches which succeeded these apostolical churches , at the distance of an age or two , may be supposed as infallible as any church of this age is ; for if a visible succession from christ makes a church infallible , why should not a succession of a hundred , or two hundred years make them as infallible as a succession of sixteen hundred years , unless they think that infallibility increases with the age of the church , which i could wish true , but we see very little sign of it . now according to these principles all the churches which were planted by the apostles , and have a continual visible succession from apostolical churches , through all ages , since the time of the apostles , must be infallible ; for if a continual visible succession confers infallibility , and is the mark whereby we must know it , then every church , which ever had , or has to this day this vissible succession , must have infallibility also , which , it seems , is entailed on succession . and thus we have found out a world of infallibility , and it is wonderful , how any apostolical church came to be oover-run with so many errors and heresies , and to grow so corrupt and degenerate , as to provoke god to root them up ; if every apostolical church was infallible , i cannot imagine how whole churches , which visibly succeeded the apostles , should be infected with heresie ; for if infallibility it self will not secure a church from heresie , the lord have mercy upon us . 3. this mark he gives how to find out such a true church as is an infallible interpreter of scripture , viz. a continual visible succession from christ till this day , includes another great mistake ; for it supposes , that there is some church now in being , on whose authority we must rely for the sense of scripture ; for otherwise there can be no use of a visible succession to this day , in this controversie : if , as i have already proved at large , we must rely only on the authority of the primitive church , not of the church of this present age , for the sense of scripture , and that not as an infallible judge , but as the most authentick witness of the apostolical doctrine and practice , then we cannot find out this church by a visible succession to this day , but by examining the ancient records of the primitive church , where we shall find what the faith and practice of the church in those days was , which is the safest rule to guide us in the exposition of scripture . though there were no church in the world at this day , which could prove a continual visible succession from christ and his apostles , yet while we have the scriptures , and the records of the primitive church , we have very sufficient means for the understanding the true meaning of scripture : so that of whatever use this talk of a continual visible succession may be in other cases , it is wholly impertinent in this . a church which cannot prove such a continual visible succession , which was not founded by any apostle , or apostolical men , or has lost the memory or records of its first plantation , may yet have very certain means of knowing the true sense of scripture , from the scripture it self , and the doctrine and practice of apostolical and primitive churches , and a church which has the most visible uninterrupted succession from christ and his apostles , may be so far from being an infallible interpreter of scripture , that she may be very corrupt and erroneous her self , if she forsake the apostolical tradition , contained in the writings of the new testament , and expounded by the catholick faith and practice of the first churches ; as we know the church of rome has done , which is so far from being an infallible church , that we believe her to be the most corrupt church in the world. and thus i think we are prepared to venture upon the last clause of this paper , wherein the whole force of the argument , such as it is , is turned upon the poor protestant churches . but i doubt ( says the author of this paper ) whether or no the protestant church can make out this continual visible succession , and desire to be informed . the sting of which argument lies in this , that we protestants have no certain way of knowing the true sense and meaning of scripture , because we cannot prove the continual visible succession of our church , from christ unto this day ; and therefore we ought to go over to the church of rome , who has this visible succession , and receive all her dictates as infallible oracles . but , for answer to this , consider , 1. that suppose the protestant church could not make out such a continual visible succession , yet we may understand the scriptures very well without it , and need not go to the church of rome to expound scripture for us , as i have already shewn at large . had he proved that we had been no church , for want of a visible succession of church officers , or that our religion were a novelty , which was never heard of in the world before luther , this had been something more to the purpose ; but to pretend that we cannot understand the scriptures , for want of a visible succession , is such a loose and inconsequent way of reasoning , as a poor fallible protestant would be ashamed of . 2. but pray , why can't the protestant church of england prove her continual visible succession from christ till this day , as well as the church of rome ? here was a christian church planted in this nation , as very good historians say , as early as at rome , and it has continued here ever since , to this day : when austin the monk came over to england , he found here a company of resolute brittish bishops and monks , who would not submit to the usurpations of rome , and the english and brittish churches under several changes and alterations , have continued to this day , with a visible succession of christian bishops , and what better succession can rome shew than this ? i suppose no roman catholick will disown the succession of the church of england , till the reformation , and i pray , how came we to lose our succession then ? did the reformation of those abuses and corruptions , which had crept into the church , unchurch us ? just as much as a man ceases to be the same man , when he is cured of some mortal disease : did not the church of england consist of the same persons , before the reformation and after ? a great many indeed disowned the reformation ; but were not at all those persons , who were so active and zealous in the reformation , formerly of the roman communion ? and did they lose their succession too , when they became reformers ? when a church consists of the same bishops , priests , and people , which she had before , though she have not all the same that she had ; when she retains the same ancient catholick and apostolick faith , which she did before , only renounces some errors and innovations , which she owned before , how does this forfeit her succession ? the church of england is the very same church now , since the reformation , which she was before , and therefore has the very same succession , though not the same errors , to this day , that ever she had ; and that , i think , is as good a succession as the church of rome has . there are but two things to be considered in the case of succession : either a succession of church officers , or a succession of the faith and doctrines of the church . 1. as for a succession of church officers , we have the same that the church of rome has . those english bishops who embraced the reformation , received their orders in the communion of the church of rome , and therefore they had as good orders , as any are in the church of rome ; and these were the persons , who consecrated other bishops , and so in succession to this day . for as for the story of the nags-head ordination , that is so transparent a forgery , invented many years after to reproach the reformation , that i presume no sober roman catholick will insist on it . but we are hereticks and schismaticks , and this forseits our orders , and our succession together . but , 1. this charge ought first to be proved against us , that we are hereticks and schismaticks , we deny and abhor both the name and thing , and if we be not hereticks , and schismaticks , as we are sure we are not , and as the church of rome can never prove us to be , then according to their own confession , our orders must be good . 2. however be we hereticks , or schismaticks , or whatever they please to call us , how does this destroy our orders and succession ? the catholick church would not allow in former ages , that heresie or schism destroyed the validity of orders . st. jerome disputes against this at large , in his book contra luciferianos . and st. austin allows the donatists bishops to have valid orders , though they were schismaticsk , and therefore that the sacraments administred by them were valid . and indeed , if heresie will destroy orders and succession , the church of rome will be as much to seek for their orders and succession , as we are , which , by their own confession , have had several heretical popes , and no body knows how many bishops ordained by them . 2. as for succession of doctrine , which is as considerable to the full , as succession of orders , the great articles of our faith are not only plainly contained in scripture , but have been delivered down to us , through all ages of the church by an uninterrupted succession . the church of rome her self , in her greatest degeneracy , did own all that we do in pure matters of faith : when we reformed the church we did not make a new religion , but only separated the old faith from new and corrupt additions ; and therefore the quarrel of the church of rome with us , is not that we believe any thing which they do not believe , but that we do not believe all that they would have us . the doctrine of the church of england is truly primitive and catholick , taught by christ and his apostles , owned by the primitive church , and excepting the dispute between the latin and greek church , about the filioque , or the holy spirits proceeding from the father and the son , received by all catholick churches to this day ; which is as compleat and perfect succession , as any doctrine can have ; therefore when the church of rome asks us , where was our religion before luther ? we tell them it was all the world over , all catholick churches believed what we do , though we do not believe all that they do , they themselves did , and do to this day , own our creeds , and articles of faith , excepting such of them as are directly opposed to their innovations . so that we are on a sure foundation , our faith has been received in the catholick church in all ages . but now the church of rome cannot shew such a succession for her new doctrines and articles of faith , which were unknown to the primitive church for many ages , which were rejected by many flourishing churches , since the first appearance of them , which never had a quiet possession in her own communion , and were never formed into articles of faith , till the packt conventicle of trent . this i think is a sufficient answer to this paper , and it pities me to see so many well-meaning persons abused with such transparent sophistry . finis . books printed for fincham gardiner . a continuation and vindication of the defence of dr. stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of separation , in answer to mr. baxter , and mr. l●b , &c. considerations of present use , considering the danger resulting from the change of our church-government . 1. a perswasive to communion with the church of england . 2. a resolution of some cases of conscience , which respect church communion . 3. the case of indifferent things , used in the worship of god , proposed and stated , by considering these questions , &c. 4. a discourse about edification . 5. the resolution of this case of conscience , whether the church of england's symbolizing so far as it doth with the church of rome , makes it unlawful to hold communion with the church of england ? 6. a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . 7. certain cases of conscience resolved , concerning the lawfulness of joyning with forms of prayer in publick worship . in two parts . 8. the case of mixt communion . whether it be lawful to separate from a church upon the account of promiscuous congregations , and mixt communions ? 9. an answer to the dissenters objections against the common prayers , and some other parts of divine service prescribed in the liturgy of the church of england . 10. the case of kneeling at the holy sacrament , stated and resolved , &c. the first part. 11. certain cases of conscience , &c. the second part. 12. a discourse of profiting by sermons , and of going to hear where men think they can profit most . 13. a serious exhortation , with some important advices , relating to the late cases about conformity , recommended to the present dissenters from the church of england . 14. an argument for union , &c. 15. the case of kneeling , &c. the second part. 1. a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? 2. a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . 3. the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . a protestant of the church of england, no donatist, or, some short notes on lucilla and elizabeth sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 16 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 5 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59859 wing s3331 estc r15108 12005909 ocm 12005909 52314 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59859) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52314) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:13) a protestant of the church of england, no donatist, or, some short notes on lucilla and elizabeth sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 6 p. printed for t. basset ..., london : 1686. reproduction of original in huntington library. attributed to william sherlock. cf. bm. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng protestantism. donatists. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a protestant . of the church of england , no donatist . or , some short notes on lucilla and elizabeth . licensed , decemb. 8. 1686. london , printed for t. basset , at the george , near st. dunstan's church , in fleetstreet . 1686. (a) lucilla and elizabeth . (b) or , donatist and protestant (c) schism parallel'd . donatism . protestancy . 1. ordain'd anti-bishops . 1. ordain'd anti-bishops . an anti-bishop is one set up against another lawfull bishop , in the same diocese . 1. svch the papists have in ireland , as the donatists had . 1. such the church of england has not , that we know of ; and if there be any such , they must be popish anti-bishops . 2. erected anti-altars . 2. erected anti-tables . 2. there can be no anti-altars , nor anti-tables , where there are no anti-bishops . 3. impeach'd all other churches of apostacy . 3. impeach'd the whole church of superstition , idolatry , and antichristianism . 3. rome , like the donatist , does this ; for she allows of no true churches , but what are in communion with , and subjection to the pope . 3. no , only the church of rome , and not so as to unchurch her neither , as donatists and papists do . 4. communicated with no other church in religious offices . 4. communicates , in sacred duties , with no christian society . 4. thus papists communicate with none but in their own communion ; and that is to communicate with no other church . 4. we reject no christians , who will communicate with us ; and are ready to communicate with all churches , who do not impose sinfull terms of communion , nor require a corrupt worship . 5. appeal'd from the churches sentence in a spiritual cause to a lay-prince . 5. appeal'd from the churches decrees to the princes supremacy , advancing it in all spiritual cases , above any authority ecclesiastical , whatsoever . 5. popes have deposed princes , and absolved subjects from their oaths of fidelity , which is a greater crime . 5. the supremacy we allow to princes is not the exercise of any spiritual power , but such a power as the catholick church has always allowed to christian princes , viz. to have the supreme government of the church in their dominions , as incorporated into the state ; which must be allowed to sovereign power , or it is not sovereign . 6. yet continued the catholick creed , sacraments , liturgies , regiment and solemnities , as they were before the schism . 6. continues baptism and the creed ( in most articles ) but errs concerning the eucharist and other our lord's sacraments , abrogating the liturgies , rites , canons , fasts and festivals ; as also the spiritual iurisdiction of the church , and canonical obedience to the western patriarch . 6. this the church of rome does not , but has done that which is worse , viz. corrupted the catholick faith ; not by denying any article of the creed , but by adding new doctrines to it ; by increasing the number , and altering the nature of sacraments ; by corrupting liturgies , and the fasts and festivals of the church ; and so are much worse , upon this account , than the donatists , who did not corrupt the christian faith. 6. we retain the whole faith , and institutions of christ , intire ; which , i hope , is no fault , either in donatists , or in the church of england . we retain the ancient use of fasts and festivals ; and vindicate our just liberties from the usurpations of the bishop of rome ; who is not contented to be the western patriarch , but will be an universal bishop , the sovereign head of the church , and infallible judge of controversies . by which extravagant claims , he justly forfeits even that patriarchal right , which the canons of the church formerly allowed him , in honour to the imperial city , of which he was bishop : for when a grant upon meer courtesy is improved into tyranny and usurpation , there is no obligation to continue those respects , which are now challenged not upon courtesy , but as an original and inviolable right ; and improved , from honourable respects , into empire and unlimited jurisdiction . however , we need not trouble our selves with this dispute . the brittish churches , for six hundred years after christ , never had any dependance on rome ; and what was after this was only usurpation , and an usurped authority may be renounced without schism . a. st. augustin's censure against the donatists involving protestants . a. and why not involving papists as well as protestants ? for we have less to do with donatism than they have . what st. austin says against the donatists is upon the account of their schism , and may indeed be applied to other schismaticks : but before they can be applied to us , they must prove us to be schismaticks ; which is not so easy to do , as to take it for granted ; which our author , i see , is most inclined to . but , if the schismatick should fall to their own share , they must take the censure of st. austin to themselves . b. yov [ donatists ] are with us [ catholics ] in baptism , in the creed , and in the rest of our lord's sacraments ; but in the spirit of vnity , in the bond of peace , lastly , in the catholick church it self , you are not with us . b. to agree in faith and worship , and yet to divide communion , is certainly a notorious schism . and thus st. austin proves the donatists to be schismaticks ; that they had the same baptism , the same creed , the same sacraments , but would not communicate with them ; and thereby divided themselves from the catholick church ; did not preserve the spirit of vnity in the bond of peace , but refused to own themselves of the same church . and this must be schism ; for nothing can justify a separation , but a corruption of faith or worship . but the case is vastly different between us and the church of rome . for we have not the same creed , the same sacraments , and the same worship : the council of trent has added a great many new articles to our creed ; has made a great many new sacraments , and corrupted the old ones , and has introduced a new and strang worship , the worship of saints and angels , and service in an unknown tongue , into the christian church . and this is the reason not of our separating from , but of their flinging us out of their communion . and this case st. austin says nothing of ; but we are ready to prove , that it is no schism . c. the sacraments of christ , which in the sacrilege of schism you [ donatists ] have to iudgment , will be profitable and wholsom to you , when you shall have the head , christ , in catholic peace , where charity will cover a multitude of sins . c. if they apply this to us , then they must at least grant , that we have very good sacraments in our church , such as are profitable and wholsom ; and convey to us all the vertue and benefit of sacraments , till they can prove us guilty of schism : and we desire to injoy the benefit of our sacraments no longer . d. whosoever believes christ jesus to be come in the flesh , &c. but yet so dissent from his body , which is his church , as that their communion is not with the whole , wherever diffused , but is found separated in some part , 't is manifest they are not in the catholic church . d. this was a good argument in st. austin's time ; when the whole catholick church was in one communion , without any corruptions in faith and worship to justifie a separation . for , in this case , whoever separated from any society of christians , separated from the whole christian church ; and nothing else was necessary to prove them schismaticks , but only their separation ; which was as visible a schism , as tearing an arm or leg from the body . for when the whole church was one communion , without any corruptions of faith or worship , there could be no dispute which was the true catholick church ; and to separate from the catholick church is certainly schism . this was the case of the donatists , against whom st. austin wrote that book de vnitate . they had nothing to object against the faith or worship of the catholick church ; but only pretended , that they communicated with traditors , or those who were ordained by them , that is , with those who , in the times of persecution , delivered up their bibles to the persecutors ; which yet was not so great a fault as taking away the bible from the people , ( which if they had not had in those days , they could not have delivered it ) and persecuting those who use it . but when the church is divided in faith and worship , into a great many different and opposite communions , it is a ridiculous thing for any part of the church to call it self the whole ; and then to charge others , as st. austin does the donatists , with separating from the whole ; especially , when such a separation is occasioned by such corruptions as are dangerous to mens souls . which is vastly different from the state of the church in st. austin's time ; and therefore what he says cannot be immediately applied to us . they must first prove , that the roman church is the catholick church , and a pure and uncorrupt church ; and then we will grant , that not to communicate with them is schism . e. this church is the body of christ , as the apostle saith , col. 1. 24. for his body , which is his church . whence surely 't is manifest , that he who is no member of christ , cannot have christian salvation . but the members of christ are joyn'd to each other by the charity of vnity , and by the same [ charity ] do they cohere to their head , christ jesus . e. to separate from the body of christ is certainly schism ; but st. austin in the same place tells us , that there is a separation from the head , as well as from the body ; that is , from christ who is the head , as well as from his body , which is his church . the first is a schism occasioned by heresy ; the second is a causless schism without any corruption in faith and worship . so that he never intended that , for fear of schism , we should communicate with a very corrupt church ; but only warns us not to separate from the church of christ , when such a church does not separate from christ. but as far as any church , or society of christians , separates from christ , the head , so far we may and ought to separate from them . f. whosoever therefore is separated from this catholick church , how laudably soever he thinks himself to live , for this only crime , that he is disjoyn'd from the vnity of christ , he shall not have life , but the wrath of god abideth on him . f. as for the evil and danger of schism , we perfectly agree with this father ; and will say as ill things of it , as the church of rome her self can desire : but we are not afraid of these ill consequences of schism , while we are no schismaticks . g. now st. augustin places the donatists schism in their not joyning with catholicks in religious offices , in forsaking all christian assemblies , in not partaking with them of the eucharist , in prayers , &c. whence he concludes them not to belong to the catholic church , not to be members of christ ' s mystical body , not to have charity , not sacraments to benefit , not piety with hope , nor salvation . g. this is all very true , and this was the character of the donatist schism . they were charged with no heresy , for they were guilty of none ; but only with separating from the communion of the catholick church , in prayers , and sacraments , which is a separation ; and if it be causless , as it was in the donatists , has the guilt of schism : but is a very just separation , and no schism , if it have a just cause . h. have prelatical protestants of great britain and ireland any visible communion , in the eucharist or other divine service , with any christian church on earth ? if they have not , as is undeniable , then according to st. augustin , they are not in the catholic church , are not members of christ , are without charity , beneficial sacraments , hopeful holiness , and eternal salvation . h. do the prelatical protestants of great britain and ireland refuse communion with , or deny communion to , any church on earth , without a cause ? if they do not , they are innocent ; if they say we do , let them prove it . we have nothing in our worship that can hinder any christian ( not roman-catholicks themselves ) from communicating with us ; and then , if they will not do it , it is their own faults . we refuse communion with no church , with whom we can communicate without sin ; and it is no fault to refuse communion , when it cannot be had without sin. and therefore we are still in the catholick church , ( and , i believe , the best reformed part of the catholick church ; ) we are members of christ , have true christian charity ( so much even for the church of rome , that it is made by themselves an argument against us ) and therefore doubt not to receive all the benefit of sacraments ; and , if we live holily , to receive the fruits of it in eternal salvation . i. and this censure by so much the more justly belongs to them , as their schism is more consumacious , their calumnies against the catholick church more horrid , and their defection by heresie , as well as schism , wider than the donatists . i. contumacy can never be in a good cause , and that we are sure ours is . though had he known any thing of the story of the donatists , he would have known , that no man can be more constant , and vertuously steddy , in a good cause , than they were contumaciously obstinate in a bad one . we do not calumniate the catholick church , god forbid ! nay , not the roman church ; for though we say a great many ill things of them , they are true , and that is no calumny . and are we the greater schismaticks , because we justifie our separation , by laying the fault on the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome ? if the donatists could have done so , st. austin would not have thought them so much the worse schismaticks , but no schismaticks at all . and as for heresy , when this author can prove us guilty of that , we will allow our selves to be worse schismaticks than the donatists were . the end. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59859-e110 (a) lvcilla , a private , though rich and powerfull woman , and therefore a fit patroness for a faction , but no legal reformer . (b) elizabeth , a sovereign princess , who had authority , in her own kingdoms , to reform the church ; which makes some difference between them . (c) papist had been here a more proper parallel , than a protestant , but that he is not so orthodox as a donatist , though as great a schismatick . notes for div a59859-e840 epist. 48. epist. 1 53. de vnitate ecclesiae , c. 4. cap. 2. epist. 1 53. a vindication of dr. sherlock's sermon concerning the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some socinian remarks / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1697 approx. 81 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 23 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59900 wing s3371 estc r21027 12048983 ocm 12048983 53116 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59900) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 53116) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 823:12) a vindication of dr. sherlock's sermon concerning the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some socinian remarks / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 40 p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1697. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy. faith -early works to 1800. socinianism. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-09 melanie sanders sampled and proofread 2004-09 melanie sanders text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a vindication of dr. sherlock's sermon concerning the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy . in answer to some socinian remarks . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcvii . to the right honourable sir edward clarke , lord mayor : and to the honourable court of aldermen . my lord , i beg leave to present your lordship with the vindication of my sermon lately published by the order of your court , against the cavils , calumnies , and wilful misrepresentations of a socinian writer . the argument is of that great consequence that it deserves to be defended ; and this pamphleteer has so rudely reflected upon the honour and sincerity of the court , for their order to print it , that i look'd upon my self under a double obligation , to defend so important a truth , and in that to justify your lordship's order . i pray god rebuke that perverse spirit of infidelity and heresy which is gone abroad in the world , and secure the faith of christians from all the arts and insinuations of impostors . that god would bless your lordship's government , and preserve this great city from all temporal and spiritual evils ▪ is the hearty prayer of , my lord , your lordship's , most obedient servant , william sherlock . a vindication of dr. sherlock's sermon before my lord mayor , &c. when i receiv'd the threatning and boasting message from some busy factors of the socinian fraternity , what work they would make with my late sermon before my lord mayor , concerning the danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy , my greatest concernment was , how to meet with their answer , which usually comes last to my hands , and how to bear the drudgery of reading it ; for their arguments have been spent long since , and that little wit they had is now degenerated into railing . that scurrilous treatment they have lately given to so many excellent persons , especially to that great man the bishop of worcester , is a fair warning to all who dare oppose them , what they must expect : and besides the experience of their many former civilities , i had more than ordinary reason to expect it now , they being touch'd in a very sensible part , without any other defence to make : and this author has not deceiv'd my expectations ; for upon a perusal of his remarks , i find nothing of argument , a very little wit , and abundance of railing . his wit and railing be to himself ; but i am sorry i can find nothing that looks so like an argument , as to administer occasion for any useful discourse . this there is no help for ; if men will write books without any arguments to be answered , there is nothing to be done , but only to shew that they have offered nothing to the purpose , or that needs an answer : and this will be done in a few words ; for he has disputed at large against what i never said nor thought , but has not one word against any part of the argument of that sermon . his title-page pretends a great zeal for the doctrine of the catholick church , and of the church of england , concerning the blessed trinity : which is as true , as that richard baldwin printed this pamphlet , who has publickly disowned it in print : but though a socinian conscience can digest such godly cheats , as a piece of wit and artifice , yet a wise man would not venture on them , because mankind hate to be abused , and grow very jealous of men of tricks . and yet had we to deal with modest men , it would be thought a little of the latest for a socinian to talk of defending the doctrine of the catholick church , and of the church of england , concerning the blessed trinity : for their cant about real and nominal trinitarians , and three infinite minds and spirits , is too well known to pass for so much as a jest any longer ; and till they can defend the judgment of their disinteressed person a little better than by scorning the answer , which they will never be able to make any other reply to , it were time for them , could they find any thing else to say in the room of it , to let that alone . and yet this is what he would bring this present dispute to , if he knew how : he often flirts at three infinite minds and spirits , though there is no such expression in the whole sermon ; but still he says i intimate this in asserting a real trinity : now if three infinite minds and spirits be essential to the notion of a real trinity , ( as his inference supposes ) it is the best vindication that could possibly be thought of for that expression : for not to believe a real trinity , is to deny the father to be a true and real father , and the son to be a true and real son , and the holy ghost to be a true and real spirit ; and this is to deny the catholick faith of father , son , and holy ghost , which cannot be a real trinity , cannot be really three , if each of them be not truly and really what is signified by those names . but though that phrase of three infinite minds and spirits was used very innocently by me , only to signify three infinite intelligent persons , each of which is infinite mind and spirit , and neither of them is each other , which is the catholick faith ; yet i freely acknowledge , as i have done more than once , that it is liable to a very heretical tritheistick sense , if understood absolutely , and in that sense i always disowned it : and it is a sign men have very little to say , when they make such a noise with an inconvenient form of speech , though expounded to a catholick sense : but the margin will direct the reader where he may find the true state of this controversy . but what is all this to my sermon ? which neither explains nor defends any particular hypothesis about the trinity , but is a general vindication of the christian faith from the pretences of reason and philosophy . but , the doctrine of the catholick church , and of the church of england , concerning the blessed trinity , explained and asserted ▪ against the dangerous heterodoxies in a sermon by dr william sherlock , &c and , remarks upon dr. william sherlock ' s ( false and treacherous ) defence and explication of some principal articles of faith , &c. were more specious titles , and both so good , that they knew not which to chuse , and therefore adorned the title-page with one , and the frontispiece with the other , that if ever a poor sermon was confuted with titles ( which have a strange magick in them ) this is utterly undone . but it is time to consider his remarks , which exactly answer the title , that they are nothing to the purpose . i am not at leisure to follow him in all his harangues ; and his wit and buffoonry i despise too much to take notice of it ; and when it appears that a man has discharged all his artillery of witticisms against his own mistakes , he is witty at his own cost too . he has made an abstract or summary ( as he calls it , p. 4. ) of my sermon , but in his own method , his own words , and directly contrary to my sense : that is , he has abstracted from every thing that is in the sermon , that no man living by his abstract can tell what the subject or drift of the sermon was , or any one argument contained in it : i 'm sure i who made the sermon , knew nothing of it but by mere guess , as i read it in his abstract ; and would those men who read these remarks , be but so fair and honest as to read the sermon too , there would need no other answer . the first branch of my sermon in his abstract ( p. 8. ) is this ; philosophy and reason are the only things which those men adore , who would have no god at all . and what makes some men atheists and infidels , even the philosophick tincture , and their adherence to natural reason , the same makes others to be hereticks , that is , to be arians , socinians , and pelagians . now any one would think that this were one of the heads of my sermon ; which is so far from truth , that there is no such proposition to be found there , but the contrary to this is to be found there in express words . in the first page of my sermon there are these words : what some men call philosophy and reason ( and there is nothing so foolish and absurd which some men will no call so ) is the only thing which those men adore , who would either have no god , or a god and religion of their own making . and what attempts some have made to undermine all religion , and others to corrupt and transform the whole frame of the christian religion , upon a pretence of its contradicting natural reason and philosophy , is too well known to need a proof . and soon after ( p. 2. ) this vain pretence to reason and philosophy ; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the vain deceit in my text , which is applicable to all vain spurious philosophy , as well as platonism , and is so meant by the apostle . and p. 7. truly that which makes some men infidels , makes others hereticks , that is , a vain pretence to philosophy . now let any man judge , whether this be to charge atheism , infidelity , and heresy , upon reason and philosophy , or upon what some men call reason and philosophy , which may be very foolish and absurd ? whether the pretences of contradicting reason and philosophy , and the vain pretences to philosophy , signify reason and philosophy ? this is wilful misrepresentation ; for it is impossible he should mistake , i having expresly distinguisht between these vain pretences to philosophy , and true philosophy , ( p. 3. ) whoever considers what an enemy these vain pretences to philosophy have always been to religion , will see need enough for this caution ( of the text. ) true reason , and the true knowledge of nature , which is true philosophy , would certainly direct us to the acknowledgment and worship of that supream being , who made the world , and yet we know , there never was an atheist without some pretence to philosophy : though it seems , as this author tells us , ( p. 9. ) there has been an arch-heretick , even socinus himself without it ; and so may all his disciples be too , and yet be vain pretenders to reason and philosophy ; however , i am as orthodox in this point , as my lord bacon himself , whom he objects against me , whose sense i exactly expressed , though not his words . but nothing can more fully declare my sense in this particular , than what the reader may find ( p. 10. ) 2dly . let us now consider what great reason we have to reject all the vain pretences to reason and philosophy , when opposed to a divine revelation . for that i● all the apostle intends in this caution , not to discourage the use of reason , or the study of philosophy , which are great improvements , and a delightful entertainment of human minds , and with a wise and prudent conduct may be very serviceable to religion too ; but we must not set up any conclusions in philosophy against the christian faith ; nor corrupt the faith with a mixture of philosophy ; nor reject any revealed truths for want of natural ideas to conceive them by . nothing can be plainer than this ; that i am very far from condemning the sober use of reason and philosophy , though with the apostle , i will not allow them to oppose the authority of a divine revelation . so that our author need not be so terribly frighted , as if this innocent sermon were a designed revenge against the oxford heads , the learning of the place , and philosophy it self , ( p. 1. ) ( though the apostle indeed will not allow philosophy alone to make decrees in articles of faith ) ; here is no danger of setting up folly and falshood ( which would be to encroach upon his province ) or of writing a second moriae encomium , or praise of folly. here is no danger , that the articles of faith should disagree with true reason and philosophy , though a vain appearance , a socinian philosophy , may contradict the articles of faith. nay my lord mayor , and the court of aldermen , ( p. 9. ) notwithstanding this sermon , may very safely send their children to cambridge or oxford , if they get good tutors for them , who will reach them no socinian logick or philosophy : and which is more , we may confute atheists and infidels by reason and philosophy , ( p. 8. ) without being at the charge of buying a massy quarto bible , with clasps , and bosses , to knock'em down with : as he very wittily , and with great reverence to the holy scriptures , expresses it : for reason and philosophy may confute atheists and infidels , though they have no authority to make or unmake articles of faith , as to matters of pure revelation . nay more than this still ( if it be possible to please him ) , we will allow reason and philosophy to confute heresies , though not to judge absolutely in matters of faith : which i suppose is the reason , why , as he observes ( p. 9. ) hereticks , many of them , are no less bitter against this same ( damnable ) philosophy : they protest , especially in their latin works , that 't is this philosophy that corrupted and debauched divinity . damnable is a very fashionable word , and shews him to be well bred , and to have good acquaintance ; but it is a very great truth , that though catholick christians would never build their faith on philosophy , yet hereticks have always had great reason to rail at true philosophy , as i observed in my sermon ( p. 10. ) the importunity of hereticks did very often engage the catholick fathers in philosophical disputes ; but this they did , not to explain the christian mysteries by philosophy but only to shew , that as incomprehensible as these mysteries are , the philosophy of hereticks , and their objections against these articles , were very absurd . and such disputes as these may sometimes be absolutely necessary , and of great use to shame these vain pretences to philosophy , while we do not put the trial of our faith upon this issue . and thus much for his first proposition , ( for it is none of mine ) that reason and philosophy are the two idols of atheists and hereticks , and that make atheists to be atheists , and hereticks to be hereticks , ( p. 12. ) his second proposition ( ibid. ) runs thus . that to ascertain the very and true faith , we must attend only to that meaning of scripture which the words and phrases do imply : rejecting all mixture of reason and philosophy in our disputes about religion , and our inquiries about the meaning of scripture . now let any reader try , whether he can find any such proposition as this in all my sermon , either in words or sense . i could not for some time guess , what shadow of pretence he could have for charging such a proposition on me : i did indeed in some principal articles distinguish between faith and philosophy ; between what is revealed in scripture , and what philosophical disputes , which the scripture takes no notice of , have been raised about them , and warned all men from mixing and corrupting the faith with philosophy ; but does this forbid us expounding scripture agreeable to reason and common sense , and philosophy too , where sense , and reason , and philosophy , are proper judges ? they are not the supreme and absolute judges in matters of pure revelation ; but does it hence follow , that they cannot judge of their proper objects ? do i any where say , that we must always expound the scripture to a literal sense ? that when christ is called a way , a door , a rock , we must understand this literally ? and yet this is plainly what he would have to be my sense , as his beloved instance of transubstantiation shews . in this sermon i have given no rules for expounding scripture , which in time i hope i may . but what i assert is this , that when by all those methods which wise men observe in expounding any writing , we have found out what the true sense of scripture must be , we must not reject such doctrines meerly because natural reason cannot conceive or comprehend them . that revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by revelation , must serve instead of sense , natural ideas , and natural reason , ( p. 11. ) this gives a plain answer to all his cant about transubstantiation , from our saviour's words , this is my body , ( p. 12. ) for is there no way of knowing what is bread , and what is flesh , but by revelation ? is not this the proper object of sense and reason ? and then it does not come within my rule ; for sense and reason must judge of their proper objects , though revelation must serve us instead of sense and reason , as to such matters as can be known only by revelation ; that is , as i expresly add , we must upon the authority of revelation believe things which we do not see , things which we have no natural notion or conception of , things which are not evident to natural reason : as for instance , if it be revealed in scripture that god has an eternal word , his only-begotten son ; and that in time this word was made flesh and dwelt among us ; this son of god became man ; that god sent forth his son made of a woman , made under the law : though neither sense nor natural ideas , nor meer natural reason , give us any notice of it ; yet if we will own a revelation , we must believe it upon the sole authority of revelation : but though revelation in such cases be sense and reason to us , because we have no other means of knowledge ; yet sense must judge of the natural objects of sense , and reason of the objects of natural reason ; but revelation was never intended to unteach us what sense and natural reason evidently teach , and therefore it cannot teach us , that bread is flesh , and wine is blood. but this socinian is got so far towards popery , that he will not allow sense to be judge of this matter , whether the bread be transubstantiated or not , and that for a very pleasant reason ; his words are these , ( p. 13. ) he cannot have recourse to sense in the case , 't is only reason and philosophy can help him out : for though the apostles , who saw and tasted that it was bread only , and not flesh , might have appealed also to their senses ; yet we that never saw or tasted the substance which jesus gave then to the disciples , can know by reason and philosophy only , by nothing else , that it was not his flesh and blood : that is , i can't know by sense that christ gave bread and wine , and not flesh and blood to his disciples , because i did not see and taste my self that very substance that christ gave to his disciples : but can i judge by sense that what i my self see and taste in the lords supper , is bread and wine after consecration , not flesh and blood ? for that is the question between us and the church of rome ; not , whether we receive the same now which christ gave to the apostles in the first institution ( which they take for granted , and to question which , is meer scepticism ) but what that change is , which the words of consecration make in the elements to this day ; and if we cannot judge of this by sense , the church of rome have a better plea for themselves than i thought they had . and if i can't now judge by my own senses what it was christ gave to his apostles , and what they saw and tasted , i fear it will much weaken some other very good arguments against transubstantiation . but how will this socinian , who rejects the evidence of sense , confute transubstantiation ? why that is easily done by reason and philosophy ; as thus , the text expresly says , it was bread which he blessed and brake , and called it his body ; therefore it was his body in sign and signification , not in reality . all this is arguing , 't is reason that convinces us , not sense , that the substance he divided to them was indeed bread , not his flesh , which he neither blessed nor brake . this is reasoning indeed ; but did i ever reject reasoning and arguing about the meaning of scripture words and phrases , and the true sense and interpretation of scripture ? is there no difference between reasoning about the sense of scripture , and setting up the conclusions of meer natural reason and philosophy against the plain and evident doctrines of scripture ? it is certain i made a manifest distinction between them , p. 9. in all these cases we are concerned to enquire what the true sense of the article is ; for this the scripture teaches , and so far our faith is concerned , and these are not only justifiable , but necessary disputes , if the true faith be necessary . and such were the disputes of the catholick fathers with the sabellian , arian , and photinian hereticks , &c. so that i allow of arguing and reasoning as much as he does ; and add , but that which we are to beware of , is not to mix philosophy with our faith , nor to admit of any meer philosophical objections against the faith , nor to attempt any explication of these mysteries , beyond what the scriptures and the faith and practice of the catholick church will justify . this distinction he knew very well , but very honestly dissembles it , and endeavours to impose upon his readers , as if reasoning and arguing about the sense of scripture , and resolving our faith into meer natural reason and philosophy , were the same thing . he was aware what answer would be given to this , and therefore in the very next paragraph he confutes his own reasoning from scripture , and proves that the text does not confute transubstantiation : but if our preacher , says he , believes it was only bread , because the text it self calls it bread ( which was his own argument ) , let him consider , that seeing what was called bread before christ blessed it , after the blessing he calls it his body ; we cannot know by sense or by the text , but by reason and philosophy only , that it was not changed ( by the blessing ) into what now he calls it , namely , his body . but if this signifies bread , then . this is my body , signifies , this bread is my body ; and if bread be his body , then his sacramental body is not flesh : but i do not intend to dispute this point with him , but only observe , that to set up his reason and philosophy to be absolute judges in matters of faith , he will not allow either sense or scripture to confute transubstantiation . it cannot but give all sober christians a just indignation , to see the most sacred and venerable mysteries perpetually ridicul'd at this prophane rate ! in the reign of king james there was a pamphlet published to reconcile men to transubstantiation , by representing the doctrine of the trinity to the full as absurd , and chargeable with as many contradictions as transubstantiation it self : this was then charged on the papists , and they were sufficiently expos'd for it ; but a great man has lately informed us , that it was writ by a socinian , to make men papists or socinians , as it should happen ; which was a glorious design at that time of day , for men who take it ill if you will not allow them to be protestants , and to enjoy the liberty of protestants : for they could not but see that popery was then grown very fashionable and tempting by the favour and frowns of a popish prince ; and that the generality of christians did so firmly believe the doctrine of the trinity , that could they have persuaded them , as they endeavoured , that transubstantiation was as reasonable a doctrine as the trinity , it was much more likely that they would turn papists than socinians . instead of popery men are now running into the other extremes of atheism , deism , and a contempt of all reveal'd religion , and that upon a pretence of making mere natural reason and philosophy their sole guide and judge ; and now our socinians have a new game to play ; and if they dare not absolutely deny the authority of revelation ( which in many instances they have shewn a good inclination to ) , yet they give a superior authority to reason , which will serve as well , and make less noise than to reject all revelation . and if you shew them how absurd this is , to pretend to own a divine revelation , and to make revelation submit to mere natural reason and philosophy , they presently take sanctuary in transubstantiation , and defend it against the evidence of sense , and the authority of scripture , to make reason and philosophy the supreme judge in matters of faith ; and in the mean time matter not what becomes of religion , what advantage they give either to popery or deism , so they can but expose the faith of the trinity . he has given us a little specimen of it here ; but the same author , as far as i can guess from the same words and the same thoughts , has with his usual civility attack'd my lord bishop of sarum upon this argument , which upon this occasion i shall briefly consider . his lordship in vindication of the christian mysteries , with great reason rejects transubstantiation out of the number of mysteries , because it contradicts sense in the object of sense ; his words are these : transubstantiation must not be a mystery , because there is against it the evidence of sense in an object of sense : for sense plainly represents to us the bread and wine to be still the same that they were before the consecration . now i cannot think this author in earnest in the two first answers he gives to this . his first answer is , that it is not pretended by the papists , that the bread and wine have received any the least change in what is an object of sense . this is a discovery worthy its author , that the papists don 't deny that they see , and feel , and taste , and smell the sensible qualities of bread and wine : for who ever charged them with such a contradiction to sense as this ? but our senses judge of the substances of things by their sensible qualities ; judge that to be bread and wine , which has all the qualities of bread and wine : and therefore to say , as the papists do , that what our sight , and taste , and smell tell us has all the qualities of bread and wine , is not bread and wine , does not indeed contradict our senses as to sensible qualities , but contradicts that judgment our senses make of the natures of things from their sensible qualities : and this is that contradiction to sense which the bishop justly charges upon transubstantiation ; as is evident in his very words . in his second answer he disputes against the infallibility of our senses , as he calls it , by such common arguments as every freshman knows how to answer ; only i do not remember , that the delusions of our dreams used to be objected against the evidence of sense ; but suppose our senses may deceive us in some few instances wherein both sense and reason can correct the mistake , must they therefore deceive in the nature of bread and wine ? can he prove , that they ever deceive us with qualities and accidents without a substance ? for that is the cheat of transubstantiation : it is not pretended , as he observed in his first answer , that our senses deceive us in the colour , or figure , or taste , or smell of bread and wine ; and therefore all his instances of the deception of our senses are nothing to the purpose ; but let him give us any one instance of the other kind , if he can , and then we will believe transubstantiation in contradiction to our senses . but does he consider , what the consequence of this argument is ? he will not allow it a good argument against transubstantiation , that it contradicts sense , because our senses may deceive us in the objects of sense ( which by the way makes his instance of the delusions of dreams , which are not the objects of sense , very impertinent ; ) now if contradiction to sense be not a good objection , because sense is not infallible , what will become of his great argument of contradiction to reason ? for all men confess , that reason is not so infallible as sense is , as is evident from all the disputes and clashings of reason , and those absurdities and contradictions which contending parties mutually charge upon each other ; and if a contradiction to fallible sense be not a good objection against the truth of any thing , how comes a contradiction to much more fallible reason to be so unanswerable an objection ? and then we may much more safely believe a trinity in unity , notwithstanding all their pretended contradictions to reason , than we can believe transubstantiation in contradiction to sense . but in his third answer , he seems to be in good earnest , and i shall consider it as such ; and it is this . transubstantiation is contradicted by sense , saith his lordship , in an object of sense ; therefore 't is a false mystery . this is as much as to say , that a faculty or power judging of its proper object , always judges truly , and must determine our belief . he must say this , or his reasoning is nothing . i ask now of what faculty or power is almighty god the object . he will answer , god is the object , not of sense , which discerns him not , but of reason , which discovers , and sees this most glorious being . therefore reason , by his lordship 's own argument , judges infallibly concerning god , and must determine our belief about him : we must hearken to reason , when it finds contradictions in what men affirm concerning god. now notwithstanding his vain brags , and his triumphant challenge to the bishop , a very little skill will answer this argument . for , 1. the bishop need not say , because it is not true , that every faculty and power judges as certainly of its proper object , as sense does , and then his argument is quite lost : for if sense judges more certainly than reason , then a manifest contradiction to sense is a more unanswerable objection , than any appearing and pretended contradictions to reason . i believe this author is the first man who ever thus universally equalled the evidence of reason to that of sense ; or that ever affirmed , that reason could judge infallibly of god. and if reason may be mistaken ( which i shall take for granted ) especially in the infinite and incomprehensible nature of god , some appearing contradictions , or what some men will call contradictions , are not a sufficient reason to reject a revelation , and to disbelieve what god tells us of himself , and his own nature . 2 dly . whatever certainty we allow to our faculties in judging of their proper objects , we must extend it no farther than to what belongs to the judgment of that faculty : the same thing may be the object of different faculties , as it is of our different senses ; but every faculty , and every sense , judges of nothing in any object , but only what belongs to it self . all the objects of sense are the objects of reason too ; but sense judges of nothing but what belongs to sense , and reason of what belongs to reason ; and reason can judge no farther of any object , than it is knowable by reason ; and not only the divine , but even created nature has such secrets and mysteries as are not knowable by reason ; and therefore it is manifest ignorance or sophistry , to conclude from god's being the object of reason , therefore reason judges infallibly concerning god : for , not to dispute about the infallible judgment of reason , god is the object of reason , because reason can know something concerning god ; but god can be the object of reason no farther than he is knowable by reason ; and therefore if there be any thing which natural reason cannot know of god ( as i hope this author himself will own ) , with respect to such matters god is not the object of reason , and reason cannot judge at all , much less judge infallibly concerning god. but as sense leaves room for reason in the same object , so reason leaves room for faith. but must we not hearken to reason when it finds contradictions in what men affirm concerning god ? yes , most certainly , as far as god is the object of reason , and knowable by reason , but no farther ; for in such matters as reason cannot judge of at all , it cannot judge of contradictions . sense and reason can judge of contradictions only for themselves , or as far as their judgment reaches , but may appear contradictions themselves to each other . as for instance : reason assures us that man consists of soul and body , which are closely united to each other , and yet the union of spirit and matter is no better than contradiction to the judgment of sense ; for sense knows no union but by contact , nor any contact but between bodies , which have extended and solid parts , that can touch each other ; so that an union without contact is one contradiction to the judgment of sense , and a contact without extended solid parts , which a spirit has not , is another ; and yet reason does not matter these contradictions to the judgment of sense , because sense is not the judge of such things : and it is the same case between reason and faith , which receives its information from a divine revelation , concerning such matters as are not knowable by natural reason : should reason contradict faith in such matters as reason is no judge of , this is no more an objection against the superior evidence and authority of faith , than the judgment of sense is against the evidence of reason ; such contradictions are not in the nature of things , but are owing to our ignorance of nature , and presumption in judging of what we cannot understand . the example he gives of such a contradiction to reason , is a trinity of persons , every one of which is perfect god , and yet all of them but one god ; but for my life , i cannot see this plain contradiction , that three persons , each of which has all the perfections of divinity , and is perfect god , should be so essentially united in the s●me one eternal and infinite nature , as to be but one god. this is not a contradiction in terminis , it is not three persons and but one person , or three gods and but one god , but three divine persons , and one god. if the unity of the godhead consisted in the unity of a person , i grant it would be a flat contradiction to say , three persons and one god , which would be equivalent to three gods and one god ; but if the unity of the godhead consists in the unity of nature , that there is but one eternal and infinite nature , which is the one god , and this unity , and identity of nature be perfectly and entirely preserved in three divine persons , it is so far from a contradiction to say , that three persons are one god , that it would be a contradiction to say , that three divine persons , who have the same one identical nature , should be more than one god ; for that is to say , that one divine nature , which can be but one god , is three gods. now this is all that natural reason tells us of the unity of the godhead , that there is , and can be , but one eternal infinite nature , which is but one god ; this we expresly teach , and therefore do not contradict reason ; but then scripture tells us , that there are three , father , son , and holy ghost , to whom the name and attributes of god , and therefore this one infinite undivided nature , belong . this reason boggles at , and socinians call a contradiction ; but it is such a contradiction , as sense would judge the union of spirit and matter to be : at most it is an imaginary contradiction in the subsistence of the divine nature , which reason knows nothing about , and therefore can make no judgment of ; and such appearing-contradictions are no objections , because they may be no contradictions ; as we are sure they are none , when the doctrines charged with these contradictions are taught in scripture . there is one distinction , which seems to me to set this matter in a clear light , and to answer all the pretences of contradictions ; and that is , the distinction between contradictions in logick and philosophy . a contradiction in logick , is when two propositions in express terms contradict each other ; and all men grant that both parts of such contradictions cannot be true , as that there are three gods , and but one god , which is to say , that there are , and that there are not three gods ; that there is , and that there is not , but one only god. a contradiction in philosophy , is when any thing is affirmed concerning the nature or essential properties of any being , which seems to contradict all the notions and ideas we have of nature in other beings , and such contradictions as these may be both true ; for the natures of things may be contrary to , and contradict each other and yet both of them be true and real beings . there are infinite instances of this in all nature ; the ideas of hot and cold , of white and black , of light and darkness , of solid and fluid bodies , of matter and spirit , are direct contradictions , in this notion of a contradiction , to each other : and had we known but one of these opposites by our natural ideas , and the other had been revealed to us , we might as justly have cried out of contradictions , as the socinians now do , when you mention a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine nature . for heat contradicts the idea of cold , and fluid of solid ; as much as three persons in the unity of nature , contradicts the unity of nature in the unity of a person : this latter indeed is the natural notion we have , that there is but one person in one subsisting intelligent nature ; for we have no example of any thing else , and therefore can have no natural idea of any other unity ; but this does not prove , that it cannot be otherwise ; for there may be oppositions and contrarieties in nature ; and did we but consider what an infinite distance and unlikeness there is between god and creatures , we should not think it reasonable to judge of the divine nature by the ideas of created nature . this is a very real and sensible distinction between contradictions in logick , and in nature and philosophy , and there is a certain way to know them : logical contradictions are always immediately reducible to is , and is not ; for they affirm and deny the same thing in the same sence : the contradictions in nature and philosophy are only the opposition and contrariety there is between the ideas of several beings , which can never be reduced to a contradiction in logick , but through ignorance or mistake , by changing the sense and use of words . let any socinian try the experiment in the doctrine of the trinity in unity , and reduce it to such a contradiction if he can . a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine nature , is a contradiction to that idea we have of the unity of person and nature in created beings , but this is no contradiction in logick ; for it is not a contradiction in the same nature and being , as all contradictions in logick must be , but it is a contrariety or contradiction ( if we will so call it ) between the unity and personalities of two very different natures , the divine and the created nature ; and all the contradiction that can be made of it , is no more than this , that the unity of the divine nature , which is perfect and undivided in three distinct persons , contradicts the notion of unity in a created nature , which admits but of one person in one individual nature : but there are a thousand such contradictions in nature , that is , different natures , whose ideas are opposite and contrary to each other , and yet all of them real beings : but could they make a trinity in unity contradict it self , that the trinity should in express terms destroy the unity , and the unity the trinity , this would be somewhat to the purpose ; for it would prove a contradiction in logick , when the terms destroy each other ; but then the trinity and unity must be the same ; a trinity of persons , and but one person ; or a trinity of natures , and but one nature : but a trinity of persons , true , proper , subsisting persons , in the unity of nature , which is the catholick faith , is not a contradiction in logick , though it contradicts the notion of human personalities , which it may do , and yet be very true . this is abundantly enough to shew the weakness and folly of this socinian cant about transubstantiation ; the impiety , prophaneness , and mischievous consequences of it , let others consider . his third charge is , that i say , that as we are christians , and unless we will be understood to reject the supreme authority of divine revelation , we must believe those doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable , notwithstanding any objection from reason or from philosophy against ' em . he that believes no farther than natural reason approves , believes his reason , not the revelation ; he is a natural philosopher , not a believer . he believes the scriptures as he would believe plato or tully , not as inspired writings , but as agreeable to reason , and as the result of wise and deep thoughts , p. 14. here he has taken some of my words , and so put them together , as to conceal the whole force of the argument , which he always takes care to do . my business ( p. 10 , 11 , &c. ) was to prove , that we ought to believe those doctrines which are thought the most mysterious and inconceivable , notwithstanding any objections from natural reason and philosophy against them : and this i proved from the nature , use , and authority of revelation . that revelation , as to such matters as are knowable only by revelation , must serve instead of sense , natural ideas , and natural reason . that if we believe upon god's authority ( which is the strict notion of a divine faith ) we must believe without any natural evidence , merely because god has revealed it ; and then we must believe such things as are not evident to sense and reason . that to believe no farther than natural reason can conceive and comprehend , is to reject the divine authority of revelation , and to destroy the distinction between reason and faith. he that will believe no farther than his reason approves , believes his reason , not the revelation , and is in truth a natural philosopher , not a believer . here any man may perceive that our socinian was plainly baffled , for he has not one word to answer , but only says , that i contradict this my self in my vindication of the doctrine of the trinity , where i assert , that suppose the natural construction of the words of scripture import such a sense as is contrary to some evident principle of reason , i won't believe it : of this more presently ; but what is this to the purpose ? is there no difference between what reason can't conceive , comprehend , approve , and what the reason of all mankind contradicts ? no difference between believing what we do not see , what we have no natural notion or conception of , what is not evident to natural reason , and believing in contradiction to sense , and such natural notions , and natural evidence , as all mankind agree in ? but he is very much troubled , according to his principle of believing scripture no farther than natural reason and philosophy approves , how to distinguish between believing plato and tully , and believing a revelation . he says , they look upon plato and tully , as great men , but fallible ( p. 15. ) and therefore may take the liberty to dissent from them ; and believe them no farther than reason approves : very right ; but will he believe the scripture any farther than reason can conceive , comprehend , approve ? have a care of that : but they will do as well ; if reason will not approve of such scripture doctrines , as it can't conceive and comprehend , they will expound and torture scripture , till it submits to reason : for it is more congruous to think , that an inspired writer uses a figurative , or it may be a catachrestical ( very catachrestical ) expression or phrase , than that he delivers flat contradictions , or downright impossibilities : that is to say , they must by all means believe , or pretend to believe , the scripture ; but then they must never own any thing to be in scripture , which their reason calls a flat contradiction , or downright impossibility ; which is the very same thing ; for the reason why they will not allow , that the scripture contains any thing , which their reason does not approve , is because they must believe the scripture , but must not believe it beyond their own reason and comprehension ; and the only difference they make between plato and tully , and the scripture is , that they can safely reject their authority , when they please , but must be at the trouble of expounding away whatever they do not approve in the scripture . this is what i told them in the vindication ; and as impious as this author thinks it , i will venture to transcribe that whole paragraph . but i have not done with our author thus ; but must give him a little more about expounding scripture according to reason : for i affirm , that natural reason is not the rule and measure of expounding scripture , no more than it is of expounding any other writing . the true and only way to interpret any writing , even the scriptures themselves , is to examine the use and propriety of words and phrases ; the connexion , scope , and design of the text , its allusion to ancient customs and usages , or disputes , &c. for there is no other good reason to be given for any exposition , but that the words signify so , and the circumstances of the place , and apparent scope of the writer requires it . but our author ( as many others do ) seems to confound the reasons of believing any doctrine , with the rules of expounding a writing . we must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express dictate of natural reason , which all mankind agree in , whatever pretence of revelation there be for it ; well , say they , then you must expound scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary principles and dictates of reason : no , say i , that does not follow ; i must expound scripture according to the use and significations of the words ; and must not force my own sense on it , if it will not bear it . but suppose then , that the natural construction of the words import such a sense as is contrary to some evident principle of reason ; then i wont believe it . how ? not believe scripture ? no , no. i will believe no pretended revelation , which contradicts the plain dictates of reason , which all mankind agree in ; and were i persuaded , that those books , which we call the holy scriptures , did so , i wou'd not believe them ; and this is a fairer and honester way , than to force them to speak , what they never intended , and what every impartial man , who reads them , must think was never intended that we may believe them : to put our own sense on scripture , without respect to the use of words , and to the reason and scope of the text , is not to believe scripture , but to teach it to speak our language ; is not to submit to the authority of scripture , but to make scripture submit to our reason , even in such matters as are confessedly above reason , as the infinite nature and essence of god is . though i am never so well assured of the divine authority of any book , yet i must expound it , as i do other writings ; for when god vouchsafes to speak to us in our own language , we must understand his words , just as we do , when they are spoke by men : indeed when i am sure that it is an inspired writing , i lay it down for a principle , that it contains nothing absurd and contradictions or repugnant to the received principles of natural reason ; but this does not give me authority to expound the words of scripture to any other sense , than what they will naturally bear , to reconcile them with such notions as i call reason ; for if one man has this liberty , another may take it , and the scripture will be tuned to every man's private conceit ; and therefore in case the plain sense of scripture contradicts those notions i have of things , if it be possible to be true , i submit to the authority of scripture ; if it seems to include a contradiction and impossibility , if that contradiction be not plain and notorious , and in such matters , as i am sure , i perfectly understand , there i submit again , and conclude it is no contradiction , though i cannot comprehend how it is ; if i can by no means reconcile it , i will confess , i do not understand it , and will not pretend to give any sense of it , much less to give such a sense of it , as the words will not bear . his fourth charge is , that i say , difficulty of conceiving a thing , nay , the absolute unconceivableness of it , must not hinder our assent to what is contained in revelation ; because we do not disbelieve what is made known to us by sense or by reason , notwithstanding any difficulty or inconceivableness adhering to such things . these are neither my words nor my argument . my argument is this ; that since , as i had shewn , in matters of pure revelation , which can be known no other way , revelation must stand in the place of sense and reason , we must allow no objections against revealed mysteries , but what we will allow to be good objections against sense and reason . now no man questions the truth of what he sees and feels , or what he can prove to be true by plain and undeniable reason , meerly because there are unconceivable difficulties in it , as there is in every thing , even the most certain and familiar things in nature : and if revealed truths are not more unconceivable than many natural objects of sense and reason , why should their being unconceivable be a greater objection against believing a revelation , than it is against believing our sense and reason in matters equally unconceivable ? ( serm. p. 13. ) this argument is easily understood , but can never be answered ; and therefore he wisely resolved not to understand it . in answer to this he tells us , that he does not always believe his senses , nor his reason neither , when it is not clear , but perplext with difficulties , or darkening doubts , but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest inconceivableness . nor do i require he should ; but my only question is , whether he does not believe , both his senses and reason , that there are many things in the world , whose natures are so mysterious , that he cannot conceive or comprehend the reasons and philosophy of them ? that though he sees men and beasts , heaven and earth , sun , moon , and stars , he will not believe , that there are such things as he sees , because he cannot understand the philosophy of their natures , and sees a great many things done by them , which are perfectly unaccountable , and would have been thought absolutely impossible , had we not seen them done ? these are all the contradictions and impossibilities , which i say men may make or find , when they know not the philosophical natures of things , nor how they act , and yet will be reasoning and guessing at them ; which this wise author calls a sermon for contradictions . but do i require any man to believe contradictions ? nay , do i say , that there are any such contradictions ? but this , i say , that there are such unconceivable mysteries , in all created nature , much more in the incomprehensible nature of god , as some gotham philosophers ( as he who knows them best calls them ) charge with impossibilities and contradictions ; and yet these gotham philosophers are so wise as not to disbelieve their senses as to the being of those things , how unconceivable and incomprehensible soever their natures are ; and this is all i ask , that in matters of pure revelation we give the same credit to revelation , that in the objects of sense we give to sense , i. e. not to disbelieve what is revealed , as , that god has an eternal son , and that this eternal son in time was made man , because the eternal generation and incarnation are inconceivable mysteries ; as we do not disbelieve , that there are any men in the world , because human generations , and the union of soul and body are inconceivable mysteries in nature . towards the conclusion of my sermon , i answered two objections against believing a revelation as to such doctrines which are inconceivable and incomprehensible to meer natural reason . and here to prepare the way , he first scorns the objections , as never made before , or however by none but my self . that i pass over known and very dangerous objections , and answer only to chimera's and follies , never suggested or thought of by any . ( p. 18. ) i am glad to find , that he grows ashamed of these socinian chimera's and follies ; but let us hear what they are . 1. it is thought very unnatural , that when god has made us reasonable creatures , and therefore made natural reason to us the measure of truth and falshood , he should require us to believe without reason , as we must do , if he reveal such things to us , as we do not , and cannot possibly know the reasons of : if we must believe with our understanding , how can we believe things , which we cannot understand ? now this socinian does not believe , that any sect of religious ever made this or the like objection ; let him , as he says , snuff his candle once more , and look into the late socinian pamphlets : what is the meaning of all their zeal for reason in this cause , of their great noise and outcry about mysteries , nonsense , contradictions ? what is the meaning of their expounding scripture by reason , not like fools , but like wise men ? why has this author shewn such a furious zeal against believing a revelation notwithstanding any objections from meer natural reason and philosophy against it ? if , as he now says , our reason and understandings are finite and imperfect , and the wisdom and power of god most perfect : therefore he may reveal many things to us , to be believed by us , though we understand them not , nor have any other cause of our believing them , but only god's revelation of them , ( p. 19. ) nothing can be more true , than what he says , that reason is the measure of truth and falshood , but not the frail fallible reason of men , but the infallible wisdom of god. if he be sincere and hearty in this , we are perfectly agreed ; for this is the very doctrine of my sermon , which he has so furiously opposed , or would be thought to oppose ; for to speak the truth , he has not opposed the doctrine of my sermon ; but , in his own language , his own chimera's and follies . but here is either a fallacy in his words , or he gives up his cause , which it is plain he never intended : the question is not absolutely , what is the rule and measure of truth and falshood , but what is so to us ? now if he will allow , that frail and fallible reason is not a rule to us , then we may believe things , which our reason does not approve ; nay , which it may judge improbable and false : and if the infallible wisdom of god be a rule to us , it can be so only in a revelation , and then we may and must believe the infallible wisdom of god in a revelation against the objections of frail and fallible reason . and one may easily guess , there is something amiss still , notwithstanding all these concessions ; for as silly an objection , as he says , this is ( which i am glad to hear ) , he will by no means own , that i have answered it , and then i have very ill luck indeed , to make a silly objection , which was never made before , and not be able to answer it when i have done . the answer i give to this objection is this , that the matter of the objection is not true ; for we do understand both what it is we believe , and the reasons why we believe it ; and this i suppose may pass for an answer to that objection : but then it is farther objected , that we believe such things , whose natures we cannot understand , and cannot account for by natural reason : to this i answer , that reason is not the judge of the nature and phil●sophy of things , nor does it require us to believe nothing but what we thus understand and comprehend : for then , as i had shewn , we must no more believe sense and reason , than revelation : and this i take to be a good answer too ; but then to shew the reason of this , i add : when we make an objection against any thing , that it is without reason , or as we apprehend , contrary to reason , we must first consider , whether it be the proper object of reason ; otherwise it is no objection ; as it is no objection against sounds , that we cannot see them , nor against colours , that we cannot hear them ; because sounds are not the object of sight , nor colours of hearing . this , i think , is plain sense , and good reason too ; but this he says is no answer to that objection , why should reasonable creatures be obliged to believe things without reason ? nor was it ever intended as an immediate answer to it ; the answer i give is , that we are not oblig'd to believe without reason ; but when such men as this author object farther , that to believe things , whose natures we do not understand , and cannot account for by natural reason , is to believe without reason ; it is a proper answer to say , that reason is not judge of the nature and philosophy of things , and nothing can be said to be without reason , or against reason , which is not the object of reason ; as no man pretends , that the pure natures and ●ssences of things , or their essential reasons , properties , unions , operations , are ; ( serm. p. 19. ) but herein , it seems , i was mistaken ; for i have met with a man at last , who makes reason the judge of all this ; for if these be not the objects of reason , reason has no object at all ; for our reason can be no otherwise employed , but either about substances , or their unions , essential reasons , operations or properties , ( p. 20. ) very right ! we may know something of all this ; but i speak of the philosophy of nature : now can this new philosopher tell us , what the pure simple essence and substance of any thing is ? what naked matter stripp'd of all accidents and qualities is ? how soul and body are united , which cannot touch each other ? how a spirit should feel pain or pleasures from the impressions on the body ? how we think and reason ? nay , how we see and hear ? how thought moves our bodies , and excites our passions ? and a thousand such like mysteries ; which could he unriddle , he would infinitely gratify the inquisitive world : but christianity not mysterious , and the philosophy of pure simple nature , are too great discoveries for one age ; and yet if ever this happens , they must go together . for as i observed , this is all the incomprehensibility men have to complain of in the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation : the first concerns the pure nature , essence , substance , of god , and the essential distinction and unity of the godhead , which we neither do , nor can know any thing of ; for all nature is a secret and mystery to us , much more the infinite nature of god. and the second concerns the union of the divine and human nature in the person of christ ; which is a mystery , but what we ought not to complain of , since the philosophy of all natural unions is a mystery to us . these things are not the objects of reason ; and therefore though we believe them upon the authority of a revelation , without understanding the mystery of them , this is not to believe without , or contrary to reason . and what now does this socinian say to this ? truly not one word , but falls out with socinus and crellius , and some of his best friends , for talking so much of mysteries , ( which by the way shews , that this is not such a new and unheard of objection , as he would pretend ) for now he has found out , that there is no mystery at all in the doctrines of the trinity , and incarnation ; and he is in the right , if his socinian explication of these doctrines , ( which destroys the mystery , and the catholick faith together ) may pass for the doctrine of the church . but there has been enough said of that in the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined , which the reader may consult , and this author answer , at his leisure ; though i am very sensible he can never want such answers as this for any thing . 2 dly , the second objection against such a revelation , as contains matters which natural reason cannot comprehend , is , to what purpose such a revelation serves ? what merit there can be in believing such doctrines ? and of what good use such a faith can be to us ? serm. p. 2● . this is another objection , which he thinks no sect of religious ever made ( p. 24. ) but the irreligious m●y make this objection , and there are more than one sect of these . as to the usefulness of it , i observed , that though neither natural , nor revealed knowledge extends to the reasons and causes of nature , and of essential properties and operations , yet both natural and revealed knowledge is of as much use to us , as if we did perfectly understand all the secret and incomprehensible mysteries of the nature of god , or of the natures of creatures . both natural and revealed knowledge are alike upon this account , that they only acquaint us what things are , and what ends they serve , and then we know what use to make of them , without understanding the secret mysteries of nature . this i shew'd both in the knowledge of nature , and of god , and added ; we may make all the use that can be made of this world , and of every thing in it , without understanding the essential reasons and causes , or internal nature of any thing . this last clause he fixes his remarks on ; and that he may have something to remark , he changes my words thus . we may use the world as fully , and every thing in it to as good purpose , as if we understood the reasons and internal natures of things . and then adds , no , trisler ; not so fully , nor to so good purpose , as if we better understood the natures of things . now this fully , and to as good purpose , are not my words but his own ; nay we can make no use at all of it , but only so far forth as we understand the nature and reasons of things in it . we can use nothing to any purpose , till we know or understand something of its nature ; and no farther can we apply it and use it , than we understand its nature , and know its properties and powers . now this is not meerly trifling , but knavery : he represents me very ridiculously asserting , that we may as fully , and to as good purpose use every thing in the world without knowing its nature , vertues and properties , as if we knew them ; whereas i expresly assert , that we must first know , what things are , and what ends they serve ( and the better we know this , to be sure the better ) and then we know what use to make of them , without understanding the secret mysteries of nature . that is , when by experience and observation , we know what things are good for , we know how to use them without understanding the secret mysteries and philosophy of nature : as how god created all things out of nothing ; how the corn grows , or our food nourishes us , and the like : and thus i shew'd it was as to the doctrine of the trinity , and incarnation , that how unaccountable soever these mysteries be , it is the most useful and necessary knowledge in the world . but there is one thing still behind , which i find nettles this author ; and i don't wonder at it : to shew how much it became the goodness of god to reveal these mysteries of salvati●n to us , i observed , that the lapsed state of human nature makes supernatural knowledge necessary : — for though natural knowledge must be allowed sufficient to all the ends of human life , while man continued innocent — yet when man had sinned , he forfeited the favour of god , and a natural immortality ; and whether he should be restored or not , and by what means he should be restored , depended wholly on the sovereign will and pleasure of god. and therefore the light of nature , though it could direct an innocent man how to please and worship god , and to preserve himself immortal , it could not teach sinners how to make attonement for sin ; nor give them any certain hopes that god would for●ive sins , and bestow immortal life on them : which makes it necessary , that the religion of a sinner be a revealed religion . this he imperfectly transcribes , and adds ; true , but not in the least to the purpose : 't is no answer to that objection , but to another : namely to this ; why revelation or a ●upernatural knowledge is necessary ? here he had overshot himself , in allowing supernatural knowledge necessary , and therefore immediately qualifies it with , or however highly requisite , which declares this socinian's opinion , that we might have been saved without the knowledge of christ or the gospel-revelation ; for i know nothing that can make any thing more necessary , than the necessity of ●alvation : and therefore if it be not necessary , but only highly requisite , we might be saved without it : he adds the reason why he says this is nothing to the purpose . the obje●tion was concerning a revelation and faith , not intelligible , or not conceiveable ; the answer is only concerning revelation or supernatural knowledge ) in general , why it was given to men . but it is neither so , nor so ; the objection concerns the use of such a revelation as contains matters which natural reason cannot comprehend ; this part of the answer proves from the lapsed state of human nature the absolute necessity of the gospel revelation , which contains these mysteries . for if nature can't save us , it can't discover to us the way of salvation neither ; and if we must be saved by a supernatural grace and power , it must be supernaturally revealed ; and what is supernatural is the object of faith , not of natural knowledge . serm. p. 24. but he adds , there is a great difference between supernaturally revealed , and unconceivable ; the whole christian religion , the precepts as well as faith of it , is a supernatural revelation , and yet a system so intelligible that it must be taught to the women , to the poor , and ●ven to little children . this is true , but there is a difference between supernatural knowledge , as opposed to natural knowledge , and supernatural revelation : such things as nature can teach us , may be supernaturally revealed , and the degeneracy of mankind may make this , in his language , highly requisite ; as the nature and providence of god , a future state , and the differences of good and evil : but supernatural knowledge is a knowledge which nature cannot teach , but must be learned only by revelation ; and this is the knowledge , and a mysterious knowledge it is , which the lapsed state of human nature makes necessary , as necessary as the salvation of sinners by the incarnation and death of the son of god : which makes a great difference between the precepts and faith of the gospel , though both contained in the same revelation . he adds , it was not made the matter of supernatural revelation , for its difficulty , mysteriousness , or transcendency of the human understanding , but to ascertain the truth of it , and to enforce its authority in the world . which is in plain english to say , that the design of the gospel-revelation was not to teach us any thing beyond the discovery or comprehension of meer natural reason , but only to give greater certainty and authority to the laws and religion of nature and here , for a conclusion , i joyn issue with this socinian ( and am glad to take the least hint for some useful discourse ) , whether the gospel revelation contain any thing which nature could not teach us , and which natural reason cannot comprehend ; or were only intended to give greater certainty and authority to the religion of nature ? that the gospel is a new revelation of what nature could not teach , nor meer natural reason comprehend , i shall prove ; not from the name or notion of mysteries , which these men so foolishly and absurdly ridicule ; but from the express authority of st. paul , 1 cor. 2.14 . but the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god , for they are foolishness unto him , neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned . a brief explication of which words will be of great use in our present dispute . the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or natural man , as theophilact and other greek fathers observe , is the man who judges only by natural light and reason , and will receive and believe nothing beyond what nature teaches : and the context proves this to be the true meaning of it . this account the apostle gives of the graecian philosophers , that as the jews required a sign , so the greeks seek after wisdom , 1 cor. 1.22 . nothing would content them but some philosophical speculations , and natural proofs and demonstrations of faith ; which in this chapter he calls , the enticing words of man's wisdom , and opposes to the demonstration of the spirit , and of power : that is , to the evidence of miracles wrought by the spirit of god ; which are a more certain and infallible proof than all their pretences to reason and demonstration : for where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the disputer of this world ? hath not god made foolish the wisdom of this world ? for after that in the wisdom of god , the world by wisdom ( by natural reason and philosophy ) knew not god , it pleased god by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , 1 cor. 1.20 , 21. these are the men who rejected the faith of christ , of whom the apostle here speaks , and gives an account of the reason of their infidelity in these words , the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god. which will more fully appear , by examining what these things of the spirit of god are : and it is evident from the whole context , that they are matters of pure revelation , which can be known only by the revelation of the spirit , or the whole oeconomy of our salvation , by the incarnation , death , resurrection , ascension , of jesus christ , the eternal son of god , which is the subject of the gospel-revelation . this he calls , the wisdom of god in a mystery , even the hidden wisdom , which god ordained before the world to our glory , ver . 7. and what this is , immediately follows ; which none of the princes of this world knew ; for had they known it , they would not have crucified the lord of glory ; which can refer only to the dispensation of grace by jesus christ. this nature could not teach us , as it is written , eye hath not s●en , neither ear heard , neither have entred into the heart of man , the things which god hath prepared for them that love him , v. 9. that is , such things as neither sense , nor natural reason could inform us of : but god hath revealed them to us by his spirit , for the spirit searcheth all things , even the deep things of god ; for what man knoweth the things of a man , but the spirit of a man which is in him ? even so the things of god knoweth no man , but the spirit of god : now we have received not the spirit of the world , but the spirit which is of god , that we may know those things which are freely given us of god : which proves that these are properly the things of the spirit , which could never be known but by the revelation of the spirit : for they are the deep things of god , his secret counsels and purposes for the redemption of mankind ; the free results of his own wisdom and goodness , the things which are freely given us of god ; and therefore can be known , and can be revealed only by the spirit ; and these are the things of the spirit , which the natural man , the vain pretender to reason and philosophy , receiveth not . now can any man desire a plainer proof than this , how incompetent a judge meer natural reason is of the mysteries of faith , of the whole oeconomy of gospel-grace ? for what the natural man does not receive , that meer natural reason does not receive ; for the only reason why the natural man does not receive it , is because natural reason does not receive it ; and what is foolishness to the natural man , is foolishness to natural reason ; and what the natural man cannot know , because they are spiritually discerned , that natural reason cannot discern . now can there be a plainer proof than this ( if we believe st. paul ) that there are such doctrines contained in the gospel , as natural reason does not receive , or approve , but rejects with scorn : for it is not said , that the natural man cannot by the mere light of nature find out , or discover these things of the spirit ; that he had asserted before , but these words give a reason of the infidelity of the wise men , the scribes , the disputers of this world , who rejected the faith when it was preached to them by the apostles ; that the natural man , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , does not receive or approve the faith ; and not only so , but rejects it as foolishness , as absurd , contradictious , impossible , unworthy of a man of reason , and philosophy . like the philoso●hers of the epicureans , and the stoicks , who encountred st. paul , when he preached at athens ; and some said , what will this babler say ; other some , he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods , because he preached unto them jesus and the res●rrection . 17. acts 18. if then there be such doctrines as these in the gospel-revelation , it is certain , it can be no o●jection against any article of the christian faith , that meer natural reason does not receive , approve , comprehend it , but accounts it absurd , ridiculous , foolish ; for thus the things of the spirit of god were to the natural man in st. paul's days , and thus they will always be . nay if the things of the spirit of god are so far above the comprehension of human reason , then such doctrines as meer natural reason does not receive , have this mark and character of divinity , if they are contained in the gospel-revelation : nay , let me add farther , that those doctrines which have been always owned and defended with the warmest zeal by the catholick church , and opposed and rejected with as great scorn and contempt by pagans , infidels , and hereticks , as a contradiction to the reason of mankind , and the philosophy of nature , are most likely to be the true christian faith ; for this proves that the christian church always believed them to be gospel-doctrines ; and infidels and hereticks rejected them as incomprehensible , and inconceiveable , and absurd to human reason ; and such the doctrine of the trinity , and incarnation , and cross of christ , have always been to such natural men. nay , farther : if there be such doctrines in the gospel-revelation , which meer natural reason receiveth not , but accounts foolishness ; then it is certain , that is not the true christian faith which contains none of these mysteries , none of this hidden wisdom , none of these deep things of god. let the socinian then tell us , what things there are in their faith , which the natural man receiveth not , which are above the comprehension of meer natural reason : they glory that they have no such incomprehensible mysteries in their faith ; that they have a reasonable faith , that they have stript christian religion of riddles and mysteries , and fitted it to the level and comprehension of human reason ; but this very thing wherein they glory , is a demonstration against them , that socinianism is not the true christian faith ; for that contains such doctrines , as the natural man and meer natural reason receiveth not . they commonly laugh at that distinction between things contrary to reason , and above reason , which human reason is no judge of . we assert , that a divine revelation can never contradict true reason ; for a divine revelation must be true , and true reason is true , and truth cannot contradict truth : but we assert , that there are many things in the christian faith which are above reason ; which reason is not a competent judge of , and which natural men may call contradictions , if every thing must pass for a contradiction to reason , which meer natural reason does not receive , approve , allow . but after all , they must find something above natural reason , if they will believe like christians ; for such things there are in the christian faith , and then let them distinguish as they can between contrary to reason , and above it . but i must take notice of one thing more in these words , the reason why the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god , and cannot know them , viz. because they are spiritually discerned , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they are to be known and judged of only by spiritual arguments and methods ; and therefore the natural man , who rejects all means of knowledge but natural reason , can never know them . the truth and certainty of our faith must be learnt , not from the evidence of natural reason and philosophy , which was the evidence the philosophers expected . the greeks seek after wisdom , 1 cor. 1.22 . but ●t . paul tells us , that christ sent him to preach the gospel , not with wisdom of words , lest the cross of christ should be made of none effect . v. 17. &c 2.4 , 5. and my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom ; but in demonstration of the spirit and of power . i did not confirm my doctrine by natural reasons and arguments ; but by the evidence of miracles wrought by the power of the holy spirit ; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men , but in the power of god. and the true interpretation , and admirable wisdom of these divine mysteries , must be spiritually discerned also . which things also we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth ; but which the holy ghost teacheth , comparing spiritual things with spiritual . there is a spiritual language belongs to spiritual things ; and we must learn the true sense and interpretation of the faith , not from natural ideas , or the words and notions of philosophy , that is , in the socinian language , by expounding scripture by natural reason ; but by studying the language of scripture , and the meaning of the holy ghost in it , especially by comparing the old and the new testament together ; spiritual things with spiritual : this is a way of learning which natural men despise , and therefore cannot know the things of the spirit of god , which must be spiritually discerned . all this i think abundantly proves that there are such mysteries in the christian faith , as meer natural reason cannot discover , cannot prove , cannot receive and comprehend , cannot interpret ; which shews what reason we have to distinguish betwen matters of pure faith and philosophy ; and what danger there is of corrupting the faith by philosophy . and now i think i may conclude ; for i suppose no body will expect , that i should defend my self against his ridiculous charge , that i am a socinian ; which had he believed , i should have found better treatment from him : but i shall leave him to rave by himself , and look upon all these hurricanes of fury and vengeance , as a good sign that they feel themselves mortally wounded . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59900-e270 the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined , &c. considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the trinity , p. 21 , 22. vindicatition , p. 150. a modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of oxford, and some heads of colleges and halls concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the holy and ever-blessed trinity / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1696 approx. 87 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59831 wing s3303 estc r14301 12004696 ocm 12004696 52275 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59831) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52275) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:6) a modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of oxford, and some heads of colleges and halls concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the holy and ever-blessed trinity / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 46 p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1696. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng trinity -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of oxford , and some heads of colleges and halls ; concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite-minds in the holy and ever-blessed trinity . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcvi . a modest examination of the oxford decree , &c. no man has truer honour and reverence for that great and learned body of the university of oxford , nor has paid more just civilities and respects to any of the heads or members of it , as i have happened to be acquainted with them , than my self ; which makes it very uneasy to me , that there should be the least appearance of any quarrel or disrespect on either side . i can despise a thousand jacobite stories , even with all the additional comments and flourishes of a malicious animadverter ; and justify my neglect and silence , to my self , who am most nearly concerned in it : for many of those stories i can only deny , because i know nothing of them , but only this , that according to my principles and inclinations , it was morally impossible that i should say or do such things : and what i do remember any thing of , is falsly reported ; and yet cannot be rectified without betraying the privacies of conversation , as my accusers have done , and reflecting sharply upon some who have been old friends , whatever they are now ; which are such hateful vices , and so destructive to the innocent freedoms of conversation , that nothing but absolute necessity can justify or apologize for the least approaches to them . but the charge of heresy is of a different nature , especially considering my profession , character , and station in the church , which will not admit of a complemental silence : that if it should be thought too bold and daring to enter the lists with these oxford heads , that force and necessity which they themselves have put upon me , and which a very modest man neither can nor ought to resist , i hope will excuse it . but how come i to be concerned in this decree , which only censures one of their own members , for some passages in a sermon about the trinity ; which , as it is said , gave just occasion of offence and scandal to many ? how many were offended , i can't tell ; whether they had just cause of offence , shall be examined presently ; but how much soever they were offended , they did not think it deserved such a censure : for when a warm zealot promoted a petition to the vice-chancellor for a censure , he could persuade but one master of arts to subscribe it . but though this decree was occasioned by this oxford preacher , yet every one knew as soon as they saw it or heard of it , that it was aimed against me : i 'm sure these gentlemen knew very well what work there has been made with three distinct infinite minds or spirits . the animadverter had railed himself out of breath , and then calls for a decretum oxoniense to help him ; which was the wisest thing he could do ; for his reason will never do any hurt ; but such a decretum might furnish him with new topicks of railing . it happen'd as luckily for the purpose as if it had been contrived , that this preacher used some of the same expressions which i had done , and which the animadverter had charged with tritheism , viz. three distinct infinite minds and spirits . this was an opportunity not to be neglected , to obtain his desired decree : dr. south sollicited the cause with such zeal and importunity , as could not be resisted ; and , as i am informed , prepared the way for it in a furious sermon the sunday before , wherein he upbraided them , as being afraid to condemn heresy , deism , socinianism , tritheism , lest they should fall from ecclesiastical grace , and the door of preferment should be shut against them ; which was a very civil complement both to them and to the governors of our church . some of the wisest heads among them , and who were most concerned in a decree of heresy , were absent ; others absented themselves ; and some who were present in the convention , dissented , alledging , that their proceedings were irregular , and not according to their statutes . but some of the animadverters complexion and interest , with great zeal over-ruled the rest , and the decree was past , and printed in latin , in these words : in conventu d. vice-cancellarii & prefectorum collegiorum & aularum vniversitatis oxon. die vicesimo quinto novembris . a. d. 1695. cum in concione nuper habitâ coram universitate oxon. in templo s. petri in oriente , ad festum ss . simonis & judae proxime elapsum , haec verba , inter alia , publice prolata & asserta suerunt , viz. [ there are three infinite distinct minds and substances in the trinity . ] item [ that the three persons in the trinity are three distinct infinite minds or spirits , and three individual substances . ] quae verba multis justam offensionis causam & scandalum dedêre : dominus vice-cancellarius & praefecti collegiorum & aularum , in generali suo conventu jam congregati , judicant , declarant , & decernunt , praedicta verba esse falsa , impia , & heretica ; dissona & contraria doctrinae ecclesiae catholicae , & speciatim doctrinae ecclesiae anglicanae , publice receptae . quapropter praecipiunt & firmiter injungunt omnibus & singulis , eorum fidei & curae commissis , ne ●ale aliquod dogma , in concionibus , aut aliàs , in posterum proferant . ex decreto domini vice-cancellarii & prefectorum ben. cooper not. publicus & registrarius vniversitatis oxon. whoever drew up this decree , some criticks say he need not brag much of his skill in latin , having transgressed the plain rules of grammar , in using eorum fidei & curae , for suae . but this latin decree did not satisfy the animadverter , but for the benefit and edification of english readers , he ( as is easy to guess ) translates it , and adds a notable title , and a notable remark to it . the title is , an account of the decree of the vniversity of oxford , against some heretical tenets . the remark by way of postscript is , it may be noted , that the propositions above-mentioned are dr. s — k's in his discourse of the trinity , and the defenders of it , and wrote against by the animadverter , &c. which is as good english as the other is latin : and yet this did not satisfy him , till he had published this oxford decree against dr. sherlock in one of the weekly prints . spectatum admissi ! certainly he thinks there is no standing against this oxford decree ; and therefore in the first place let us briefly examine the authority of it . he calls it , the decree of the vniversity of oxford ; which is a mere sham ; for some heads of colleges and halls were never yet thought the vniversity of oxford : but that great and learned body , if they will vindicate their own rights , are more concerned in this than i am . the decree of an oxford convocation is indeed decretum oxoniense , or a decree of the university of oxford : this is what the animadverter called for , and this he would persuade the world he has ; but let the oxford convocation look to this , which may prove an ill president . but i am inform'd ( for i confess i know not their statutes my self ) that this decree of the heads of colleges and halls , is so far from being the decree of the vniversity of oxford , that it is no judicial nor authoritative decree at all ; not so much as for censuring a preacher , much less for declaring and decreeing heresy . their statutes refer such censures to the vice-chancellor , and six heads , doctors of divinity , and to one or both the professors of divinity ; but give no such authority to the general meeting of the heads , much less to heads , who are no divines , nor doctors in divinity ; and some such there were in this meeting . so that this pretended decree of the vniversity of oxford , is no more than the private opinions of some heads ; and if that be so venerable an authority , i will undertake any day in the year , to procure a meeting of twice as many , as wise and learned men , to censure their decree . but supposing their authority to be just and regular , there is another very proper question , how far their authority extends ? whether to the declaring and decreeing heresy ? whatever the convocation of the university may challenge , this was never before pretended to by the heads of colleges and halls . all the authority i can learn their statutes give them in such cases , is to summon the preacher , who has said any thing in his sermon contrary to the doctrine of the church of england , and to require a publick recantation from him , or to forbid him ever to preach again in the vniversity : whereas nothing of all this was done ; the preacher not summoned to this meeting , nor his name , as far as i can learn , once mentioned in it ; no recantation enjoined , no prohibition of his preaching again : but instead of this , which was their proper business , they declare and decree heresy , which so many masters of arts might have done with as good authority , where ever they had met . and they ought , ( notwithstanding all their zeal against heresy ) to have advised with men of skill , how far such an irregular and unstatutable proceeding might affect them . the authority of declaring and making heresy , may be of such pernicious consequence to the peace of any church , that it is not fit to be intrusted with any body of men less then a national synod ; for otherwise we may have as many different and contrary religions , as there are declarers and decreers of heresy . in the statute 1 eliz. ca. 1. we find the power to order , determine , or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy , restrained only to such as heretofore have been determined , ordered , or adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical scriptures : or by the first four general councils : or by any other general council , wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical scriptures : or such as hereafter shall be ordered , judged , or determined to be heresy , by the high court of parliament of this realm , with the assent of the clergy in their convocation . and if the king could not grant a greater authority than this to his high commissioner for ecclesiastical affairs , it is not likely that any other body of men have it ; and my lord cook says , that this is a direction to others , especially to bishops in their adjudgng heresy , 3 instit. pa. 40. and how they have observed this law in their decree , they had best consider . oxford reasons have formerly had a very just veneration paid to them , and will have so still , whenever they are penned with the same strength and clearness ; but they have a greater opinion of their authority , than i can find the rest of the world has , if they think by a meer decree , without pretending to give the least reason for it , to silence all disputes , and to bear down all reasons , and all authorities on the other side but since these heads are pleased to take part in the quarrel , which one would have thought they need not have done , had they not suspected the success of their animadverting champion ; i accept this exchange with all thankfulness . as for the animadverter , he might for me have writ on as long as he pleased , and have railed and triumphed as much as he pleased , and the world might have judged of him , and his performances , as they pleased : his last book i have read nothing of , and could never persuade my self to read all his first book ; there is such an evil spirit and such venom in his writings , as is enough to give an unchristian tincture to those who read them : he resolved never to answer any one but my self ; and i resolved never to read what he writ ; and thus there was some hope to see an end of this matter , when he grew weary of writing , or his bookseller of printing . but now i hope to meet with no new animadverters , who shall all fare alike with me ; but with men of ingenuity and candor , good learning , and good tempers , who will reason without sophistry and misrepresentations , weigh authorities in an equal balance , and contend for truth , not for victory ; and then it is indifferent to me whether i overcome , or am overcome ; for truth is better than victory , and will make an honest man triumph in being conquered . having thus considered the authority of this decree , which the animadverter so much glories in , let us now examine the decree it self . these words , three distinct infinite minds , and three substances , as applied to the three persons of the ever-blessed trinity , are singled out in this decree , and parted from the body of the sermon , without any thing to explain in what sense the preacher used them ; and therefore we must conclude , that these words are absolutely condemned , as false , impious , and heretical : that though a mind in this place signifies an intelligent person ; and substance a substantial person ; and three infinite intelligent persons , and three infinite substantial persons , is the catholick faith ; as i doubt not to make appear ; yet three distinct infinite minds , and three substances , when they are used in no other sense , than for three intelligent and substantial persons , must be condemned as impious and heretical . these are wonderful nice criticks , to make the same doctrine , owned and acknowledged to be the same , in one form of words to be truly catholick and orthodox , and in another form of words , which do and are intended to signify the same thing , false , impious , and heretical : this is a strange magical power of words ; hoc est corpus in the mouth of a popish priest , never were pretended to make a more miraculous transubstantiation . i wish it at last appear that these gentlemen do really believe three infinite intelligent persons , and three substantial persons in the trinity ; for let them distinguish as subtilly as they please , an intelligent person is a mind , and a substantial person is a substance , and three are three ; of which more presently . there may indeed be a very heretical sense put upon these words : to say , that there are three infinite minds or persons ( for the heresy is the same , whatever the word be ) wholly divided and separated from each other , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; three absolute principlees , independent on each other , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; three unbegotten ones , without any relation to each other , as father , son , and spirit ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : three substances in the arian notion , for three distinct kinds and species of substance ; or three natures and essences specifically different : all this , i say , is false , impious , and heretical , and has been condemned as such by the catholick church . and could they have affix'd any such sense as this on the preacher's words , they would have done well to have shewn it ; and then they had done very justly and religiously , in condemning such an impious sense of these words : but to condemn words , in themselves very orthodox , as impious and heretical , without giving the least intimation wherein their impiety and heresy consists , is a new way of proceeding , which they never learnt from any of the ancient councils . but party shibboleths always do the best execution , the less they are understood . the charge is drawn up as fully and emphatically as it is possible . 1. that these aforesaid words are false . 2. that they are impious . 3. heretical . 4. contrary to the doctrine of the catholick church . and 5. in particular contrary to the doctrine of the church of england , as publickly received . this they judge , declare , and determine ; and had they proved it too , they had done all at once ; but now the hardest part still remains ; and men who will not take their bare word for it , will judge all over again . and i hope it will give no offence to that great and learned body of the university of oxford , to examine the rash and hasty judgment of some of the heads of their colleges and halls . in order to this , i shall briefly premise some few plain observations , the more effectually to shew the rashness and injudiciousness of this decree . as 1. that no form of words is to be condemned as false , impious , and heretical , which do not necessarily and manifestly contain a false , impious , and heretical sense : words may be new , unusual , inconvenient , and want the stamp of ecclesiastical authority , which are not false , impious , or heretical . these are very different crimes , to broach new words , and new heresies , when the words themselves are not manifestly heretical . and certainly such men ought to have understood this , who take upon them to be judges of heresy . nay , 2dly . such new forms of speech as are liable to an heretical sense , are not therefore to be rejected , if they are of use to secure the true catholick faith , and those who use them declare the orthodox sense wherein they use them . all learned men know , that the homoousion it self was charged with as many heresies as any other word can well be : some charged it with sabellianism ; others with a division and partition of the divine substance ; as if the son 's being begotten of his father's substance , and so being consubstantial , or of one substance with him , signified such an efflux and emanation as divided the father's substance , and communicated part of it to the son : but when the catholick fathers rejected these perverse and heretical senses of the word , and declared in what sense they used it , in opposition to the arian heresy , and that it was the most significant word which could be used to that purpose , and which those subtle hereticks , who equivocated in all other forms of words , could by no means elude , the nicene council received it into their creed ; and eusebius of caesarea , and some others , who at first scrupled the use of that word , subscribed to it , when they were satisfied of its orthodox signification . it is reasonable for all men to consider this , who pretend to find heresy in words , whether those who use them , own that heretical sense which they charge upon them ; for otherwise they may as well condemn the homoousion , as false , impious , and heretical , as three distinct infinite minds and spirits , if they have no regard to the sense of those who use these words , nor to the end for which they are used . 3. and if we will ever allow of unscriptural words to explain and secure the catholick faith , ( which none but secret or open hereticks ever quarrel'd at ) there may be the same reason and necessity for it in our age , that ever there was in any age of the christian church ; and then it is as justifiable now , as ever it was . the church never had authority to make a new faith , but always had , and always will have , authority to declare and explain the true catholick faith in such words as are most aptly expressive of it , and necessary to countermine the arts and evasions of hereticks . this apology the nicene fathers made for putting the homoousion into their creed , as st. athanasius declares at large , in his book de decretis synodi nicaenae . the arians made a shift to reconcile their heresy to all other forms of words , by the homoousion detected their hypocrisy and heresy : this was too plain and express to be evaded by equivocal senses , and therefore they could never be reconciled to it ; and the catholick fathers thought that a very necessary reason for the use of it . now if such expressions as these , three distinct infinite minds and spirits , or three substances , be as necessary in our age to detect and oppose sabellianism , and to secure the catholick faith of a real , substantial trinity , ( which is all that is intended by them ) as the homoousion was at the time of the nicene council , to detect and oppose arianism ; this will justify the use of such expressions , how novel soever they may be thought ; and what necessity there is for this in our age , will appear presently . 4. it is a sufficient justification of any unscriptural forms of words in articles of faith , that though the express words are not found in scripture , yet all that is , and that is intended to be signified by those words , is found in scripture ; for no words can be false , impious , and heretical , which contain the true catholick faith , as taught in scripture : thus athanasius and the other nicene fathers answer that arian objection against the homoousion , that it is not to be found in scripture ; that though the word is not in scripture , the faith signified by that word is ; and thus st. augustine particularly defends it in his dispute with pascentius . 5. no expressions can be said to be contrary to the doctrine of the catholick church , which have been used by catholick fathers , either in the same or in equivalent terms , and contain that doctrine which the catholick fathers always taught . having premised this , let us now examine the censure , which these oxford heads have made of these propositions : there are three infinite distinct minds and substances in the trinity ; item , that the three persons in the trinity are three distinct infinite minds or spirits , and three individual substances . that is , i suppose , as much individual substances , as they are individual persons . it is evident , that all this relates only to the notion of the trinity , and to the notion of a divine person , and of three divine persons in the trinity ; and therefore the unity of the godhead is not concerned in this , which belongs to another question , how these three are one ; of which more when i examine the heresy charged on these words . 1. but the first charge is , that they are false : i wish they had told us what in them is false ; but since they have made no distinction , we must suppose they mean that all these words are false . is it false then , that each person in the ever-blessed trinity is by himself in his own person a distinct , infinite mind , spirit , or substance ? is not god the father an infinite mind or spirit ? is not god the son , the substantial word and wisdom of the father , an infinite mind or spirit ? is not god the holy ghost , that eternal spirit , which knoweth the things of god , as the spirit of a man knoweth the things of a man , an eternal mind or spirit ? or is not an infinite mind and spirit a substance , the most real perfect substance ; that is in the world , which gives substance and subsistence to all other things ? is not the father considered as an infinite mind and spirit , distinct from the son and the holy ghost ; the son distinct from the father and the holy ghost ; the holy ghost distinct from the father and the son ? to deny any thing of all this , is downright sabellianism , and destroys a real substantial trinity , which is as essential to the christian faith , as the unity of the godhead is . the only quarrel then , that i can imagine , against these words is this ; that tho the father be a distinct infinite mind , and the son a distinct infinite mind , and the holy ghost a distinct infinite mind , yet according to the catholick form of speech , we must not say that there are three distinct infinite minds , but one infinite mind or spirit or substance : now i grant that in the sense of the homoousion , or consubstantiality , this is very true and orthodox , in which sense st. jerom condemned tres substantias or three substances ; and st. austin , who allowed that the father is a spirit , the son a spirit , and the holy ghost a spirit , yet denied , that there are three spirits , but one spirit ; but when we apply this to persons , it is gross sabellianism to say , that there are not three personal minds , or spirits or substances , but only one mind spirit , or substance ; for then there can be but one person too , for one personal mind is but one person . let us consider what a mind is , and how we can know whether there be but one , or more distinct minds . the substance of a mind i know nothing of , no more than i do what the naked substance of body or matter is ; but the true notion of a mind is a thinking being , and therefore where ever we find the acts of knowledge , understanding and will , there is a mind ; and where there are distinct personal acts of knowledge and will , there are distinct personal minds . now if we believe the scripture , the father knows the son , and the son knows the father ; the father wills , and the son by a distinct personal act , wills with the father , and what the father wills ; the father works , and the son works , and sees all that the father doth , and doth the same things . thus the fathers proved against the sabellians the real and substantial distinction of persons in the unity of the godhead , from those distinct personal acts which are attributed in scripture to father , son , and holy ghost ; which having a mutual relation to each other , require distinct persons for their subjects ; and since all the instances they give ( as may be seen in tertullian against praxeas , novatian in his book of the trinity , athanasius against the sabellians , st. hilary , st austin , and all that have writ on this argument ) are acts of a mind , as well as of a person , they must prove ( if they prove any thing ) distinct minds as well as persons ; for if one singular solitary mind may be the subject of such distinct acts as necessarily suppose more than one , one person may be so too ; and then there is no possible way left to confute sabellianism , or to prove a real trinity of distinct substantial persons . it is very evident , that both the sabellians , and the catholick fathers in this controversy understood the same thing by person , which we do by mind or spirit : by person the sabellians meant such a person as is true and perfect god ; and therefore the most real substance , an infinite mind and spirit ; and for this reason they rejected three persons for fear of three gods , which always was , and is still the objection against a real substantial trinity ; for there is no danger , that three names , or notions , or modes , should be a trinity of gods. notwithstanding this , the catholick fathers allow their notion of a person , and prove against them such a trinity of persons as they rejected , each of which is true and perfect god. now since person is the catholick word , which long ecclesiastical use has made familiar , i should by no means allow of any other word in this mystery , could we retain the old catholick faith , together with the word : but when men make no more of a person , than a meer mode , and a trinity of modes in one singular nature , and substance , must pass for a trinity of divine persons , which was the heresy of sabellius , who contended for one singular solitary nature or subsistence in god , and was not much concerned by what name you called the three , so they were not three substantial subsisting persons ; for he never dreamt that there could be three real substantial persons in one singular nature ; i say , when this heresy is reviv'd under a new name , we are under a necessity of saying in more express words , what the fathers meant by person , if we will retain the catholick faith , as well as the word . would men but give themselves a little liberty of thinking , they would see how impossible it is to find a medium between a real trinity and sabellianism , however disguis'd . the three persons in the blessed trinity are either three substantial persons , or they are not ; to deny them to be substantial is sabellianism , whatever else we call them : there must be either one singular solitary substance in the deity , or three distinct personal substances : the first is the fundamental article of the sabellian creed , and a direct contradiction to the doctrine of the trinity , for one singular , solitary nature or substance , is but one person ; for which reason the sabellians so earnestly contended for it , and the catholick fathers so vigorously oppos'd it : and if we own three distinct substantial persons in the trinity , we must own three distinct personal substances ; for a distinct substantial person must have a distinct substance of his own , proper and peculiar to his own person : that though the father and the son are of one substance , as the son is begotten of the substance of the father , and consubstantial with him ; yet the personal substance of the son is no more the personal substance of the father , than the father is the person of the son , or the son the person of the father : and therefore there is a manifest sabellian fallacy in it , which it is impossible to make sense of , to say , that the father is an infinite mind , the son an infinite mind , and the holy ghost an infinite mind ; that the father is substance , the son substance , the holy ghost substance , and yet that there are not three personal minds , or three personal substances , but one singular mind and substance ; for this is to be one and three in the same sense ; which is not mystery , but contradiction . there has been a nice dispute about the singular and plural predication , when we speak of god ; that since in the unity of the godhead there are three and one , what it is we may call three , and what one : this is the whole pretence , as far as i can guess , for the oxford censure , that minds and substances are spoke of in the plural number . now this seems to me to be a very plain case , that if in the ever blessed trinity there be three and one , that wherein they are three may be said to be three ; but that wherein they are but one , must be said to be but one ; for otherwise three are not three , nor one one ; which must either destroy the faith of the trinity , or of the vnity . that there are three persons , and one god , is the catholick language ; and therefore three belongs to the persons , and one to the godhead : and therefore whatever is absolutely essential to the notion of a distinct person , may be number'd and distinguish'd with the persons ; for whatever is included in the notion of a person , though it be number'd with the persons , no more affects the unity of the godhead , than a trinity of persons does . if then a person be a mind , a spirit , a substance , three such persons must be three as distinct minds , spirits , or substances , as they are distinct fersons ; and three such personal minds , spirits , or substances , are as reconcileable with the unity of the godhead , as three substantial persons ; for the three belongs to the persons , who are three , not to the godhead , which is but one ; of which more presently . as for that phrase of three individual substances , it seems more obnoxious , because individual may signifie , and does in common use , more than barely distinct , even a separate substance , as all other individuals are ; and an individual carries with it a relation to a species ; and though the ancient fathers do indeed mention frequently a specifick unity of nature in the godhead , they did not confine the unity of the divine nature to this , which is a meer logical and notional unity : the divine nature is no species , for it is but one , and therefore the unity of the godhead is the most real , essential , indivisible , inseparable unity . but how incautious soever the expression is , the preacher seems to have had no ill meaning in it ; and therefore this might have been corrected , but not so heavily censur'd , especially since boethius his definition of a person might have led him to it , rationabilis naturae individua substantia , the individual substance of a rational nature : and if this may be allow'd a good definition of a divine person , whatever belongs to the definition of a person , may be number'd and distinguished with the persons . 2. thus much for the first charge , that these words are false ; the next is much heavier , that they are impious . now there are but two things wherein the impiety of any doctrine can consist , either in teaching some wickedness , or in reproaching and blaspheming the deity . now what wickedness does this doctrine of a real substantial trinity , a trinity of three infinite personal minds , teach us ? unless to worship father , son , and holy ghost with the most humble and devout adorations , be impiety . this indeed it does teach us , and this we do , and this no other notion of a trinity can teach us , or justifie us in doing : for is any other trinity but a real substantial trinity , the object of a religious adoration ? can we without impiety , distinctly worship , as we do in our litany , three distinct persons , who are not each of them distinctly in their own persons , infinite mind and spirit ? is a mode , a posture , a somewhat , without any name or notion belonging to it , the object of religious worship ? is it possible in the nature of the thing , for any man , who believes but one singular , solitary , divine nature , to worship three with a distinct worship , without any conception of a real , substantial , distinction between them ? can any man honour the son , as he honours the father , as a distinct object , and with distinct acts of worship , who does not believe the son to be as truly and substantially a divine person , as the father is , and as distinct a person from the father , as adam and abel were distinct persons , tho not separate persons , as they were ? men may please themselves with subtil distinctions , but they can never distinguish themselves nor others out of their sense and feeling ; and i appeal to all mankind , whether distinct acts of worship do not require distinct objects , as really distinct as their worship is ? whether they can distinctly worship , three names , or modes , or somewhats , when there is but one real substantial subject or suppositum of them all ? if they can , their devotion is as airy , subtil , and unintelligible , as their distinctions are . does this doctrine then of a real substantial trinity , of three infinite personal minds , reproach or blaspheme the deity ? i do not now dispute with the antitrinitarian hereticks , who are professedly so , who charge the doctrine it self with blasphemy , but with those who profess to believe a trinity , but charge the doctrine of a real , substantial trinity with impiety ; and therefore shall confine my self only to them . is it any reproach then to the ever blessed trinity to affirm , that each person is by himself a distinct infinite mind ? is an infinite mind then a term of reproach and blasphemy ? does not an infinite mind signifie all the perfections of a deity ? and is this blasphemy ? i beseech you against whom ? against father , son , or holy ghost ? and is not each of these divine persons a distinct infinite mind ? or is it blasphemy to say , what they are ? or when each of these divine persons is a distinct infinite mind , is it blasphemy to say , that three divine persons are three distinct infinite minds ? that is , will the three divine persons of the ever blessed trinity , when each of them is , and is owned to be a distinct infinite mind , think themselves reproach'd to be call'd three ? and if the divine persons will not think themselves blasphem'd by this , there is no danger that the divine nature should : for the divine nature is whole and entire in each divine person , and there is no danger but three distinct infinite minds must have the same one divine nature , for infinite , infinite , and infinite , are but one and the same infinite nature . but as i take it , the danger of blasphemy is on the other side : for if they deny the three persons of the trinity to be three distinct infinite minds , which of these divine persons , father , son , or holy ghost , will they deny to be an infinite mind ? for when we know him , we must strike him out of the trinity , as not being true and perfect god : or if they allow person to signifie the same thing , when applied to the father , to the son , or to the holy ghost , then neither of these persons is a divine infinite mind , or each of them is , and then there are three , as there are three persons , or there is never a divine infinite mind among them all ; the consequence of which is so blasphemous , that i know not whether i may venture to say it , for fear the animadverter should serve me , as he has done once already , to make these consequences my own doctrine : but yet i will tell these gentlemen , what a bolder man , than i am , would venture to say upon this occasion , that if a divine person , as a person , and as distinct from the other persons , be not an infinite mind , there is an end of the christian trinity , in which every person is true and perfect god , which no person is , who is not an infinite mind ; and therefore if any one person , considered in his distinct personal capacity , be not an infinite mind , he does not belong to the christian trinity ; and if all the persons are in this respect alike , that not any one of them , in his distinct personal capacity , is a distinct infinite mind , then there is no trinity at all ; and if they will find a god , when they have renounced a trinity , it must be one singular divine nature , which they themselves will not allow to be a person : and thus we have lost a trinity , and lost a god , who is a person . this is plain sence , and i fear , neither thomas , nor scotus , can help them out . but let us suppose ( and i am sure they ought to be thankful for such a supposition , for their notion of a person will not admit it , unless they understand one thing by a person when apply'd to the father , and another when apply'd to the son , and holy spirit ; but i say , let us suppose ) that the divine nature is originally in the person of the father , or that the father is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the unbegotten , self originated god , as he certainly is , and therefore a divine substantial person , who is essentially god : now the very name of father is a relative term , and signifies that he has a son , begotten of himself ; and let any man consider which sounds most like blasphemy , both against the father and the son , to say , that the father begets a son , who is his own perfect likeness and image , the express character of his own substance ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of the same substance with himself , but distinct in substance , as father and son are , true and perfect god , as his father is , without any other the least difference , but that one is the father , and the other the son ; or to say , that the father begets no substance at all , but only a mode , or a relation without a relative , in his own substance : that the father begets filiation , not a son , but sonship ; is not this to ridicule the divine generation , and to make sport for atheists and hereticks : if god begets no substance , he begets nothing real , nothing substantially distinct from himself , and therefore no substantial person ; and then neither god is a true and real father , nor the son a real son , which overthrows the whole mystery of our redemption , by the incarnation , death , and sufferings of the son of god : for god was not incarnate , if the divine nature was not incarnate : and if there be but one singular divine nature and substance in the deity , though they could find a trinity of persons in this one singular nature , the incarnation of this one singular nature is impossible , without the incarnation of the whole trinity . men may wrangle as long as they please about these matters , but it is a manifest contradiction to say , that the divine nature is incarnate in the son , and is not incarnate in the father and the holy ghost , when there is but one singular divine nature and substance in them all ; which is to say , that the same one singular nature is incarnate and is not incarnate ; and is , and is not , is a contradiction , or there never can be a contradiction . and now i leave it to all impartial judges on which side the impiety lies . 3. the third charge is heresie : but if it be neither false , nor impious , i hope there is no heresie in it neither : however , they would have done well to have given this heresie a name , that we might have known where to find it , who were the first authors of it , in what age of the church it began , and by what general councils it was condemn'd : for i can find no heresie in these censur'd words , but the heresie of a real substantial trinity , the heresie of three substantial persons , or of three personal minds and substances ; and i do not find any mention of this heresie in the ancient records of the church , unless those who called themselves catholicks were these hereticks ; for this was always their doctrine , as some of our modern orthodox zealots , and heresie-makers confess , and know not how to excuse them from heresie upon this account . well! if this be the case , we must be contented to be hereticks with all the ancient fathers , and the four first general councils : but these gentlemen should have remembred , that the church of england requires them to expound scripture , as the ancient catholick doctors expound it , and receives the four first general councils , where this heresie is in great perfection ; and it had not been amis , if some body had minded them , that the laws of england , as i observ'd before , forbid the declaring any doctrine to be heresie , which is not condemn'd for heresie in the four first general councils . but let fathers and councils , canons , or acts of parliament say what they please , they have a greater and more venerable authority than all of them : the animadverter has told them it is heresie , and has told them what heresie it is , no less than the heresie of tritheism . now i confess , i am much to seek what this heresie of tritheism is . it is not paganism , for the heathens did not stint themselves in the number of their gods ; they were polytheists , not tritheists , even the platonists themselves , though they own'd a trinity , a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or one divinity , which extended it self to three , which was essentially distinguish'd from all created nature , and from all their creature gods ; but they worshipped many gods besides , as the rest of the pagan world did . tritheism was never charg'd upon any men but the worshippers of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and it was charg'd upon them from the beginning by pagans and hereticks . the fear of this made noetus and sabellius deny three real substantial persons in the trinity , and made arius deny the true eternal divinity of the son , and holy spirit : but the catholick fathers despis'd this charge , and owned three distinct real substantial persons , each of them by himself to be true and perfect god , but not three gods , but one god : for thus the scripture had taught them to believe and speak , that there is but one god , and there are three , father , son , and holy ghost , who have all the perfections of the deity distinctly in themselves . so that this tritheism is a christian heresie if it be one , and was never charged upon christians by christians for several ages , but only by hereticks . the most orthodox christians were always most charg'd with it ; and some to avoid this charge , turn'd hereticks , and were condemn'd for such by the catholick church . it is true , in the declining monkish ages of the church , we sometimes hear of these tritheists ; but it is a very dark part of story , and i never cou'd find a satisfactory account what their opinions were , or why they were call'd so : it is not improbable but that they might fall into the hands of some malicious animadverter , who by zeal and faction might procure a new name and heresie to be decreed them ; for there is no new thing under the sun. but this has made me apt to suspect , that those who have been charg'd with tritheism , for professing the faith and worship of the ever blessed trinity , have been the most orthodox believers ; and that those who have so minc'd the matter as to escape the charge of tritheism from hereticks , have been hereticks themselves : a real substantial trinity , in which each person is by himself perfect god , has always been charged by hereticks with tritheism , for three , each of whom is true and perfect god , they say are three gods ; and yet this is the true christian trinity : but though men may laugh at a trinity of modes , you shall never hear them charge it with tritheism ; and what hereticks , who own but one personal god , cannot charge with tritheism , is no christian trinity ; that is , has not three persons , each of which is true and perfect god : so far are those gentlemen mistaken , who think it a piece of art and prudence to avoid all expressions which hereticks charge with tritheism ; for then they must renounce all words , which contain and express the ture catholick faith. at least i think , this should warn all men , who are not disguis'd atheists and infidels under the profession of christianity , to have a care of ridiculing father , son , and holy ghost , to be reveng'd of these tritheist hereticks , as the animadverter profanely does , who so often scoffs at me for my three gods , who never own'd any other god than father , son , and holy ghost , and pities the socinians as an unequal match for me , because they have but one god , and i have three ; nay compares father , son , and holy ghost to pagan gods , when he tells the world , that i curse him by my gods ; which is a manifest and impious allusion to goliath's cursing david by his gods. can he think that the dispute about three modes , or three minds in the unity of the godhead can justifie such blasphemies as these , against father , son , and holy ghost ? or is this to be suffered in a christian church ? whether i curse him or not , ( and i thank god , i curse no man , but pray for my worst enemies ) he may justly fear that such blasphemies will bring the curse of the ever blessed trinity on him ; and that will be no jeast . no man , who believes but one divine nature , which is originally in the father , and is substantially communicated by the father to the son , as a distinct subsisting person , by an eternal and ineffable generation ; and to the holy ghost by an eternal and substantial procession from father and son , can be a tritheist , whatever inconvenient expressions he may use , unless the doctrine of the trinity it self be tritheism . but let us consider the reason of this charge a little more particularly . they ask us , whether an eternal and infinite mind be not ture and perfect god ? yes , most certainly ; and for this reason we must assert , that the son is an eternal infinite mind , because he is true and perfect god. but if one infinite mind is true and perfect god , are not three infinite minds three gods ? this is easily answer'd , as far as we are concern'd to answer these men , only by changing minds for persons . is not an eternal , infinite person true and perfect god ? and if every eternal person , as a distinct person , be true and perfect god , are not three such distinct persons three gods ? the objection is the same ; and let them but answer for themselves , and they answer for us . but if each distinct person , and each distinct mind is true and perfect god , why may not the term god be number'd and distinguish'd as persons and minds are ? why may we not say that there are three gods as well as that there are three persons , or three minds ? this is the true difficulty , which as much affects the doctrine of the trinity it self , as any terms or expressions about it , whether three persons or three minds : nay though we give no name to these three , the difficulty is the same ; for if we own three , each of whom is true and perfect god , why are not these three three gods , when each of them is distinctly and by himself , true and perfect god ? now not to dispute this matter with the socinians , which is not my present business , there is a very plain account to be given of this to those who acknowledge a trinity ; why we may say that there are three infinite minds and spirits , each of which is true and perfect god , and yet must not , and ought not to say , that there are three gods. the reason , why we may say , that there are three distinct infinite minds , is , because there are three , each of whom is a distinct infinite mind , and three , each of whom is a distinct mind , are three distinct minds ; but the reason , why we must not say , there are three gods , is not , because there are not three , each of whom is distinctly , and by himself , true and perfect god , as every infinite mind is , for that is sabellianism ; but because there is but one and the same divinity , or godhead , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them all ; and therefore though there are three distinct persons , or minds , each of whom is distinctly , and by himself ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) god , yet there are not three gods , but one god , or one divinity : and if they will not allow , that the same one divinity or godhead , may be entirely , and indivisible and inseparably in three distinct persons or minds , there is an end of a trinity in unity , of three persons and one god. for if the whole divine nature cannot subsist intirely , indivisibly , and inseparably , and yet distinctly in three , either there cannot be three , each of whom is distinctly and by himself god , or there cannot be one god ; whereas the scripture notion of the unity of god , is not such an unity as is only is one person , for then it could not enjoyn the faith and worship of father , son , and holy ghost ; but such an unity as can be between three , when the same one divine nature , is wholly and intirely communicated by the eternal father , to the eternal son , and by father and son to the eternal spirit ; without any division or separation ; and that which is communicated whole and intire , without division or separation , makes no number , for it is but one still . a mind , and mind , and mind , must be three minds , or persons , by reason of their distinct subsistence , which belong to them as three ; but god , and god , and god , as some of the antient father speak , are not three gods , but one god , because the same one divinity ( totus ex toto , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as both the latin and greek fathers speak , concerning the generation of the son ) is whole , intire , indivisible , inseparable , in all three ; and three distinct , whole , inseparable , sames , how hard soever it may be to conceive , as to the manner of it , is the most natural and intelligible notion of three and one ; and this is the catholick notion of a trinity in unity . i forbear prosecuting this any farther here , because i shall do it at large elsewhere . 4. the next charge is , that it is disagreeing and contrary to the doctrine of the catholick church . i am truly sorry for this , because it must unavoidably reflect on their skill in antiquity , and the doctrine of the catholick church ; but if the animadverter has imposed upon them in this too , they must thank themselves , and take what follows : i shall not multiply testimonies in this cause at present , because i have a treatise by me , which is near finished , upon this very subject , to give an account of the judgment of catholick fathers , and councils concerning a real and substantial trinity , and what their notion of thritheism is . the matter appeared to me so plain , and demonstrable , that i began to be weary of it , as an unnecessary work ; but this decree has convinc'd me of the contrary , and i now thank god , that i am so well prepared to justifie the true antient catholick faith , against the pretences of those , who judge of the doctrine of the catholick church by inspiration or prophesie , without knowing what the catholick fathers have said about it . as confident as these heads are , of the doctrine of the catholick church ; those , even of their mind , who have looked into the fathers , are not willing to stand to their judgment in this cause : some of the ante-nicene fathers , they give up to the arians , and they know not what to think of the nicene fathers themselves ; they spoke incautiously , and bordered very near upon tritheism ; nay , some of them , they think , were down right tritheists ; and they are in the right , for they were all so to a man , in this modern notion of tritheism , that i was glad to find , they would own the doctrine of the catholick church , and put the cause upon that issue . the present dispute is about three distinct infinite minds , and substances in the trinity , whether this be the catholick doctrine , or catholick language ; now , i suppose , if it appear , that they owned three distinct substances , both name and thing , there will be no dispute about three minds , for the substance of the deity can be no other , than infinite mind . now this is a wonderfull dispute , when the school-men themselves own the three divine persons to be three substances , though they say , they are ( not meer relations without a subject ) but relative substances , and we say so too : that their substances , as their persons , subsist in an inseparable union , and relation , to each other : but relative substances , substances , which are not absolute and independent , but essentially related to each other , as father , son , and holy ghost , are substances still , and three distinct substances , as they are distinct persons . but this is not our present inquiry , what the doctrine of the schools is , but what was the doctrine of the primitive fathers . now it is evident beyond all possibility of denial , that the catholick fathers , one and all , did assert three substantial persons in the trinity , against the heresie of sabellius , who owned but one substantial person , with three names , according to his different appearances : now besides , that it is impossible to make sense of three substantial persons , without three personal substances , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie three substances ; had not these fathers understood it in the sense and notion of three substances , they had not opposed sabellius , whose fundamental principle was the one singular , solitary , substance of the deity . they asserted indeed one substance of the deity against arius , but it was only in that sense , in which arius denied the one substance : he owned the son to be a substantial person , who had a distinct substance of his own , and this the nicene fathers never quarelled with him for ; but he denied , that the substance of the son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the substance of the father but perfectly of a different kind and nature , as not begotten of his father's substance , but made by his power . in opposition to this heresie , the fathers taught , not one singular substance in god , which is sabellianism , but such an oneness of substance , as we know not how to express otherwise , than by a specifick sameness and unity , tho' that does not answer the compleat notion of the divine unity ; but this is one way the fathers commonly express it , by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and genus , and such like words , as among us signifie the specifick unity of nature ; and therefore they tell us , that by the homoousion they only meant , that the son was so of the same one substance with the father , that he is god of god , light of light , very god of very god ; that is , true and perfect god , as his father is true and perfect god , considered in his own person , as distinct from his father ; that he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created out of nothing , as all creatures are , but is truly begotten of the substance of his father , and in that sense consubstantial , or of one substance with him , as all other sons are consubstantial with their fathers . now had not this been a very wise dispute on both sides , if the catholicks , as well as the arians , had not allowed , that the son had a substance of his own , proper and appropriate to his own person , and as distinct from the personal substance of the father , as the person of the son is distinct from the person of the father , to contend whence he had his substance ; of the substance of the father , or created out of nothing , when he has no substance at all of his own , proper and peculiar to him as a son ? one would think these two extremes of sabellianism and arianism , both which were rejected with equal abhorrence by the catholick fathers , might satisfie any man what their judgment was about a trinity in unity . for if these fathers understood both these heresies , and rejected them both , asserted three substantial persons , in opposition to sabellius , and one substance , in opposition to arius , the catholick faith must lie between these two extremes ; and yet it is demonstrable that there is but one medium between them . if it be haeresy to say , that there is but one personal substance in the deity , as sabellius asserted , then three distinct substantial persons must have three distinct personal substances : for this is the direct contradiction to the sabellian heresie of one substance ; if the arians deny'd one substance , not in the sabellian notion of one substance , but as one substance signifies perfectly the same divine nature in father and son , then one substance , as it is asserted by the nicene fathers , in opposition to the arians , must signifie not one personal substance , but one divine nature , which is perfectly alike , and the same in father and son. i challenge any man living ( always excepting the wonder-working animadverter ) to shew me any medium between the one substance , or the one person , of sabellius , and the three substances of different natures and species of the arians , but only the true catholick faith , of three substantial persons , or three personal substances , of one and the same nature , both for kind , and by generation and procession . the reason of the thing is plain and evident , which is the most i intend at present ; for i shall reserve authorities , as i intimated before , for a particular treatise , which , if god permit , shall soon follow this ; and therefore st. hilary , and the alexandrian synod , under the great athanasius , after the catholick bishops were recall'd from banishment , and restor'd to their sees by julian the apostate , shall serve now . the dispute is concerning one substance , and three substances , in the deity ; and it may be resolv'd into these three questions . 1. whether the son , as begotten of his father , have a substance and nature proper to his own person , which is not the personal nature and substance of the father . 2. whether three such persons , who have , each of them , a pesonal nature and substance of his own , may be call'd three substance . 3. in what sence then they are one substance ? whoever reads st. hilary de syn. adv . arianos , will find all these questions fully and expresly resolv'd , i shall give but some few instances of each . as for the first , he tells us , * that life in the father is substance , and life in the son which is begotten of the father , is essence or substance ; and that life begotten of life , is essence born of essence ; and owns this as a universal maxim , which holds true in all births : that that which is born receives a nature of its own from the nature , † which begets , and subsists in its own nature ; ‖ that the begotten nature receives its nature from the nature , which begets : and giving an account why wisdom says * that she was both created and begotten : the first he tells us , is to exclude all corporeal passions from the divine generation ; that the nature of the father suffers no change or diminution in the generation of the son , no more than in the works of creation ; and by being begotten is signified , that the son receives his nature not by creation , but by birth ; and has a legitimate and proper substance of his own begotten nature from god the father . once more ; in one of these oriental creeds , they anathematize those who make the * eternal substance of the only begotten son of the father to be the unbegotten substance of god , thereby making the son to be the father . this st. hilary explains and approves , and acquaints us with the † occasion of this decree , viz. the catholicks asserting the eternal generation of the son , that he was begotten before all time , and in no time ; some hereticks took advantage of this , to deny that there is any begotten substance of the son , but only the unbegotten substance of the father , and that under the denomination of the son , the father , who is undegotten , and but one singular person , is both father and son to himself : for to be born in no time seems to signifie , not to be born at all : this he calls the heresie of vnion , or sabellianism , which this decree condemns , whereas , as he adds , to be eternal , without any temporal beginning , and to be unbegotten , are two very different things ; that which is eternal may be begotten , tho' not in time ; but that which is unbegotten , is the sole eternal author of its own being , and all that he is . this i think is home to the purpose , to deny that the son has a begotten substance , proper and peculiar to himself as a son ; or to say , that the son has no other substance but the unbegotten substance of the father , is sabellianism ; and which ought farther to be observed , to say , that the father and son have not a distinct substance of their own , but that the unbegotten substance of the father is the substance of the son , makes father and son but one person : which shews that these fathers and st. hilary never dreamt of three persons in one singular substance . now if the three persons in the trinity are really distinct in substance , and it is heresy to say , that the unbegotten substance of the father is the substance of the son , any man would wonder , what haeresie it should be to say , that there are three distinct personal substances in the trinity . but to put this matter out of doubt , st. hilary in the next place expresly vindicates the synod of * antioch for attributing a proper substance to each divine person , and affirming , that they are three in substance , which he renders by three substances , whereby he says , they did not mean three diverse substances of different kinds and natures , but three substances , in opposition to the sabellian heresie ; which reviv'd again after the nicene council , and gave these three names to the father , and by a trinity of meer names , without a subsisting cause or subject for each name , destroyed the truth and reality of father , son , and holy ghost ; and therefore they said , there were three substances , thereby meaning three subsisting persons ; not dividing and separating the substance of the father , the son , and the holy ghost , by a diversity and dissimilitude of essences . so that st. hilary thought , that three substances , when they are not used in an arian sense , to fignifie a diversity of nature , but only to signifie three substantial subsisting persons , in opposition to sabellius , are very catholick words , and contain a true catholick sense : in this sense , and for the very same reason we use these expressions of three distinct infinite minds , and three substances : and i hope these heads will not take it amiss , if one st. hilary have more authority with me than all they together . 3. as for one substance , which was taught by the nicene council , and inserted into their creed , st. hilary very plainly and frequently tells us , in what sense we are to understand it : that there is one substance of the same kind and nature , in genere naturae , & secundum proprietatem naturae ; not one substance , as that signifies one subsisting person ; but as it signifies perfectly the same nature , in every thing alike , without the least difference or variation , that the * homoousion signifies one nature perfectly alike , and the same by natural propagation ; because the essence of the son is from no other cause , but the essence of the father ; and therefore father and son may both be said to be of one nature or substance . and for the sake of the charge of tritheism , which the anim adverter makes such a noise with , it will be necessary to observe , that st. hilary gives the same account of the unity of the godhead , as he does of the unity of the divine substance aud indeed they must be one in the same sense , for one divine substance is one god. * the sardican synod anathematiz'd those who said there were three gods : and st. hilary gives this account of it , that speaking properly , the divine substance or nature will not admit of the plural number , to say , that there are more gods than one , excepting when , the title of god is given to men or angels , by way of honour , not of nature : but in the nature of god , there is but one god ; yet so that the son is god , because he has the same nature , without any unlikeness or difference , with his father ; and when there is god of god , it cannot be but that each of them must be god , because their nature is not distinguish'd by a different kind or species ; and when he is anathematiz'd , who says there are two gods , and he also is anathematiz'd who denies the son to be god , it is manifest that the same name of god , and one god , is apply'd to both of them , upon account of the same nature , without the least difference or diversity . * and adds , that least the doctrine of one god should seem to teach that there is but one singular subsistance of one solitary god without his son ; the same synod condemns those also , who under pretence of owning but one god , profess only one singular and solitary god the father , under the name of father and son ; whereas the father who begets , and the son who is born , are to be acknowledg'd one god , upon account of the same nature in both , without the least difference or variation . were it not to shorten this discourse , i could easily furnish my readers with numerous quotations to the same purpose , out of st. hilary , ( to whom i now confine my self , and particularly to his book de synodis , that these authorities may be the more easily found all together ) to prove , that the catholick notion of one divine substance , and one god , does not signify one personal substance , nor one singular solitary god , who is but one person ; but there is one divine substance , and one god , as the same divine nature is communicated whole and entire by the father to the son , and by father and son to the holy spirit , without the least difference , or change , or separation : which i shall explain more at large elsewhere . thus much for st. hilary , who has always been allowed a credible witness of the catholick faith ; for which he suffered banishment under constantius , and is now condemned for a heretick by the oxford heads . but it is more wonderful to me , that men who understand what hypostasis signifies , and in what sense it was used by the nicene fathers , should condemn the phrase of three substances in the trinity , as false , impious , and heretical , when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or three hypostases , which is the catholick language , is neither better nor worse than three substances . in the nicene council it self , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in the same sense , and both signify substance : and petavius owns , that all the ancient fathers used hypostasis in no other sense , but to signify substance ; and then three hypostases are three substances . and when afterwards they more nicely distinguished between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they still used hypostasis in the notion of substance , that which did actually subsist ; which is therefore often rendred by the latins extantia . but to set aside other observations , the alexandrian synod under athanasius is sufficient to put an end to this dispute . when the catholick bishops were recalled from banishment by julian , several of them stopt at alexandria , and met in council to advise about the broken state of the church : among other things that fell under consideration , there had a dispute happened among the catholicks themselves , concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whether they ought to say , that there is but one substance in the trinity ; or , that there are three substances ; for so it is plain that both sides understood hypostasis in the notion of substance . to compose this difference , the synod called both parties before them , and examined them in what sense they used these words . as for those who said there were three hypostases in the trinity , they asked them , whether by this they meant , as the arians did , three hypostases of a different kind and nature , subsisting by themselves absolutely and independently , as perfectly divided and separated from each other , as other creatures , and as the children of men are ; or as those things which have different natures , as gold , and silver , and brass ? or whether by three hypostases they meant , as some other hereticks did , three principles , or three gods ? all this they professed they had neither said nor thought . and being asked again , why they then used those expressions of three substances ? they answered , because they believed in the holy trinity , not a trinity of names , but a real subsisting trinity ; a father , who really and actually is , and subsists ; a son , who in truth and reality is a substantial subsisting son ; and the holy spirit , who actually is , and subsists : that they never said , there are three gods , or three principles , but owned the holy trinity , and but one godhead , one principle , and the son consubstantial to the father ; and the holy spirit neither a creature , nor of a different nature , but genuinely and inseparably of the same nature with father and son. all this was approved of as very orthodox . and then the synod examined those who affirmed , that there was but one substance in the trinity , what they meant by it ? whether they understood it , as sabellius did , to deny the real subsistence of the son and holy spirit , to make an unsubstantial son , and an unsubsisting spirit ? this they also denied ; and told the synod , that they thought hypostasis signified the same with ousia , essence , substance , nature : and therefore they owned but one hypostasis or substance , because the son is of the substance of the father , and by reason of the identity of nature between father and son ; for they believed but one divinity , and one divine nature ; and not one nature of the father , and another different nature of the son , and of the holy spirit . this explication also was approved by the synod ; and thus this matter was reconciled : those who taught three substances in the trinity , and those who believed but one substance , when they had given their several explications , were both owned by the synod , and owned each other for catholick christians , and both condemned arius and sabellius ; though the synod thought it better to adhere strictly to the words of the nicene creed ; but soon after they distinguished between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and then three hypostases ( still in the notion of three substances ) and one nature , was the catholick language ; which st. basil gives a large account of , ep. 300. of which more elsewhere . so that athanasius , and those glorious confessors for the nicene faith , in the alexandrian synod , owned three substances in the very same sense in which we now use those words , to contain the true catholick faith ; and if they knew what the doctrine of the catholick church was , our oxford heads are out in their guess . 5. the last charge is , that three distinct minas and substances is especially contrary to the doctrine of the church of england , publickly received . what they may mean by publickly received , i can't tell ; there may be some doctrines too publickly received in the church of england , which are not the doctrines of the church ; and i doubt sabellianism is one of them : but if they mean by publickly received , the doctrine of our articles and creeds ; this is the very same with the doctrine of the catholick church . we make profession of the nicene faith every week , and that asserts a real and substantial trinity , if athanasius understood it . the only pretence , i can guess , they had for this charge , if they thought of any themselves , must be the form of the athanasian creed , which will not permit us to say that in the plural number of all three divine persons , which it allows us to attribute distinctly to each distinct person in the singular number ; we may say , the father is almighty , the son almighty , and the holy ghost almighty , but must not say that there are three almighties , but one almighty . but will they hence frame an universal rule , that nothing must be said of the holy trinity in the plural number , considered as three ? we will not attribute any thing to the holy trinity in the plural number , which this creed forbids ; we will not say , there are three almighties , three eternals , three omnipotents , three infinites , three gods , or three lords ; but this creed does not forbid us saying , there are three minds , or three substances ; nay , it teaches us to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which as you have already heard , in the language of the nicene age , and more expresly in after ages , signified three substances , and therefore must do so in this creed . the reason given in the creed against this plural praedication is , because there is but one god , and therefore such terms , as immediately and directly multiply the deity and godhead , must not be exprest plurally ; and thus the plural praedication of any divine perfections in the abstract does ; three omnipotents , three infinites , three eternals , which are equivalent to three omnipotencies , three infinities , three eternities ; and they to three deities , and three godheads , or three divine natures ; but though we cannot distinguish between the person , and the divinity , or divine nature of that person , for there is no composition in god , or in a divine person , as there is in creatures ; yet when the same divine nature , communicated from the father to the son , and from father and son to the holy spirit , subsists distinctly , tho inseparably whole and entire in three ; and that which really and actually subsists , is mind and substance , with respect to these three subsistencies , they are and must be three minds and substances , though with respect to the sameness and identity of the divine nature , which is whole , and entire and inseparable , and therefore but one in all , they are but one , not three gods. this is all the sense i can make of that known distinction between substantives and adjectives in a plural praedication ; that we may say , there are three who create , but not three creators ; three , who are omnipotent , but not three omnipotents , &c. that in these adjective praedications , we consider the divine person , mind or substance , as a subject of jahaesion , and these divine perfections as essential properties or attributes , which may and must be numbred with the subjects in which they are ; but substantives have a more absolute sense , and include pure nature , without relation to different subjects ; and therefore to use them plurally , is to multiply nature , to make more than one infinite , eternal , incomprehensible , omnipotent nature , and consequently to multiply gods. but from this very distinction we learn , that there are three suppositums or subjects ( and then they will easily be owned to be three minds and substances ) to which all the perfections of the deity belong ; for when these divine perfections are praedicated adjectively , they must suppose a subject to which they belong ; and they being such perfections as can be only in a mind , they must suppose three distinct minds to which they belong . thus i have considered , with all possible brevity , every particular of this charge ; and if these decreeing and heresy-making heads will be just to me , they must own , that as they and the animadverter had ordered the matter , it was impossible for me to do otherwise , unless i would have been trampled on by every scribler : this is a good human reason ; but i had a better reason for this than any thing meerly personal : they have condemned the true catholick faith , even the nicene faith , which is the faith of the church of england , for herefy , and they have exposed this faith to the scorn and triumph of the socinian hereticks , who already make their boast , that they have a decree against the real trinit arians ; and they only want another against the nominal ones , and then their work is done to their hands ; tho i think , they have decrees enow against them ; even all the fathers and councils which condemned sabellius , condemned them , and if all this be not enough , the common sense of mankind , of which every plowman is a judge , condemns them : for three persons , who are not three distinct minds and substances , is not greater herefy , than it is nonsense . in short , we have had these gentlemen's decree ; and now we expect their reasons , which it had been much better they had thought of first , and then we should have escaped their decree . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59831-e150 judicant , declarant , & decernunt , praedicta verba esse falsa , impia , & heretica ; dissona & contraria doctrinae ecclesiae catholicae , & speciatim doctrinae ecclesiae anglicanae , publice receptae . * quod vita in patre hic intelligitur substantia significata ; vita quoque in unigenito , quae ex patre generata est èssentia intellecta — quod enim in utroque vita est , id in utroque significatur essentia & vita quae generatur ex vita , id est , essentia quae de essentia nascitur — natae & gignentis essentiae , id est , vitae quae habetur & data est . — † quia omnis nativitas quaecunque est , in naturam suam ex naturâ gignente consistit . ‖ ex natura enim generante naturam sumpsit genita natura . * sed quia dei filius non corporalis partitudinis est genitus exemplo , sed ex perfecto deo perfectus , deus natus est , idcirco ait creatam se esse sapientia ; omnes in generatione sua corporales passiones excludens ; at verò ut ostenderet , non creationis in se , sed nativitatis naturam esse , subjecit & genitam , ut cùm creatam se & genitam confitetur , absolutam nativitatis suae intelligentiam praestaret , dum indemutabilem patris naturam in creatione significat , & legitimam & propriam ex deo patre genitae suae naturae ostendit esse substantiam . * et siquis intemporalem unigeni●i filii de patre substantiam , ad innascibilem dei essentiam referat , quasi filium patrem dicens , anathema sit . † dedisse superior definicio occasionem haereti●is videbatur , cùm tempus nativitatis filii negaretur , quia nef●s esset si pater esset in tempore : in tempore autem esset , si filius tempori subderetur : ut per hanc opportunitatem temporis abnegati , sub filii nuncupatione pater , qui innascibilis esset , singularis atque unicus , ipse sibi & pater & filius praedicaretur , quia ubi nascendi tempus excluditur , illic opinio videtur innascibilitatis admitti , ut natus non putetur , cujus nativitas non sit in tempore . idcirco ne per hanc occasionem temporis abnegati haeresis unionis irreperet , & haec impietas damnatur , quae audeat intemporalem nativitatem ad unicam & singularem innascibilis essentiae referre substantiam , cùm aliud sit intemporalem esse ; aliud sit esse non natum ; quorum unum habeat ( licet extra tempus ) nativitatem , aliud ipsum sibi , ad id quod est , solus atque idem autor aternus sit . * hisque nominibus ( patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti ) non simpliciter , neque otiosis propositis , sed significantibus diligenter propriam uniuscujusque nominatorum substantiam & ordinem & gloriam , ut sint quidem per substantiam tria — volens igitur congregata sanctorum synodus impietatem eam perimere , quae veritatem patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti , nominum numero eluderet , ut non subsistente causa uniuscujusque nominis , triplex nuncupatio obtinerer sub falsitate nominum unionem — idcirco tres substantias esse dixeruntꝰ subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes , non substantiam patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes . * idcirco autem unius substantiae , non utunus subsistat aut solus , sed ut ex substantiâ dei natus , non aliunde subsistat , neve in aliquâ dissidentis substantiae diversitate subsistat . aut aliud hic testatur homousion , quàm ut una & indissimilis duum sit secundum naturae propaginem essentia , quia essentia filii non sit aliunde ; quae quia aliunde non est , unius recte esse ambo creduntur essentiae , quia substantiam nativitatis filius non habeat , nisi de paternae autoritate naturae . credamus & dicamus esse unam substantiam , sed per naturae proprietatem , non ad significationem impiae unionis ; una sit ex similitudine , non ex solitudine . * anathematizat namque eos , qui tres deos dicunt , quia secundum naturae veritatem , numerum nuncupationum substantia ista non recipit , nisi ut in hominibus & angelis solet — caeterùm in natura dei deus unus est , ita tamen ut & filius deus sit , quia in eo natura non differens sit ; & cùm deus ex deo sit , non potest non uterque deus esse , quorum per generis differentiam non discernatur essentia . numerus autem nominis in nuncupatione respuitur , quia non est in naturae qualitate diversitas , cùm igitur anathema sit duos deos dicens , & anathema sit filium deum denegans , absolute ostenditur unius ad uttumque nominis unitatem de proprietate in differentis esse substantiae . * tamen ne rursum unius dei praedicatio , unicam ac sine progenie suâ solitarii dei velit affirmare substantiam , statim etiam hanc condemnat temeritatem , quae quia deus unus est , unum ac solitarium deum patrem , habentem in se nomen patris & filii confitetur . cum in generante parre & nascente filio , deus unus esset ob indifferentis ab invicem naturae substantiam praedicandus . cùm in damnatione sit , patrem & filium duos deos dicere , & rursum anathema sit , filium deum negare , substantiae diversae alterius ab alterâ opinio in praedicandis diis duobus excluditur , non enim est alia praeter illam dei patris , ex qua dei filius deus intemporalis est natus , essentia . non enim religiosa unitas nominis ex indifferentis naturae essentia constituta personam genitae ademit essentiae , ut unica ac singularis dei essentia per unionem nominis intelligatur : cùm utriusque essentiae nomen unum ; id est , deus unus , ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur . athanasii ep ad antiochenses t. 1. p. 574 et concil . t. 2 p. 810. a sermon preached at the temple-church, may 29. 1692 printed at the desire of the bench-table of the honourable society of the inner-temple / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 31 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 16 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59882 wing s3353 estc r15520 12255785 ocm 12255785 57444 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59882) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 57444) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 899:2) a sermon preached at the temple-church, may 29. 1692 printed at the desire of the bench-table of the honourable society of the inner-temple / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 7-32 p. printed for will. rogers ..., london : 1692. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sermons, english -17th century. kings and rulers. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , ra. barker , reverendissimo in christo patri ac dom. domino , iohanni archiep. cant. à sacris domesticis . ex aedibus lambith . june 10. 1692. a sermon preached at the temple-church , may 29. 1692. and printed at the desire of the bench-table of the honourable society of the inner-temple . by william sherlock , d.d. dean of st. paul's , master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . london : printed for will. rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxcii . to the worshipful the masters of the bench of the honourable society of the inner-temple . my honoured friends , to justify my publication of this sermon , which the reader will easily perceive was not intended by me for the press , i must acquaint the world , that it is done in perfect obedience to your commands . your great loyalty and zeal for their majesties government , gave you too good an opinion of it when you heard it from the pulpit ; and if it should not answer your expectations from the press , yet i hope you will own it as a testimony of my due submission to your iudgments , and of those just respects , which your many and repeated favours daily challenge from , gentlemen , your much obliged and humble servant , will. sherlock . 1 tim . ii. 1 , 2. i exhort therefore , that first of all , supplications , prayers , intercessions , and giving of thanks be made for all men : for kings , and for all that are in authority , that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty . st . paul wrote this epistle to timothy , to instruct him in the discharge of his episcopal office and power , to which he had ordained him : and the first thing he gives him in charge ( whereby we may guess what weight he laid on it ) is this in my text , i exhort therefore , that first of all , or i first of all exhort , that supplications , prayers , intercessions , and giving of thanks , be made for all men . to affix a proper and distinct signification on these words , supplications , prayers , intercessions , and giving of thanks , which are recommended as the distinct parts of prayer , learned men tell us , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render supplications , signifies prayer to avert evils , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , prayers for the obtaining some good ; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are properly intercessions or prayers for other men ; but this is too general a notion of it , since in this place the apostle applies supplications and prayers , as well as intercessions , to praying for other men , even for all men : and therefore the proper notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is to intercede for a sinner , for the pardon of his sin , and to reconcile him again to god , whom he hath offended , as the word is most commonly used . giving of thanks is blessing god for good things already received ; which the same apostle makes essential to an acceptable and effectual prayer . 4. phil. 6. be careful for nothing , but in every thing by prayer and supplication , with thanksgiving , let your requests be made known unto god. thus we pray for our selves , that god would deliver us from evil , that he would do us good , that he would forgive our sins ; and we thank him for the blessings , and all the good things we already enjoy ; and thus we must do for others , even for all men ; tho the apostle has not so much regard here to our private prayers , as to the publick offices of religion , those publick prayers which are made in the publick assemblies by the bishop and ministers , and the whole congregation of christians : for this advice which st. paul gives timothy in these epistles , concerns the publick worship , and government and discipline of the church ; we must in our private devotions pray not only for our selves , but for all mankind ; but publick prayers , the united desires and petitions of the church , offered up by the ministers of christ , whose office it is to bless and to pray for the people , are most effectual and prevailing . before i proceed to what i principally intend , viz. our prayers for kings , and all that are in authority , it will be useful to show you , on what great reasons this duty is founded , of praying for all men , as well as for our selves ; and that both with respect to our selves , to other men , and to god. first , with respect to our selves . now 1. this is the noblest exercise of the most divine charity ; this is truly to love all men as our selves ; when we are touched with a sense of their wants , as well as of our own , and do heartily beg all those blessings for them of god , which we do for our selves ; when we are so far from envying their happiness , that we rejoice in it , and bless god for it , as we do for our own : our charity cannot be perfect without this ; for our power of doing good extends but to a few instances , and can reach but a very few persons ; and if our charity be no larger than our power , it is a very worthless thing : but a divine charity wishes well to the whole creation , and therefore recommends all mankind to the care and protection of that almighty goodness which governs the world . this is the highest perfection both of the man and the christian ; this is the true spirit of prayer , to offer up our prayers to the god of love , in the spirit of love and charity . 2 dly . this obliges us to the exercise of many christian graces and vertues ; if we pray god to forgive our enemies , to be sure we must forgive them our selves ; we must exercise great patience , and meekness , and forbearance towards them ; if we pray god to relieve the poor , to restore the sick , to reform the vicious , to enlighten those who are in error and darkness , and to reduce wandring sheep into his fold , to deliver the oppressed , to support and comfort those who suffer for righteousness sake , each of these petitions involve a duty in them ; for what we pray god to do , we must do our selves , as far as it is in our power ; and therefore our prayers for other men oblige us to do good to them , both to their souls and bodies ; and he who does heartily pray for other men , will do them all the good he can : the same charity which inspires his prayers , will govern his actions ; for it is a prophane contempt and mockery of god to ask him to do that which we will not do our selves . 3 dly . our prayers for our selves are most acceptable to god , when we pray for other men also ; as they must needs be , because they are offered up in the spirit of universal charity , which alone , through the merits of our saviour christ , makes our prayers , our alms , and all the good we do , acceptable to god : no prayer can be lost , which is put up in faith and charity : if our prayers do no good to those particular men for whom we pray , if they be not fit or worthy to receive the mercies we pray for , yet our prayers , our peace , our blessing , shall return into our own bosoms , 10. matt. 13. secondly , it is very apparent of what use these prayers are to the world . for many times the prayers of good men avert those judgments which hang over a wicked nation , and procure publick blessings for them : those who never pray for themselves , may reap the benefit of other mens prayers ; and the prayers of those , who do pray for themselves , will be more effectual , when they are backed and reinforced by the united prayers of the whole church for them . it is a mighty comfort to every good christian to think , that he shares in the prayers of the whole christian church ; especially when he is under a cloud himself , and either cannot pray himself , or prays with great disturbance of thoughts , with great diffidence and distrust , and despondency of spirit ; at such times especially all men are very desirous , that other good christians would pray with them , and for them ; and such men may comfort themselves , that how unfit soever they are to pray themselves , they have the prayers , not only of their friends and immediate pastors , who personally know them , but of all good christians all the world over , who offer up their prayers for themselves , and for all mankind , especially for all the members of christ's mystical body ; which is a priviledge to be valued next to the intercession of christ for us all , and should mightily reconcile us to a duty , which is so universally beneficial : for praying for other men intitles us to their prayers for us ; and though we are not particularly named in their prayers , god knows to whom they belong , and will apply them himself . thirdly , and there is great reason , why god should command , and encourage , and reward our prayers for each other : not only 1. because it is the exercise of the most divine charity , and the instrument of many christian virtues , as you have already heard , which you will grant a sufficient reason why god should encourage it . but 2 dly , because it is the most becoming address we can make to god , and that which also makes the most glorious and lovely representation of him ; that he is the prince and the father of all mankind ; who made , and who governs , and who preserves , and provides for all his creatures ; which is as great and honourable a thought as we can have of god ; and indeed this teaches us how to pray to god , and what to expect from him . that we must not flatter our selves that he will be fond and partial to us ; for all men are his creatures , the soul of the father , and the soul of the son , are both his ; and therefore as we may expect from god the kindness of a gracious and merciful creator , and through our lord jesus christ , the kindness of a father ; so we must expect , that he will deal equally by all : that he will make no other difference , but what our personal qualities and virtues make : and therefore we must not presume to ask any thing of god , which is to the injury , or prejudice , or lessening of our brother , to gratify our pride , or revenge , or some other evil passions ; for we pray to a common father , who will adjust the interests of mankind , and have a due regard to the happiness of all . and 3 dly , this gives credit and reputation to religion in the world ; that true piety and virtue makes the prayers of good men effectual , not only for themselves , but for others ; that the better men are , the more power they have with god , which makes them a kind of patron saints , and tutelar angels to the places where they live ; this is a mighty honour to be the friends and favourites of god , to be able to fetch down blessings from heaven by our prayers : this makes religion and virtue truly venerable in the sight of all men ; and it becomes the wisdom of god to dispence his blessings in such a manner , as may conciliate esteem and reverence to true religion in the world. it is time now to pass from this general command of praying for all men , to that particular direction to pray for kings , and for all that are in authority . but before i shew you , what great reason there is to pray for kings , it will be necessary to inquire , what kings we must pray for . for though st. paul makes no difference , there are some who do : some there are among our selves , who withdraw from our communion , because we pray in our publick offices for their present majesties king william , and queen mary , whom god long preserve . there is not a more express command for any thing in scripture , than there is for praying for kings , and for all that are in authority , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in a state of eminence and superiority above others . and if their present majesties be so , as it is visible to all the world that they are , then they are included in this apostolical precept , to pray for kings , and all in authority . upon what pretences some among us reject so plain a duty , is sufficiently known : they say , by kings , the apostle means only lawful and rightful kings ; that is , such kings as are advanced to the throne by an antecedent legal right , according to the laws and constitutions of the countries and kingdoms which they govern . and therefore in an hereditary kingdom no man is , or can be king , and no man must be prayed for as king , but he who has the hereditary right , as being the next lineal heir . this right , they say , is in the late king iames , not in their present majesties ; and therefore notwithstanding their being in possession of the throne , we must not own them , nor pray for them as king and queen . i do not intend , nor is it fitting , to dispute their majesties right , which is no matter of scruple to me : nor would it become me , before two such learned societies of law , to say what the laws of the land require in such cases . and therefore to keep to my own profession , i shall only desire these persons to tell me , where there is any such distinction as this in scripture ? viz. that we must not pray for all kings , but only for legal kings , who had an antecedent legal right ; for in any other sense , those are legal kings , who are invested with the regal authority , with all the legal rites of investiture . the command is in general , to pray for kings , and for all that are in authority ; and if we may excuse our selves from so plain a duty by distinctions of our own inventing , there are few duties in religion , but what we may deliver ourselves from by such arbitrary distinctions . as for instance , there is an express command in scripture , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve . which one would think were a very express prohibition of the worship of saints or angels , or any other being besides god. but the papists easily avoid this by the help of a distinction , which the scripture is unacquainted with : they say , we must worship god only with the worship of latria , but we may worship saints and angels with the worship of dulia , tho' the scripture appropriates all religious worship to god. thus as our saviour tells the pharisees , god commanded saying , honour thy father and thy mother , and he that curseth father or mother , let him die the death : but ye say , whosoever shall say to his father or mother , it is a gift by whatsoever thou maist be profited by me , and honour not his father nor his mother , he shall be free ; thus have you made the commandment of god of none effect by your tradition , 15 matth. 4 , 5. thus it is in our present case ; the apostle commands us to pray for kings , and for all that are in authority : no , say these men , not unless they be legal kings , tho' they have all the ensigns of majesty , and are invested with the regal authority and power , with all the legal and customary rites and solemnites of investiture , and are acknowledged and recognized for king and queen by the estates of the realm . and thus this command is of no effect neither ; for it seems it is a matter of wit , or law , or philosophy , to know who is king ; whereas st. paul supposed that it was a plain matter of sense ; that he who administred the government with a regal authority , and was owned and submitted to by the nation , was the king for whom we must pray . there is reason to conclude , that st. paul speaks of such kings , if we will allow , that he spoke the language of the age wherein he lived ; for in that age , and in all the ages of the world ever since , those were called kings , and had the preheminency of power and authority , who by the consent and submission of the people administred the government with a regal and soveraign authority , whether they had any anticedent right or title to the government or not . i will not now dispute this matter , but would only desire these persons to consider , whether they are as certain that by all powers , 13 rom. 1. the apostle onely means all such powers as had an antecedent legal right and title to power , as they are , that he expresly teaches , that all power is of god ? whether they are as certain , that it is unlawful to pray for kings , who are legally invested with the royal power , though as they imagine , without any antecedent legal right to the crown , as they are , that the apostle commands us to pray for kings , and for all that are in authority ? whether they are as certain , that it is their duty to adhere to a supposed right against the publick judgment of the nation , in opposition to their present majesties , ( who fill the throne by the consent and authority of the estates of the realm ) though to the great disturbance of government , and to the most apparent ruine ( could they prevail ) of the true religion , the lives and fortunes of their fellow-subjects , and the liberties of their native country , as they are , that it is our duty to pray for kings ? in a word , whether they are as certain , that the roman powers at that time were legal and rightful powers , by such an antecedent legal right as they now insist on , as they are , that st. paul commanded the christians to be subject to those powers , and to pray for them ? these are very proper questions about the degrees of evidence and certainty : for if the rule be plain and certain , and the exceptions from this rule uncertain ; if the rule have a divine authority , and the exceptions have nothing to support them but some uncertain reasonings , such reasonings as contradict the general sence and practise of mankind in all revolutions ; i think wise and good men ought to chuse the safer side , and to suspect their own reasonings , since the scripture has made no such exceptions ( no not in a time of the most violent usurpations , when if ever there was the greatest reason to have made them , ) and the generality of mankind , and even the most sober and considering men reject them , as having no solid foundation in reason and nature . having premis'd this , i proceed now to consider the manifold obligations , which lie upon us to pray for kings . first , because kings are the great instruments of the divine providence in the world , they are those great wheels which move and alter the whole scene of humane affairs ; every irregularity in their motions is soon felt , and causes very fatal convulsions in the state ; their mistakes are like the eclipses of the sun , but more portentous and ominous than they , their smiles or frowns are like the kind or malign influences of the heavens , which revive drooping nature , or threaten an universal ruine , quicquid delirant reges , the people suffer by the indiscretions and ill government of a prince , but a wise , and just , and religious king is the greatest blessing in the world , and therefore we have as much reason to pray for the king , as we have to pray that god would make his sun to shine , or the rain to descend on the earth . secondly , though kings act with a sovereign power , yet they are intirely under god's government , the king's heart is in the hand of the lord , as the rivers of water , he turneth it whithersoever he will , 21 prov. 1. makes his will and affections run in this or that channel , as will best serve the ends of his providence and government . the most absolute prince is under secret and invisible restraints ; god can a thousand ways change his purposes and divert him from what he intended to something else , which he little thought of ; and indeed it is very fitting that those who are so much above humane restraints , should be managed by an unseen hand : for if god does not govern those who govern the world , there is in a great measure an end of his providence , for then the fate of kingdoms would be at the will of princes , and that has the greatest influence of any thing else upon the happiness or misery of private and particular men. now if god can , if god does govern princes , this makes it necessary to pray heartily to god for them , for there is the first spring of motion ; if we make god our friend , he will bless , and direct , and counsel our prince who acts under him , and in subordination to his counsels and decrees . thirdly , i need add no more to convince you how necessary it is to pray for kings , but to shew you how much they need our prayers , how much they need the assistance and direction of god to prevent those inconveniences and miscarriages , which all humane governments are subject to . for 1. the government of kingdoms and nations is a work of great difficulty , and that which requires somewhat more than humane art and skill ; it is no easie matter to deal with the various lusts , and interests , and passions of men , to maintain peace at home and abroad , to adjust the interests of subjects and neighbour-princes , to make war and peace , to advance the trade of the nation and to govern it when it is rich ; to be loved by subjects without being thought easie and remiss which exposes to contempt , and to be feared without being hated ; to know whom to trust , and whom to be aware of , to discern mens integrity and abilities for counsel , or for the administration of justice , for civil or military employs , to know how to choose favourites , and which is as hard a thing how to govern them ; when to resist the fury and torrent of the people , and when to comply without seeming to yield , and a thousand other emergent difficulties there are , which require very prudent and yet extempore remedies , where every false step proves very injurious either to prince or people . these are the true atlasses , who bear the weight of the world upon their shoulders , and if we find it so difficult to govern a family , a parish , a little corporation , to attend to one or to very few things , of any moment and consequence , shall we not assist those by our prayers who have so much a heavier burden to bear , and which unless they carry it steady , we our selves shall be crushed with the fall of it . 2. we must consider also , that without the divine assistance and counsel , princes are but like other men , and liable to the same mistakes , nay indeed they are more expos'd to misinformations , and misrepresentations , and such like abuses , which have a very ill influence upon government , then other men are : no prince can so particularly inspect all the affairs of his kingdom , as a man can his own family and particular estate , but they are forced to see and hear with other mens eyes and ears , which too often prove very corrupt mediums , and tincture the object with their own private passions : court-factions , and the cross interests of aspiring favourites , who carry on their private intrigues without any regard to the publick good , or the service of their prince , but will sacrifice all to undermine a rival , and to gratifie their ambition and revenge , may sugest very ruinous counsels to the dividing both the hearts and the interests of prince and people , and court parasites , who are only ecchoes to the prince's inclinations , and always advise what they think he would have advised ; betray him to those mischiefs which might be prevented by faithful counsellors : this is the unhappy state of kings , which nothing but the divine counsel and providence can prevent : and is not this a very forcible reason to pray for them ? especially , 3 dly , when we consider , that kings are exposed to more and greater temptations then other men ; they have the same passions that other men have , but not the same restraints to curb them , they have nothing but the fear of god , and the considerations of religion and another world , which we find too weak to govern the generality of mankind , without some more sensible motives : what a temptation is sovereign power , when we see very few men , who can use any degree of power without abusing it ; a power which will justifie what it does , and make it right , which will not be opposed nor contradicted , which governs the opinions or the tongues of men ; which never wants flatterers to admire whatever it does , which can stamp new titles and characters of honour when it pleases , and at least change the names and the external value of things , though the nature of things is somewhat stubborn : a power which is apt to have very tender resentments , and to be very severe in its revenge , which gives free scope to all the irregular appetites and passions of humane nature . such a power , i say , as this , which is so easily abused , and which is almost an invincible temptation to abuse it self ; and which can do so much mischief when it is abused , is a sufficient reason to make us very earnest and importunate in our prayers to god for kings . but if ever there were reason to pray for kings , certainly we have great reason to pray for the long life and prosperous reign of their present majesties , whom god hath set over us . the apostle directs us to pray for kings , that under them we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty . as for godliness , this we must take care of , whatever our prince be . no prince can take our religion from us , if we resolve to keep it ; but they may disturb our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of it : which was the state of the christian church under heathen and persecuting emperours , and the reason of this command to pray for the peaceable enjoyment and profession of their religion . this we enjoy with great advantages under their majesties government , and therefore have great reason to pray for them , under whom we may if we please , live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty . thanks be to god , we are so far from any danger of being persecuted for our religion , that nothing can more effectually recommend us to the favour of our princes , than the sincere practise of religion and vertue . they set us an example of it themselves , they like , commend , reward it , where they see it : nay , we have a king who exposes his own sacred person to all the fatigues and hazards of war to secure to us our peace at home , and the quiet possession of our religion ; to break the power of that great oppressor , who invades the liberties of europe , and persecutes the professours of the true religion , wherever he has interest or power to do it . we have a king who has already rescued this church and kingdom , when their condition appeared hopeless and desperate ; and certainly had been so , long before this , had not god made him the glorious instrument of our deliverance . and shall we not pray for such a king , who is the very light of our eyes , and the breath of our nostrils ? to whom we owe our laws and liberties , and religion , and on whose preservation , and long and prosperous reign , depends our greatest visible hope and prospect of a quiet and secure enjoyment of them for the time to come . and as we must pray , so we must give god thanks for king's too , and for all the blessings we enjoy under their government : this is one part of the solemnity of this day ; to bless god for the restauration of the king and royal family , and our ancient government and constitution both in church and state , after the miseries and calamities of a civil war , and the oppression of our fellow-subjects ; and those who can remember those days , must confess , that this was a very great mercy . and though the glory of this day seemed to be eclips'd and overcast in the reign of the late unfortunate prince , yet it breaks forth again with a new lustre and brightness in the advancement of their present majesties , from whose government we may reasonably expect as great blessings to this church and kingdom , as ever they yet enjoyed . kings are god's ministers , and advanced to the throne by him , and a good king , is as great a temporal blessing , as god can bestow upon any nation , and the very advancement of their majesties to the throne , was it self a great and immediate deliverance , as great as our redemption from popery and arbitrary power . and yet this is not all we are to bless god for ; but we are bound also to bless him for the almost miraculous preservation of the king's person , as well from treachery and violence , as from the chances of war , and for the no less miraculous successes of his arms , especially the late wonderful success at sea , of which i hope future ages will feel the blessed effects : a success in all the circumstances of it so wonderful , that i know no story that equals it , except we may compare it to the miraculous overthrow of pharaoh and all his host in the red sea. and yet it is no less wonderful , that any english protestants should invite the french to conquer them , to place a zealous papist and an arbitrary prince upon the throne again ; and that after all the miracles of providence whereby these designs have been defeated , and as we have reason to hope , for ever disappointed , there should be any protestants , who think it their interest , as long as ever they can forbear , not to believe it , and when they can disbelieve it no longer , think it a great judgment and calamity upon them to be delivered . but let vs bless god , that he hath answered our prayers , and saved us out of the hands of our enemies ; let us humbly beseech him to continue these mercies to us , and the glorious instruments of them ; to bless their majesties persons , counsels and arms , and to perfect this deliverance at sea by as surprizing successes , which after such auspicious and promising beginnings , we hope in god , may attend his majesty's person and arms in flanders : which we beg almighty god to grant through our lord jesus christ ; to whom with the father and the holy ghost , be all honour , glory and power , now and for ever . amen . finis . the copy of a letter sent to dr. sherlock, upon the occasion of his preaching at st. margaret's on jan. 30th. 1691 1692 approx. 5 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 1 1-bit group-iv tiff page image. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2008-09 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a80491 wing c6155a estc r224663 99899347 99899347 153141 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a80491) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 153141) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 2350:9) the copy of a letter sent to dr. sherlock, upon the occasion of his preaching at st. margaret's on jan. 30th. 1691 sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1 sheet ([1] p.) s.n., [london? : 1692] the letter concerns the sermon sherlock is to preach on the anniversary of the death of charles i and attacks sherlock for renouncing his non-juring principles. place of publication conjectured by wing; publication date from title is given according to lady day dating. reproduction of original in the henry e. huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sherlock, william, 1641?-1707 -early works to 1800. charles -i, -king of england, 1600-1649 -early works to 1800. cromwell, oliver, 1599-1658 -early works to 1800. broadsides -england 2007-10 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2007-10 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2007-11 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2007-11 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the copy of a letter sent to dr. sherlock , upon the occasion of his preaching at st. margaret's on jan. 30th . 1691. sir , since the wisdom of those beneficent patriots ( who have so illustriously preserv'd the liberties and privileges , and advanced the trade , and riches off the people , whom they represent ) hath chosen you to be their orator upon the approaching 〈◊〉 30th . of jan. suffer me a stranger to advise you to demean your self , as it becomes you , on that day of pretended fasting and humiliation . it is not enough that you deal tenderly with the memory of that great saint and hero his royal highness oliver cromwell ( who by your own principles was the lord's anointed , and set over these nations by a designation from above , by a continued series of mighty victories , which according to your arguing as truly discover'd him to be the vicegerent of heaven , as prophecy did the kings of israel ) but you are obliged to speak honorably of that eminent benefactor to this people , who set a pattern to future ages how to treat tyrannical kings . make a panegyrick in his praise , and raise your voice to a due pitch , that the audience may admire an eloquence adequate to the grandeur of the subject ; and that you may be in all things just to your principles , treat that man , whom the last age fondly made a martyr , and fome few in this think so as he deserved ; the man , whom the people accused of endeavouring to introduce popery and arbitrary power ; and who by following as undue courses , as his son , brought himself to the block ; treat him magisterially , and with that assuming , that is inseparable from men of your profound parts ; treat him , as you have done the little writers amongst the jacobites ( whom instead of answering you contemn ) or as your dear spouse treats you , when you fail of dutiful compliance ; exalt your well furnish'd forehead , lift up your voice like a trumpet , that voice that hath been all along spared for this infamous occasion ; call upon the nation to rejoice at the downfall of its enemies , and exhort them to maintain their rights against the incroachments of insolent princes , who suck the blood , and prey upon the marrow of those , whom they should gently govern , settle the power of the people over kings , and prove god an accessary to all their prosperous rebellions and perjuries . you know the vindication of these opinions was the purchase of your deanery , and men use to maintain what they have gotten , by súch methods as they got it by ; i cannot call it simony , that old magician was a fairer merchant , he would have purchased the gifts and powers of the holy spirit ( things of great excellency and use , while you leave the sacred assistances of the church to such silly chapmen , and pursue the nobler quarry of its more sacred honors and revenues . advice those grave senators to make solemn sanctions against all your former old obstinate friends , counsel them to establish a tax upon every man's head , like the haracht musslemen upon the poor greeks ; commend the example of those sage ottomans to the imitation of our no less wise and merciful commons ; who , even when they acknowledge the bible to be the word of god , make it meritorious to murther all those , who profess to live according to its rules . and whenever a convocation shall be call'd , in which your new station gives you a place of course 〈◊〉 take care , as to retract your antisocinian writings ( to put your self in the good graces of your new primate ) so to condemn all your quondam monarchical tenents , and make a publick sacrifice of your case of resistance to the injured ghost of the invincible protector ; and before you do either of these , consult your pillow , and your comfortable importance ( whom you by fits love and dread , as the indians do the devil ) make her , as you are wont , your oracle ; and believe me to be january the 28. 1691. your faithful true friend and servant . an answer to the request to protestants, to produce plain scriptures directly authorizing these tenets sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 39 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 11 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59790 wing s3264 estc r16978 13153753 ocm 13153753 98153 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59790) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 98153) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 751:24) an answer to the request to protestants, to produce plain scriptures directly authorizing these tenets sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 18 p. printed for tho. basset ..., london : 1687. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc pre-1956. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -doctrines. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to the request to protestants , to produce plain scriptures directly authorizing these tenets . licensed , december 16. 1686. london : printed for tho. basset , at the george , near st. dunstan's church , in fleetstreet , mdclxxxvii . an answer to the request to protestants , ( a ) to produce plain scriptures directly authorizing these their tenets . ( a ) ans. we do indeed make the scripture the rule of our faith , because we believe god gave us the scripture to be our rule , and we know not where to meet with a better ; and therefore we do not quarrel at this request to produce plain scripture proofs for what we believe ; but we may justly quarrel at the fallacious or unskilful way of stating it , as if we pretended to own no doctrines , but what are contained in the express words of scripture ; and therefore , to understand this matter , we must consider the several kinds of doctrines professed in the church of england , and what kind of proof from scripture , they are capable of . 1st , the positive articles of faith , such as are contained in the creed , and expresly taught in scripture , we prove from plain and express testimonies of scripture , and are ready to give our proofs of them , when they are demanded . but besides these , 2ly , we have a great many negative articles , opposed to the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome : now to believe a negative , is only to believe that such a doctrine is not taught in scripture ; and it would be a very wise request , to desire us to prove by plain and express scripture , that such a doctrine is not taught in scripture . we believe it is not there , because we cannot find it in scripture , and those who pretend it is there , cannot shew it there ; which is proof enough , and all that the thing is capable of . 3ly , there are other doctrines , which , it may be , are not in a strict sense , articles of faith , but great and useful truths , which cannot be proved by express words of scripture , but by immediate and necessary consequence ; and it is ridiculous in these cases , to demand a direct proof , if by that he means the express words of scripture , for we never pretended to that in such matters , but think it very reasonable to believe an evident consequence , as well as express words . since our saviour proved the resurrection it self by consequence , matth. 22. 32. having premised this , i shall examine , what it is he would have proved , in which also he has betrayed great want either of skill or honesty , as will appear from particulars . i. scripture is clear , in all necessaries , to every sober enquirer . a. he begins well with demanding a scripture proof ; that the scripture is clear in all necessaries ; as if we protestants wanted a scripture proof , that the sun shines , when we see it . can there be any better proof , that the scripture is clear and plain , than its own plainness ? and therefore , every plain text proves its own plainness ? if this proposition , scripture is clear in all necessaries , to every sober enquirer , were contained in express words in scripture ; yet if we could not find it plain , we should rather question , whether those words are plain , than believe the scripture to be plain , when we do not find it so . but if i find the scripture plain , the plainness of the scripture proves it self , and needs no other proof . and yet this is one of those propositions , which may be proved by plain and necessary consequence from the scripture . for if the word of god be a light unto our feet , and a lamp unto our paths , then it must be clear , if light be clear , psal. 119. 105. if it be able to make men wise unto salvation , 1. tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to salvation . ii. the secular prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority , immediately , from and under god. a. what authority the church of england grants to kings in matters of religion , which he here calls all spiritual jurisdiction , and authority , we are taught in the 37th article of religion : the kings majesty hath the chief power in this realm of england , and other his dominions , unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm , whether they be ecclesiastical or civil in all causes doth appertain , and is not , and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction . which is further explained , that we give not our princes , the ministring of god's word , or of the scraments , — but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in holy scriptures by god himself , that is , that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by god , whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal , and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers . which signifies no more , than that the king is supreme in his own dominions , and therefore there is no power , neither secular nor ecclesiastick above him ; for if there were , he were not supreme ; must we then prove by express scripture , that the king is supreme ? do men want scripture to prove , that supreme power is supreme ? thus some men are always in the extremes , either the scripture signifies nothing , or it must be every thing , grammar , and dictionary and logick , and statute-book , and all ; but can they prove by express scripture , that the king has the supreme power in civil causes ? then i will prove , that he has the supreme power in ecclesiastical causes ; and i think rom. 13. 1. let every soul be subject to the higher powers , is a sufficient proof of both . iii. justification by faith alone ( viz. a persuasion that we are justified ) is a wholesome doctrine . a. our church does teach , that justification by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine , and very full of comfort , article ii. but she does not teach , that justifying faith is a persuasion , that we are justified ; and sure we are not bound to prove that by scripture , which we do not believe . iv. the substance of bread and wine remains after , what it was before , sacerdotal consecration . a. our church teaches , that transubstantiation ( or the change of the substance of bread and wine ) in the supper of the lord , cannot be proved by holy writ , art. 28. but she does not teach , that the bread and wine remain after , what they were before sacerdotal consecration . their substance is the same , that is , they are bread and wine still , but by virtue of christ's institution , after consecration they are not meer bread and wine , but a sacrament of our redemption by christ's death , and to such as rightly , worthily , and by faith receive the same , the bread which we break , is a partaking of the body of christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of christ. the substance of bread and wine is the same , but the institution gives it such a new relation and use , as is equivalent to changing its nature , and makes it the sacramental body and blood of christ. and this the words of institution are an express proof of , this is my body ; for if it be not his natural body , as sense and reason tell us it cannot be , then it must be only his sacramental body , or his body by institution . christ was visibly present with his apostles in his own natural body , when he instituted this sacrament , and therefore they could not understand , and our saviour could never intend they should believe , that the bread which he blessed and brake , was his natural body , which they saw before their eyes ; that they ate their lord , when they are the consecrated bread , that they swallowed him down into their stomachs , and yet all this while saw him , and conversed with him , as they did at other times . the bread is the body of christ , but it is his broken body , which it could not be at the institution of this sacrament ; for christ was not then crucified , his natural body was not yet broken , and therefore the broken bread , though it was his sacramental , could not be his natural body ; his blood was not then shed , and therefore though the wine was his blood of the new testament , it could not be his natural blood which is shed for the remission of sins , unless his natural body was broken , and his blood shed before he was crucified . now i take that to be the express sense of scripture , which is the only sense that can be made of it ; for a sense in which it is impossible , is none at all . v. our lord's presence in or with the eucharist is meerly gracious and influential ; and , if more , only to the faithful . a. there is no such proposition as this taught by the church of england , that i know of ; we own the influences of the divine grace to accompany the external administration of the lord's supper ; and this i suppose , they will not put us to prove . we own the sacramental body and blood of christ , that is , the consecrated elements , to be really present upon the altar , and verily and indeed eaten of the faithful ; for so our saviour expresly tells us , this is my body , and this is my blood ; and this is somewhat more than to say , that our lord's presence in or with the eucharist is meerly gracious and influential : for so he is present in all other religious duties ; but here he is so present , that his body and blood , with all the benefits of his death and passion , are exhibited to worthy receivers , as much as they could have been , had we eat his natural flesh , and drank his blood . and therefore whatever difference they would allow , between christ's gracious and influential presence in the eucharist , and eating his natural flesh and blood , had that been possible , the same we allow between his gracious presence , and eating his sacramental body , which is to all the ends and purposes of a sacrament , the same by his own institution , with his natural flesh and blood ; for the carnal feeding on christ's flesh , is not a sacramental eating of him but if by more he means , that christ is corporally present in the eucharist , that his natural flesh and blood is contained under the species of bread and wine , this we deny , and it being a negative article , it is ridiculous , as i observed before , to demand express scripture , to prove that it is not in the scripture ; let those , who affirm it , prove by express scripture , that it is there ; for this is my body , and this is my blood , will not do it : we own , that it is the body and blood of christ , as well as they ; and therefore they must prove , that it is christ's natural body and blood , and it is well for them , that they have something else than scripture to trust to . vi. adoration of the eucharist ( i. e. of our saviour under the species of bread and wine ) is idolatry . a. nor is there any such proposition as this taught in the church of england . we teach indeed , that bread and wine in the eucharist , remains bread and wine after consecration , and that to adore bread and wine is idolatry , as romanists themselves confess , and is easily proved from scripture , if to give divine worship to creatures be idolatry . to adore our saviour is not idolatry , but to adore bread and wine for our saviour may be as much idolatry , as to worship the sun for god. but this author puts a fallacy upon his readers , by an explanatory parenthesis , adoration of the eucharist ( i. e. of our saviour under the species of bread and wine ) as if they only worshipped our saviour under the species of bread and wine ; whereas they teach that the species themselves ( whatever they be , to be sure , not christ himself ) are to be worshipped together with christ ; and therefore , according to their own doctrine , they must worship something which is not christ. and let them consider , what name to give this . vii . all christians , whenever they communicate , are oblig'd to receive in both kinds . a. and why does he not ask us to prove , that all christians , whenever they communicate , are obliged to receive the bread ? for there is the same institution for the wine , that there is for the bread. there is no other rule in matters of institution , but to observe the institution ; and since the sacrament was instituted in both kinds , and neither christ nor his apostles have told us , that it is sufficient to receive in one kind , we think this reason enough to assert , that all christians when they do communicate , must communicate in both kinds . and indeed this sacrament is not compleat without it ; for if we consider it as a spiritual feast , wine as well as bread , to drink as well as to eat , is essential to a feast ; if we consider the end of the institution , to be a commemoration of the death of christ , and the expiation of his blood , how can we commemorate sacramentally the expiation of his blood , without drinking his blood , which is shed for the remission of sins ? for to eat his blood together with his flesh , as they pretend , does not represent his broken body , and his blood shed , but his whole body with flesh and blood together , which contradicts the very institution of this supper . and if we partake of no benefits in the sacrament , but what we sacramentally commemorate , i would desire this author to tell me , how those who do not drink the blood of christ , this blood of the new testament , obtain the remission of their sins ? a very material thing for those to consider , who would be sure of their salvation . viii . chastity , deliberately vow'd , may be , inoffensively , violated . a. this is no doctrine of our church , nor are protestants now concerned in it , though some of the monks and nuns at the beginning of the reformation were . there was no such thing known as vowing chastity , as that signifies a vow against marriage ; neither under the law , nor in the times of christ and his apostles ; and therefore we cannot expect in scripture an express decision of this matter , but must argue from the nature and obligation of vows . and if he please to consult the writings of the first reformers , who were concerned to vindicate themselves in this point , he will find it easier to condemn what they did , than to answer the reasons , whereby they justifie it . these vows were never thought so sacred , but that the pope can dispense with them ; and what is dispensable , necessity will dispense with on course ; and that they themselves knew best . these monastick vows were undertaken as the most excellent state of religion , as meritorious of pardon and justification , which is a fulsom superstition and corruption of christianity , and therefore are void and null as all other superstitions are . and if monastick vows , as such , do not oblige , as no superstitions can ; then they were free to use that liberty , which god and christ had allowed them . but who taught him to call a vow against marriage , a vow of chastity , when marriage it self is a state of chastity ? and tho' it be lawful to vow chastity , which is a necessary duty , let him prove , that it is lawful for any man , nay a boy , or girl , to vow not to marry , when our saviour himself tells us , this is not in every mans power ; and nothing can be a lawful matter for a vow , but what is in our power . christ indeed tells us of some , who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven , mat. 19. 12. that is , who voluntarily chose a devout coelibacy , not who obliged themselves against marriage by the religion of a vow . but if the vow of chastity is so sacred , i hope , they keep it better now , than some of their predecessors have done ; unless they think the vow of chastity only obliges them not to marry , but does not restrain them from a vagrant lust . ix . all christian excellencies are commanded . a. this i think st. paul has determined , phil. 4. 8. finally brethren , whatsoever things are true , whatsoever things are honest , whatsoever things are just , whatsoever things are pure , whatsoever things are lovely , whatsoever things are of good report , if there be any virtue , and if there be any praise , think on these things . if these general expressions do not comprehend all christian excellencies , i know not what does . and indeed , whatever virtues are commanded , we must always reckon that the heights and perfections of those virtues are commanded , for god can command nothing less than a perfect virtue ; and it is apparent , he has annexed no limitations to his commands ; for we are required to be perfect , even as our father , which is in heaven , is perfect . not that every man shall be damned , who does not attain to the highest perfections ; for through the merits and intercession of our saviour , god will accept of a sincere , tho imperfect obedience ; but sincerity it self requires our endeavours after perfection , which could not be our duty , if it were not commanded ; and tho a sincere christian shall be saved notwithstanding his many defects , yet our reward shall be proportioned to our several degrees and attainments in virtue . nothing is a christian excellency , but what is an instance of some virtue , which is commanded , which will throw a great many meritorious works , which our author had an eye on , out of this number , and every degree and act of virtue becomes more or less necessary to us , according to our different qualifications and circumstances of life , according to our saviours rule , to whom much is given , of them shall be much required . these uncommanded christian excellencies are what the church of rome call works of supererogation , which our church has condemned , art. 14. in these words . voluntary works besides , over and above gods commandments , which they call works of supererogation , cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety . for by them men do declare , that they do not only tender unto god as much as they are bound to do , but that they do more for his sake , than of baunded duty is required ; whereas christ saith plainly , when ye have done all that are commanded to you , say , that we are unprofitable servants . x. every soul , as soon as expired , is convey'd to heaven or hell. a. the scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other world , but heaven and hell , and therefore we know of no other . our church has expresly determined , art. 22. that the romish doctrine of purgatory , is a fond thing , vainly invented , and grounded upon no warranty of scripture , but rather repugnant to the word of god. now , that there are no other places of rewards and punishments but heaven and hell , and that there is no such place as purgatory , where the souls of men , who have any sins to expiate , are purged and tormented with fire , are negative articles , and therefore not to be proved by express and positive testimonies of scripture . but that every soul , as soon as expired , is conveyed to heaven or hell , is only an inference from this doctrine , that we know of no other place they should go to after death , the scripture having not told us of any other , and christs parable of dives and lazarus , and st. paul's desire to be dissolved , and to be with christ , looking fairly that way . and yet our church has not positively determined this , in reverence , i suppose , to many of the ancient fathers , who did assert an intermediate state between death and judgment , not a purgatory , where the souls of good men were punished for their sins , but a state of ease and rest , tho not the highest heavens . xi . desiring the intercessions of the blessed , is more superstitious , and derogatory to our lord's mediatorship , than entreating the prayers of holy men militant . a. this is as plain in scripture , as that christ is our only mediator in heaven , who alone ( like the high priest under the law , who was his type ) is admitted into the holy of holies to make expiation , and to interceed for us . as great a difference as there is between the mutual prayers of good men for each other on earth , and the intercession of saints for us in heaven , by so much more does the intercession of saints in heaven invade the office and mediatorship of christ , than the prayers of good men on earth . good men on earth pray for each other as humble supplicants , as members of the same body , as subject to the same temptations : saints in heaven intercede as powerful favourites , who by their merits and interest with god , obtain blessings for us ; and any meritorious intercession is inconsistent with the only mediatorship of christ in heaven . but suppose we could not prove , that the intercession of saints in heaven , is any more inconsistent with the mediatorship of christ , than the prayers of good men on earth are ; does this prove , that we may pray to saints with all the solemnities of devotion , that we do to god or christ , which is to give divine honours to creatures ; tho he minces the matter , and calls it , desiring the intercessions of the blessed ; and might with as good reason call his prayers to christ , only desiring the intercessions of christ ; and his prayers to god , only desiring some blessings of god , as he does of his frinds on earth . the sum of what we teach about this matter , is this . that we must worship none but god , and therefore must not pray to saints and angels , as our saviour teaches , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . that there is but one mediator between god and man , the man christ jesus , and therefore we must not make more mediators to our selves , nor put our trust in the intercession of saints and angels . thus far we have plain scripture proof . and then we think common sense teaches us the rest . that it is an injury to an only mediator , to set up other mediators with him . that good men on earth are not mediators , but supplicants , which is no encroachment of christ's mediatorship ; and that saints in heaven , according to the church of rome , pray as mediators and intercestors , who appear in the presence of god for us ; and this is not reconcilable with christ's only mediatorship in heaven . xii . honouring the cross , the reliques and representations of our lord and his saints , with that degree of reverence as we do the gospels , ( commonly kiss'd and sworn by ) altar , and other sacred utensils , is idolatry . a. this is a very reasonable request , to require us to prove that by scriture , which we do not believe ! papists indeed would excuse that worship , which they pay to the cross , to reliques and images , by saying , that it is no more than that reverence , which we allow to the gospels , and religious utensils , which is no more than an external respect ; but do those , who charge them with idolatry in worshipping the cross , and reliques , and images , charge them only with giving some external respects to them , or with giving them formal acts of worship and adoration ? as both the decrees of their councils , and the visible practice of their church proves : and if he would have this proved to be idolatry , he may meet with some protestants , who will be ready to oblige him . xiii . the pope is antichrist . a. this indeed has been affirmed by some protestants , but is no article of our church , and therefore we are not bound to prove it , but when we have a mind to it . no man ever pretended that there is any such proposition in scripture , as that the pope of rome is antichrist , but some think that the characters of antichrist and the man of sin , are much more applicable to him , than the universal headship and infallibility . xiv . every prayer , us'd in divine offices , must be in a language vulgar , and intelligible to every auditor . a. why he should put us upon proving this from scripture , i cannot tell , when he knows that st. paul has a whole chapter to prove it , 1 cor. 14. unless he has some reserve in expressing it by every prayer . for that indeed , st. paul does not say in words , but his reason saies it . for if the reason he assigns against prayers in an unknown tongue , extend to all prayers ; then it proves , that every publick prayer should be in a language understood by the people . but what is this to the church of rome , who has all publick offices in an unknown tongue ? yes , if they could prove it lawful ever to pray in an unknown tongue , they would presently prove it lawful always to do so ; and thus st. pauls discourse against praying in an unknown tongue is confuted for want of saying that we must never pray in an unknown tongue . but whether it be not more reasonable to conclude from st. pauls discourse against praying in an unknown tongue , that we must never do so , than from his not saying , that we must never pray in an unknown tongue , that we may always do so , let any man judg , who has not renounced his own understanding . xv. a company of christians , voluntarily separating from all other christian societies , condemning their doctrines and rites , destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the eucharist , in any religious assemblies or solemn devotions , can , notwithstanding this perverse , intire , and manifest separation , be a mystical member of christ , in catholick unity , and a charitable part of the catholick church . a. if he applies this to us , it is manifestly false ; for tho' we do not communicate with the church of rome in her corrupt worship , yet there are many christian churches , with which we can and do communicate , and separate our selves no farther from any society of christians , than they separate themselves from the primitive and apostolick churches . but to gratifie him , suppose that all the communions of christendom were corrupted in their worship , so that we could not safely communicate with any one of them but our own ; yet if the church of england be a true apostolick church , in faith and worship , and government , and separates from others only upon account of such corruptions , as will justifie such a separation , what should hinder her from being a mystical member of christ , in catholick unity , and a charitable part of the catholick church ? the true apostolick faith and worship does certainly make us the mystical members of christ's body , or else i desire to know , what does ? catholick vnity is not violated by a just separation , and dangerous corruptions in faith and worship are a just cause of separation : come out from among them , and be ye separate , saith the lord , and touch not the unclean thing , and i will receive you , 2 cor. 6. 17. and where there are such corruptions , so fatal and dangerous to mens souls , how far soever such corruptions have spread , it is a greater act of charity to separate , than to communicate with them , as it is greater charity to reprove men for their sins , and forsake their company , than to joyn with them in a wicked confederacy . this is the true state of the case , and this we can prove either from the express words of scripture , or from easie and necessary consequences ; and this shows that it is possible , that a company of christians , ( not ) voluntarily ( but necessarily . ) separating from all other christian societies , condemning their ( corrupt ) doctrines and rites , destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the eucharist , in any religious assemblies , or solemn devotions , ( upon account of such corruptions ) can notwithstanding this ( not ) perverse ( but just and necessary ) separation , be a mystical member of christ , in catholick unity , and a charitablt part of the catholick church , which is not meerly the present church of one age , but the whole church , from the times of christ and his apostles to the end of the world . for could we suppose at any time all the communions of christendom to be corrupt but one , that one uncorrupt church must forsake the communion of all others , and yet it would be a member of christ , and a charitable part of the catholick church , unless it be only numbers , not the purity of faith and worship , which makes the catholick church . xvi . the whole clergy of the catholick church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness ; whilst part of a national laity may preserve both , discover the clergies defection , and , depriving them , heap to themselves teachers of their own sending and instruction . a. what he intends by this , i cannot well guess ; i suppose , he would have his readers believe , that the whole clergy of the christian world did at the time of the reformation maintain the doctrines of the church of rome , which were rejected and condemned only by the major vote of a parliament of lay-men in england , which how false it is all the world knows . for , 1. there were many other churches , and better parts of the catholick church , than the church of rome , which did not own those doctrines and corruptions , which we reject . 2. nay the whole clergy of the roman church did not . for were not our english bishops and clergy as zealous in the reformation , as any laymen ? and were not they bishops in communion with the roman church ? were not the german reformers of the clergy ? and was the whole clergy then against the reformation ? these are admirable things to be proved by direct testimonies of scripture . 3. nor do we say , that the roman church her self has apostatized from fundamental truth and holiness . we do grant , that they have retained the true faith and worship of christ , tho they have fatally corrupted both , by additions of their own . 4. if the first discovery of this defection had been made by laymen , and afterwards acknowledged by the clergy , who joyned in the reformation , i should not have thought the reformation ever the worse for it . for if the clergy corrupt religion , we have reason to thank god , if he opens the eyes of honest and disinterested laymen . but is not this author very modest in his requests , who would have us prove his own calumnies , and spiteful insinuations from scripture ? this , i think , is answer enough to his request . and as for his following harangue , there is little in it to be answered , but some spiteful and sensless reflections , which are better despised then answered . but let us briefly consider some of them , lest he should think they cannot be answered . 1. he saies , in these positive propositions , our religion chiefly consists . and truly it is a very sorry religion , if it does . but why does not our religion consist in believing the true catholick faith contained in the ancient creeds ? in worshipping god through the mediation of jesus christ , according to the rules of the gospel ? in obeying all those holy laws our saviour has given us ? in observing the sacraments of his own institution , and as he has instituted them ? this is all the religion we own , and know no other ; and why then is not this our religion ? no , this is the churches peculiar , and claimed by her against all novel and unjust , both foreigners and out-laws . but if this be our religion , and the religion of the catholick church , how come we to be foreigners and out-laws ? why does not the catholick faith and worship , make us members of the catholick church ? and then we have as good a claim to the creed and sacraments as they . no , saies our author , whatever they have invented and chosen , that belongs ( as sin to a depraved will ) properly to them ; thence they derive their title , and thereto must we precisely confine their religion . but now if we have invented and chosen nothing else , what then ? how do we lose our right to the creed and sacraments , &c. because we will allow of no new inventions and additions to it ? and yet this is the plain case . our only dispute with the church of rome , is about those corrupt additions they have made to the catholick faith and worship , without any foundation in scripture , or reason , or true antiquity ; and therefore our religion is precisely confined to the old catholick faith and worship of the christian church , and therefore is properly ours ( if they will allow us to have any ) because it is all we have . the german reformers indeed , were called protestants ▪ from protesting against the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome , and this only shows what they do not believe , and what they will not practice ; but they have a better name than this , and that is christians , which shows what their positive faith and religion is , viz. that faith and worship , which was taught by christ and his apostles , and owned and practised by the primitive church , before these corruptions and innovations were heard of ; and therefore , this is precisely our religion ; what we protest against , we declare not to be our religion ; so ridiculous is it , precisely to confine our religion to it . 2ly , the next subject of his harangue , is our demands of scripture-proofs from the church of rome for their new faith and worship , which i confess is a very hard request , because they have none . however , he says , this makes it just for the catholick church ( as they will needs call themselves ) to retort this demand upon us , and to demand our scripture-proofs ; and i confess , there is great reason for it , and i hope , have done him justice ; for i suppose , he would not ask more of us , than we do of them . now we only demand either the express words of scripture , or plain and evident consequences , or the silence of scripture , to prove that a thing is not revealed ; and this we are ready to return them as to any doctrines which we profess ; and whether we adulterate scriptures by corrupt translations ( such as the vulgar latin ) or sacrilegious mutilations ( as by leaving out the second commandment ) or blasphemous misapplications ( as applying the psalter of david to the virgin mary , by changing lord into lady ) or gross wrestings and false interpretations ( as proving supremacy and infallibility by tu es petrus , and pasce oves ) shall be left to every impartial reader . 3ly , in the next place he reproaches us with the socinians , whom he calls our brethren by descent and iniquity who steering by the blast of a private spirit , the chart of clear scripture , and compass of humane reason , have made shipwrack of faith . this is intollerable to say , that to follow scripture and reason , is the way to make shipwrack of faith ; which can never be , unless scripture and reason be contrary to faith , which indeed they are in many things to the faith of the church of rome ; but god forbid they should be to the true christian faith. but have not the socinians made shipwrack of faith by following clear scripture and humane reason ? and will he then say , that scripture and reason are on the socinian side ? if they be , how can he know that they have made shipwrack of faith ? if they be not , then they make shipwrack of faith by not adhering to clear scripture and reason ; and is this a reason for us to be ashamed of following scripture and reason , because the socinians err by the abuse of both ? there is no doubt , but men who pretend to scripture and reason may err ; and it is demonstrable , that men who renounce scripture and reason , must err , and we have so many instances of this in the church of rome , that it is no great encouragement to us to rely on church-authority without scripture and reason . they dare not say , that we must believe contrary to scripture , or that the scripture is not the rule of our faith ; but they will allow no body to interpret the scripture but the church of rome , which is the most certain way to make her infallible ; for to be sure she will not interpret the scripture against her self ; she must be always in the right , if what she says be the rule of faith. but we who cannot believe , that god has given us scripture and reason to make no use of them ; that he has made the pope or church of rome infallible , and divested all other christians of sense and common understanding , have nothing but reason and scripture to steer by , and that will neither make us socinians , nor papists . 4ly , his parting-blow is about the supremacy of the king , which he calls hobbism , as if we ever thought , that all men must be of the kings religion , as the sole and sovereign judg of all causes spiritual ? what we mean by the kings supremacy , i have already explained . he has no spiritual jurisdiction properly so called ; can neither ordain , nor administer the sacraments , nor has the power of the keys , but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the church is incorporated into the state , so he has the government of all ecclesiastical persons and causes . whatever secular authority the church has , is derived from the prince , and depends on secular laws , and this may be enlarged , retrenched , suspended , by the same power that gave it ; but the church as a spiritual society has rights of its own , can teach the true faith , administer sacraments , inflict church-censures , though without any temporal effect , by an inherent authority : we thank god , when our prince , who has the supreme authority , does countenance true religion ; but whenever it is otherwise , we are taught to submit all our temporal concernments , our lives , and bodies , and estates , to the will of our prince , but to defend our church and religion by a modest , but resolute profession of the true faith , and meek and patient suffering for it . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59790-e180 see the late disscourse of the adoration of the host , p. 8 , 9. &c. an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 54 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59789 wing s3263 estc r37544 16970225 ocm 16970225 105556 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59789) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 105556) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1159:2) an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 31 p. printed for john amery ... and william rogers ..., london : mdclxxxvi [1686] attributed to sherlock by wing. "imprimatur, july 22. 1686. jo. battely" an answer to "an amicable accomodation" by john gother. imperfect: stained, with loss of print. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. 1704. -an amicable accommodation. jesus christ. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-11 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 olivia bottum sampled and proofread 2004-01 olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , july 22. 1686. io. battely . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer . london : printed for iohn amery at the peacock , and william rogers at the sun ; both against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdclxxxvi . an answer to the amicable accommodation , of the difference between the representer and the answerer . in answer to the reply to papists protesting against protestant popery , our author has amicably accommodated away the whole book , excepting one word called misrepresenting ; and therefore whereas he expects ten sheets from me in return , i must be forced to compound with him for a much less number . we are likely at last to agree about the meaning of misrepresenting , which is a very common word , and easily understood when men give their minds to it . our author printed a double character of a papist misrepresented and represented ; the first being an accusation on protestants for misrepresenting papists ; i examined every part of his character , and could not find why he called it misrepresenting ; for it did not appear by his characters , that we had charged them with any doctrines or practices ( excepting some few things ) but what they themselves owned . we charge indeed their doctrines and practices with such guilt as they do not own ; but this i told him did not properly belong to representing but disputing ; for while we agree about matters of fact , there is no misrepresenting on either side , and then we are no otherwise misrepresenters , than as all men are who condemn such opinions and practises , as others judge very true and innocent ; and thus papists as much misrepresent protestants , as protestants misrepresent papists ; that is , they equally differ from each other in their opinions and judgments of the same things ; but who are truly the misrepresenters , is not to be decided by character-making , but by reason and argument . well , our accommodator is very willing out of civility and for the sake of peace , to yield this point , that the title of a papist misrepresented , is not to be taken in its strict and proper sence , as misrepresenting signifies downright lying , or falsly charging of matter of fact ; but in its larger or less-proper sence , as it comprehends both lying , calumniating , mis-interpreting , reproaching , mis-construing , mis-judging , &c. which i confess is a very great piece of civility , that he will not charge us now with down right lying , but onely with lying and calumniating , and several other hard words into the bargain . there needs not many words about this matter , for the short of the case is this : in order to reconcile our people to the church of rome , he thought it necessary to perswade them , that popery is quite another thing , than what they had been taught it is , which would at once remove their prejudices against popery , and beget in them a great jealousie and suspicion of their former teachers ; for men will not easily trust those who have once deceived them . in order to this , he gives us a double character of a papist ; one he calls the character of a papist misrepresented , the other of a papist represented ; which any man would guess , should be two very different and contrary things ; the first what a papist is not , the second what he is ; and yet , when we come to examine them , every thing almost , which can properly be called a character , or representing , is the same in both ; onely the character of a papist misrepresented tells you , what opinion protestants have of popery , and the character of a papist represented , tells us , what good thoughts papists have of themselves , and their own religion ; now whoever doubted , but that papists and protestants differ very much in their opinions of popery , as they do also in their opinions of protestancy . and this is the onely pretence for his charge of misrepresenting , not that we charge them with believing or practising , what they do not believe or practice , but that we think worse of their faith and practice than he thinks they deserve . and if this be all that he means by misrepresenting , we readily own the charge , that we have much worse thoughts of popery than he has ; that we believe those doctrines to be erroneous , and those practises to be sinful , which he thinks very well of ; and because i am resolved , if possible , to be as civil as he is , in my concessions , and not to dispute about words , i am contented he should call this misrepresenting , lying , calumniating , or what he pleases , if he can prove that we condemn their faith or worship unjustly ; onely he must remember , that this will engage him in a dispute , which he seems resolved not to engage in . for he must not think , that upon his bare word , we must be concluded guilty of that misrepresenting , which he calls lying . he should have been very much afraid to accuse us of lying , if he is resolved altogether to represent , and not to dispute : for certainly no wise man will give his neighbour the lye , unless he be well prepared to prove it against him . misrepresenting was a civil term , because honest men may through mistake misrepresent ; but lying is the fault of knaves , which as it deserves great punishment , so it ought not to be charged upon men without great proof , much less with none at all : and therefore he should not have taken up an obstinate humour against disputing , just before he thought fit to charge us with lying , but have remembred what m. de meaux says in his pastoral letter , p. 29. those who bear false and scandalous witness against an innocent person , are condemned to the same punishment which the crime of which they bear witness did deserve had it been found true . but to clear my self as well as i can ; besides this , that i am not conscious to my self of any misrepresenting , i must tell him once more , that in a strict and proper sence , to misrepresent relates only to matter of fact , when we charge men with saying and doing what they never said or did , as our accommodater confesses ; and in this sence i have already proved , that we are no misrepresenters , and at last , if i understand him , he confesses that we are not ; but then he tells us , that to misrepresent , in a larger and less-proper sence , signifies also to put a false construction on things : as for instance , to say that to worship saints and angels , and the virgin mary , as practised by the church of rome , is to give the worship of god to creatures ; and that their image-worship is what god has forbid in the second commandment ; that their denying the cup to the laity is contrary to the institution of our saviour , and their latine service is a very unreasonable worship , and destructive of the edification of the church , &c. now though we do not charge them falsly in these cases as to matter of fact , for they do worship saints and images , and deny the cup to the laity , and keep the service of the church in a language unknown to the people , yet if through prejudice and neglect of due consideration , we should condemn these practices as contrary to the laws of god , and injurious to mens souls , though they were not so . i grant even this may be called misrepresenting , for 't is to call good evil , and evil good , light darkness , and darkness light ; and whoever is guilty of this kind of misrepresentation , is guilty of a very great sin , and does great mischief in the world , not by falsifying matters of fact , but as much as in him lies , by changing the nature of things . and upon these terms the dispute of misrepresenting may be easily accommodated : let him plainly confess , that we are not misrepresenters in the first sense ; that we do not falsly charge any doctrines or practices on the church of rome , which she disowns ; that we do not teach our people , that the church of rome believes or practices , otherwise than she does , and we will give him leave to call us misrepresenters still , if he can shew that we charge their doctrines or practices with such guilt as they do not deserve . but it is by no means a sufficient answer to this charge to call us lyars , which for ought i can see , is all we are like to get in answer from this man. of all the several projects for ending controversie , the most effectual that i ever yet heard of , is that which our author hath set on foot : for he would now insinuate , that he has vindicated the church of rome from our misrepresenting , not onely matter of fact , but the guilt we charge them with upon those matters that are confessed by themselves . now i have shewn him as well as i could , that some of their confessed doctrines are false , and some of their confessed practices are unlawful , and that their best apologies for them are insufficient . what says the accomodator to all this ? he answers , that all this is misrepresenting , as that signifies lying . but how the dispute should be carried on upon these terms , otherwise then by giving him the lye back again , i do not comprehend ? and therefore because neither true religion , or good breeding , will suffer me to carry on a dispute at that rate , the controversie should seem even upon this account to be at end ; and i give him joy of the honour that he is like to get by it . and yet i think an indifferent reader may observe that his fastning the lye upon us , for misrepresenting them in the less-proper sense , as he pretends we do , is but an after-game to which he is reduced by the extremity of a bad cause . the design of our author in his twofold character of a papist , was to perswade our people , that we were misrepresenters in the first and most proper sense ; that we had belyed the church of rome , with imputing such doctrines to her , as she did not own ; and this all men , that ever i met with , understood to be the design of it : but since he cannot make good his charge against us , he will now make good his title of misrepresenting in a less-proper sense , not that we misreport the doctrines and practices of their church , but that we unjustly condemn them ; and though we will rather allow him to call this misrepresenting , than dispute about a word , yet if this be all he intended to acquaint the world , that protestants think worse of popery , than papists do , it was a wonderful discovery ; and he took as notable a way to rectifie such mis-apprehensions . he disclaims all disputing , and thinks to confute protestant misrepresentations , by giving onely a true character of a papist , with reference to his faith and practice , out of the most authentick records of their church : now if the misrepresentation does not concern matter of fact , but only mens judgments and opinions about such matters , how can a meer character rectify such misrepresentations ? when we know , what the doctrine and practice of the church of rome is , and yet think very ill of it ; can the meer relating what the doctrine and practice of the church of rome is , cure our ill opinion of it ? and yet this is all the business of a character to tell us , what a papist is , which might indeed reconcile us to popery , had we disliked popery onely because we did not understand it , or took it to be something more formidable than it is , but cannot cure such dislikes as arise from a true understanding of popery . he appeals to the definitions of the councils of trent , and the bishop of condom's exposition , &c. to vindicate popery from the misrepresentations of protestants ; that is , to show us what the genuine doctrines of popery are : and how can this confute our misrepresentations , unless by misrepresenting he understood misrepresenting matter of fact , charging such doctrines on their church as were never decreed by their councils , nor owned by their most authentick expositors ? for the authority of the council of trent is nothing to us , any otherwise than as we own it to be the rule and standard of the romish faith ; and therefore he can prove nothing against us out of the council of trent , but onely that those are not the doctrines of the church of rome , which we say are , and this cannot confute protestant misrepresentations of popery , unless our misrepresentations consist in charging them with such doctrines as their church and councils do not own . and therefore , though he is now willing to grant , that we are not misrepresenters , as that signifies , down-right lyers , who charge the church of rome with believing and practising what she does not , yet it is apparent , that this was what he intended in his title of a papist misrepresented , to accuse protestants of charging papists with such doctrines and practices as they do not own ; and if this be not the intent and design of his book , there is a great deal less sense in it , then i thought there had been . for if by misrepresenting he only meant , that we reproach and calumniate the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , and charge them with such guilt as they do not deserve , not that we charge them falsly with such doctrines and practices as they do not own , ( as he now would have it ; ) though i grant this may be called misrepresenting , if the charge be false , yet it is not such a misrepresenting as is confuted only by a character , or by true representing ; it is wholly matter of dispute , as i have often told him ; for he must not think that we protestants shall believe ever the better of popery , because he professes to believe very well of it , in his character of a papist represented . if he will vindicate the doctrines and practices of the church of rome from that guilt , which protestants charge on it ; if he will justifie the worship of saints and angels and images , transubstantiation , the adoration of the host , half communion , prayers in an unknown tongue , &c. and prove us to be misrepresenters , he must quit his retreat of character-making , and fairly dispute the points in question , which is the way the generous advocates of the church of rome have always taken , to defend her , by the authority of scriptures , fathers , councils , and here we are ready to joyn issue with them . and thus , for ought i see , this controversie is at an end , though he had not charged us with lying ; for whatever he at first pretended , he grants now , that we are not in a strict and proper sence misrepresenters ; and thus farewel to character-making , since papists and protestants , who understand these matters are in the main agreed , what the character of a papist is , though they differ in their opinions about him , which can never be decided by characters , but by reason and argument . and yet our author , after all his pretences to an amicable accommodation , is unwilling the matter should end thus , at least unless we will acknowledge our selves very much beholden to his good nature for it : why , what is the matter now ? have i not plainly proved , that we are not misrepresenters in the strict and proper notion of misrepresenting ? that we do not charge the church of rome with any matter of fact , with any doctrines or practices which she does not own ? and can we misrepresent them , when we charge them with nothing that is false ; yes , he says , my principle , that there can be no misrepresenting , where there is an agreement in matter of fact , has more of the counterfeit in it than true standard ; is supposed to be certain , but without the support of authority or reason : that is , though we charge the church of rome with nothing but what she her self owns ; though we represent a papist just as a papist represents himself , as to his faith and practice , yet we may be misrepresenters ; and then we may indeed be misrepresenters for ought i know , if we may misrepresent , when we say nothing but what is true . if he can make good this , i must acknowledge him to be a man of art ; and therefore shall briefly examine how he proves it . he says , misrepresenting seems to stand in opposition to representing , and proper representing being nothing more , than the describing or shewing a thing , as it is in its self , as many ways , as a thing can be shewn otherwise than it is in its self , so many ways may it be properly misrepresented . this i agree to , and therefore let us proceed : now ( says he ) it is certain , that for the description to bear on exact resemblance with the thing , it must not only agree with it in matter of fact , but likewise in every other respect , which it pretends to declare , as in motive , circumstance , intention , end , &c. the agreement in any one of these being enough to quite change the nature of the thing , notwithstanding the matter of fact being still the same . and this also i agree in , that motives , circumstances , intention , end , are all to be considered in representing ; but i want a reason , why he distinguishes these from the matter of fact : for by matter of fact , i understand an action cloathed with all its circumstances , without which , it is impossible truly to represent any action : for circumstances alter the nature of actions ; as suppose a man be killed , this may be done by accident , or with design , in heat of blood , or of premeditated malice , which makes it , either chance-medley , man-slaughter , or murder ; and therefore the consideration of these things falls under the matter of fact , and are the proper matters for a jury to inquire into , who yet are judges onely of fact. and thus i understood matter of fact , when i asserted , that we did not misrepresent the church of rome in any matter of fact ; that we did not onely charge them with nothing but what they did , but that we truly represented all the circumstances of what they did , as far as the moral nature of the action is concerned in it , and indeed i know not , how we can either represent or misrepresent any action without its circumstances ; we may tell what is done , but the matter of the action is the least thing considerable in representing , because it may be either good or bad in most cases , according to its different circumstances : and we cannot say , which it is , without considering all circumstances . as for instance , we do not onely charge the church of rome with praying to saints , and worshipping images , but we consider what is the doctrine of their church about these matters , in what manner they do it , and with what circumstances ; we admit of all the excuses and apologies , and fair representations that they can make of it , and then consider what the nature of the action is , and what the scriptures and primitive fathers declare it to be . this , he knows , i did in the book , which he now pretends to answer . to put an end to this dispute about misrepresenting , i told him , we did not like popery , as he and the bishop of condom had represented it , and shewed him our reasons why we did not like it , as to the object of religious worship , the invocation of saints , and the worship of images : and had he thought fit to have considered these , we might have obliged him so far , as to have confined the dispute to his own characters , and the bishops exposition , in the other points of popery ; but he says not one word about this , but advances a new paradox , that men may be misrepresenters , though they do not misrepresent any matter of fact , because they may misrepresent the motives , circumstances , intention and end , as if this were not to misrepresent matter of fact ? or as if we had misrepresented them in this manner , when he had not , and cannot give any one instance wherein we have done so ? this short account shews , how impertinent all his examples of misrepresenters are , who , as he says , did misrepresent without belying men in matter of fact ; for though this is nothing to us , unless he could prove us to be such misrepresenters , which he has not once attempted to do ; yet the examples he produces do not prove what he brings them for , for all their misrepresentations are in matters of fact . thus the ten tribes suspected , that the children of reuben and gad , and the half tribe of manasseh , had built an altar for sacrifice in the borders of iordan , over-against the land of canaan , whereas the true matter of fact was , that they had built an altar not for sacrifice , but as a witness and memorial of their right to gods altar , to offer their sacrifices and burnt offerings in the place which god should choose . when eli thought hannah had been drunken , because she prayed in her heart , only her lips moving , this was misrepresenting matter of fact , for she was not drunk . and surely he will grant , that the two wanton elders did foully bely susannah , though she was alone and naked in the garden , and that they represented the fact , quite otherwise than it was . and methinks our author should grant , that the jews did misrepresent matter of fact , when they charged our saviour with being a sabbath-breaker , a glutton , a friend of publicans and sinners , unless he will say that our saviour was all this ; for if he were not , then they did belye him in matter of fact ; and so they did the apostles and primitive christians , when they accused them as troublers of the city , and movers of sedition , that they murdered infants , and eat their flesh ; that they worshipped the sun , and adored an asses head for god ; for i suppose he will grant , that the matter of fact was false . but still , says the accommodater , they had some matter of fact , whereon their accusations were grounded , and which gave some colour and pretence to them . sometimes they had , and sometimes they had not : but is not this a pleasant inference , that because those who tell onely a piece of a story may misrepresent , therefore those who faithfully relate the whole matter of fact , with all the particular circumstances of it , may be misrepresenters also ? if he can give any one example of this nature , i will onely desire him to tell me the difference between misrepresenting and true representing . men who have wit and malice enough , may put very spiteful constructions upon the most innocent and virtuous actions , by altering or concealing some circumstances , or the end and intention of doing them ; but this is to misrepresent the fact , to represent a thing done otherwise , or for another end , than really it was ; but if a man who tells the whole truth , not onely what was done , but the end why , and the manner how it was done , can be a misrepresenter , the honestest man in the world may be a misrepresenter . when an action is truly and fairly represented , men may still pass a false judgment upon that action ; may think that evil and forbidden by god , which god has not forbid , or that allowed and approved by god , which god abhors ; but this is not properly misrepresenting , but judging falsly , which differ just as matter of fact and matter of law do in civil affairs . in all causes criminal and civil , there are two distinct questions ; what the fact , and what the law is , what is done , and what judgment the law passes on such actions : to falsifie in matters of fact , is to misrepresent the person and the action ; to give a wrong judgment , is to misrepresent the law : and thus it is in our case : we are first to enquire , what the doctrines and practices of the church of rome are , and then of what nature they are , whether true or false , good or evil : if we affix such doctrines or practices on them , as they do not teach , or alter any material circumstance relating to them , then we are misrepresenters in a proper sence , as misreporting matter of fact ; and this we utterly deny , and they can never prove that we do thus misrepresent them , that as our author misrepresents us , we usher in , with they teach this , they believe that , they say this , they affirm that , and under these preambles charge the papists for asserting and believing such blasphemies , which they would sooner loose their lives than assent to : which he has boldly affirmed without giving one instance of it ; but as for judging of their doctrines and practices , we do indeed pass such a judgment on them , as i doubt not but they will call misrepresenting ; but whether it be so or no , is matter of dispute , and must be decided by appealing to scripture and reason ; and we are not ashamed of being called misrepresenters by them , when that signifies no more , than censuring and condemning their faith and practise . but he has one example more of this misrepresenting , and that as he thinks a very nicking one , and that is the fanatical misrepresentations of the church of england : to this end he brings in a dissenter charging the church of england with popery , and several other ill things , which is intended to serve more purposes than one . had he first proved us to be misrepresenters , it had been a very proper way to make us sensible of the evil of it , to appeal to our own resentments of such usage . but what if dissenters misrepresent the church of england , does this prove that the church of england misrepresents the church of rome ? if we indeed misrepresent the church of rome , we have less reason to complain that the dissenters misrepresent us ; but if we are no misrepresenters , we have reason doubly to complain , both for being charged with misrepresenting , and for being misrepresented . and therefore the answer to this long harangue , is very short and plain ; however the church of england be misrepresented , whether by papists or fanaticks , we justifie our selves either by denying matter of fact when that is false , or by confuting the charge : we are not afraid of disputing with our adversaries when that is needful , but justifie the doctrines and practices of our church by scripture and reason , which is a more generous way , than meerely to complain of being misrepresented , without daring to right our selves ; which is the case of our late character-makers . if the world will be moved by their complaints , to believe that they are misrepresented , all is well , and they have what they desired ; but if you will be so perverse as not to believe that they are misrepresented , though they tell you they are , and will needs be a disputing the point with them , they have done with you ; for their business is not to dispute , but to represent . the difference between us in this matter , is no more but this : we are not afraid of misrepresentations , because we know we can defend our selves ; whereas they find they cannot defend themselves , and therefore have no other remedy , but to complain of being misrepresented . and yet i must confess , this is as artificial a way of saying nothing , as i have met with . our accommodator is very sick of this talk of misrepresenting , and knew not how to get rid of it , but by diverting the dispute ; and therefore though it be nothing to the purpose , instead of proving that we are misrepresenters , he desires us to consider , how the dissenters misrepresent us : but we have considered that enough already , and when there is occasion for it , will do so again ; our business at present is not with dissenters , but papists , and we are not for pursuing every new game , but will keep to our old scent . it would be a pleasant scene , could he at this time of day , engage the church of england and dissenters in a new quarrel ; but thanks be to god many of our dissenters are grown wiser now , and i hope more will every day ; whatever they have formerly suspected of our inclinations to popery , they find now that they were mistaken in us ; and whatever defects they may charge our worship with , i believe they will call it popish and antichristian no longer ; to be sure they will never think us the more inclined to popery , because a papist says so . while these gentlemen lay behind the curtain , and acted the part of a zealous brother under several disguises , there was much more danger of them than now : they have laid aside their vizards , and let them now paint the church of england how they please , and the worse the better ; for how mean an opinion soever he seems to have of our dissenters , they are too wise and cautious to take characters from open and professed enemies . the truth is , he has horribly abused our dissenters , unless by dissenters , he means only his dearly beloved quakers , with whose cant he is as well acquainted , as if he had been either their master , or scholar . for he has drawn up such a charge against the church of england , in the name of a dissenter , as no dissenter ever made . it is a popish character fathered upon a dissenter , for which they are much beholden to him , that when he has a mind to say things so spiteful and silly , that he himself ( tho' none of the modestest men ) is ashamed to own , he can think of no person so fit to say them as a dissenter . did ever any dissenter charge the church of england with making gods of dead men , because we call our churches still by the names of those saints to whom they were dedicated in the times of popery ? for did not the dissenters themselves do so in the late times of reformation ? and do they scruple to do so now ? if there were any difference , it was only in not giving the title of saint to them , and i suppose that does not alter the case ; for if it be paul's , or peters , or mary's church , it is much the fame : but they were not so silly as to think , that names which were used only for distinction , without paying any worship to saints , or erecting any altars to them , in those churches which were called by their names , made gods of dead men . the bills of mortality were the same formerly in the dissenters time , that they are now , and yet they did not suspect themselves guilty of placing mary above christ , or making a goddess of her . did ever any dissenter charge the church of england with image-idolatry , for having pictures in their bibles , or moses and aaron painted with the ten commandments , without leaving out the second against image-worship ? especially when these are things wherein the church of england is no otherwise concerned , than in not correcting the extravagancy of painters and printers . and i confess , i have always suspected , that these men , who now charge us with the image-idolatry , of having pictures in our common-prayer books ( which is a very late invention ) did secretly lay the design to reconcile our people by degrees to the use of pictures and images . the dissenters indeed were never any great friends to holy-days ; but they never charged us with worshipping saints on those days , which they saw we did not ; nor do they now charge us with worshipping the bread , when we kneel at receiving the sacrament , ( which is contrary to the publick declarations of our church ) but reject it , because it was no table-posture , and because it had been abused ( as they scruple not to say ) to an idolatrous worship of the host in the church of rome . they have indeed objected against our liturgy , that it was taken out of the mass-book , and have been sufficiently answered as to that point ; and we know who they were that first started that objection , some mass-priests under the disguise of puritans . but i never heard before , that they were scared with the very names of epistles , and gospels , and colects , and litanies , nor did they ever quarrel with retaining popish saints in our calendar , when we give them to place in our prayers , which is only an evidence what reformation we have made . i never knew before , that our dissenters thought the mass-book as ancient as st. basil and st. chrysostom , or that they liked our common-prayer-book ever the worse , because it came in with the reformation of religion , and has been altered since several times for the better ; whereas their complaint is , that it is not yet altered enough . much less are they scandalized at the thanksgiving for discovery of the plot , how great a chimera soever it be . nor is there any dispute , that i know of , between the dissenters and us about the power of absolution , or the ministerial power of forgiving sin. they and we agree , that christ has left such a power in the church , of remitting and retaining sins , of receiving in , and putting out of the church , which is the state of pardon and forgiveness ; and we both deny , that this is absolute and judicial , or not only ministerial . they know we oppose the pretence of a judicial power to forgive sins in the church of rome , which we say is reserved for the great judg of the world ; and it is very strange , they should peremptorily charge us with giving the power of god to forgive sins , to men , and yet at the same time accuse us of not agreeing what this power of absolution is . tho our accommodator may make bold sometimes to contradict himself , yet i doubt the dissenters will think themselves misrepresented by such contradictions . but did ever any dissenter charge us with encouraging a death-bed repentance , for not obliging men to confession and penance ( which he calls to confess and repent ) in the time of their health ? we teach men to confess their sins to god , and to men too when there is occasion for it , either to reconcile themselves to their brother , or to receive ghostly comfort and advice ; and we teach them to repent of their sins , and reform them in time of health , and show them what great danger there is in a death-bed repentance , and how very seldom it proves true ; which is no great encouragement to such delays . but how the dissenters , who reject confession to a priest , and the popish sacrament of penance , themselves , should quarrel with us for doing so , is somewhat strange . but we pretend to a power of giving absolution , and never enjoyn it but in the last agony , which ( he says ) is argument enough to conclude , there 's no obligation of repenting amongst us , till death looks us in the face . but he has not improved this argument so well as he might ; for absolution is never enjoined , not so much as in the hour of death ; ( for we are only required to give absolution , in case the penitent earnestly desire it ) and therefore , according to his reasoning , it follows , that we think repentance never necessary , not so much as in the hour of death . but other men , who have common understanding , would hence conclude , that we make a great difference between the sinners repentance , and the priests absolution ; that the first is always necessary , the other only in case of church censures , or to give relief to afflicted consciences , or to dismiss penitent sinners in the peace of the church . do not dissenters themselves allow converted priests , who are under the vow of continency , to marry , if they cannot preserve their chastity without it ? and has not our accomodator then , put a wise objection into their mouths against the church of england ; which , if it be any objection , returns upon themselves ? neither they nor we pretend to dispence with vows made to god ; but we think no vow can oblige men to sin ; and since all men have not the gift of continency , as our saviour says , if such persons are ensnared in a rash vow , ( it may be , while they were children , or before they understood their own temper and complexion ) since we cannot think the fornication of priests a more holy state than marriage , we think it more justifyable to repent of a rash vow , than to live in a constant state of temptation and sin. it is likely enough , as he says , that dissenters may complain of persecution , tho they themselves have been declared enemies to an unlimited toleration ; and it will be hard to find a medium between a general liberty of conscience , and those restraints which are laid on dissenters . but it must be considered , whether the church or the state be chargeable with this . the several laws which have been made against dissenters , have been more for the security of the state , than of the church ; have been occasioned by a restless humour which has threatned the publick peace ; and have been rarely executed but at the instance of civil authority , to provide for the security of the state ; and i suppose he will not parallel this with some other persecutions . but to make the dissenters quarrel at the assistance given to the low-countries , and proffered to the french in their rebellion , and the hard usage of the queen of scots , and the late murder of charles i. argues , he matters not much what he says ; and to charge these intrigues of state upon the church of england , is to forget that he is in england ( and not at rome ) where kings make peace and war , not the pope with his council of cardinals . and yet our accommodator has kept the sweetest bit for the last . for he brings in the dissenter accusing the church of england , for giving every man a liberty of judging , and yet requiring obedience to her own constitutions , which the meanest sectaries among them challenge and practice ; and it is not very modestly done of them , to blame that in us , which they do themselves . they all judg for themselves , and therefore form churches and communions of their own ; and they will not receive any into their communion , without owning their faith , and submitting to their order and discipline ; and this is all that the church of england challenges , only with this difference , that being established by law , her communion and government is enforced by laws . and what a mighty absurdity and contradiction is this , that men should be taught to use their own reason and judgment in religion , and yet required to submit and conform to a church , whose faith and worship is consonant both to scripture and reason . well , but after all this liberty granted by the church of england , whosoever will follow her , must shut his eyes , stifle his reason , and be led only by the nose . why ! what 's the matter now ? the charge is no more but this , that in matters of order and decency ; and such things as are left to the determination of church governours , as are neither forbid nor commanded by god , we must submit to the determinations of authority , whatever private judgement or opinion we may have of things . a great fault this , that tho every man must judge for himself in good and evil , yet every private mans judgement must be over-ruled by the publick judgment in matters of order and external circumstances of religion . much of the same nature , is his concluding charge , that we are a wavering and unsetled church , subject to continual variations , because some rites and ceremonies formerly used , are now laid aside ; and what then ? does the settlement of the church consist in external ceremonies ? is it any fault in a church , which challenges to her self a power to appoint , and constitute , and alter external rites , to exercise this power as she shall think most for the edification of the church , which is the only rule of right and wrong in this case , which may therefore change with the change and alteration of times and persons , and other external circumstances of affairs ? now let every man judg , whether there were ever such a speech made for a dissenterbefore , which in every point of it is directly contrary to his own profession and practice : it is time for our author to have done with his trade of representing , for no man would know what it was he represented , did he not take care with the unskilful painter to write over his uncouth figures , what they are ; this is an horse , and this an ass. and thus this hopeful design of representing and misrepresenting , ends only in ridiculing the church of england ; a liberty , which if we needed it , is not mannerly for us to use at this time ; but we are contented they should ridicule our church , if they will permit us truly to represent theirs . but to proceed , our accommodator grants that he is still in arrears ; and certainly , never any bankrupt paid less in the pound than he offers ; and this is his accommodating , which merchants call compounding . in my answer to his reflections , i proved , that what he calls the character of a papist misrepresented , has nothing of misrepresentation in it properly so called ; for there was no matter of fact misreported ; in his answer , which he calls , papists protesting against protestant popery , instead of justifying his character , he seeks out for new misrepresentations ; this in my last answer , i enquired the reason of , why , instead of justifying his own misrepresentations , which he had so unjustly fathered upon us , he should hunt about to pick up some new misrepresentations for me to answer . and the reason he now assigns for it , is , because i had little to say against the former , except that they were not to be called misrepresentations in a strict sense . now , the less i had to say , it was the more easily answered , tho i know not what more need to be answered to the charge of misrepresenting , than to prove that it is false . but he says , he fathered his misrepresentations on no body ; and so much the worse for that , for a general charge includes every body . and yet he was as unfortunate in his new misrepresentations , as in his old ones . he brings in the arch-bishop of york for a misrepresenter , whereas the misrepresentations he transcribes out of the arch-bishop , the arch-bishop cites out of popish authors , and names the authors where they are to be found ; but the protester to make a misrepresenter of him , conceals all these authorities , and sets down the words as the bishops own ; and this he did only to consult the credit of the prelate : in what sir ? that he might have the entire glory of being a misrepresenter , without being thought to steal out of popish authors . but he saies , the bishop is still a misrepresenter , in charging these sayings of private doctors upon the church ; but where does he do that ? yes , he saies , he ( that is , the papist ) must believe ; but does he say , the church says thus , or only stapleton ? stapleton might be a misrepresenter , in delivering this as the faith of the church , that we must simply believe the church of rome , whether it teach true or false ; but the arch-bishop does not misrepresent the church in saying , that stapleton saies so . what is the authority of private doctors , is not the dispute ; but , whether protestants be misrepresenters for saying , that such doctrines are taught by such doctors of the church of rome . the case of mr. sutcliff ( another of his misrepresenters ) is somewhat different . for , besides what he cites from their own authors , which is set down by the protester without taking notice that he quotes his authors for it ; he many times charges them with the concequences of their doctrines and practices ; not that he charges them with owning such consequences , but proves such doctrines on them , from what they do profess and own ; and such sayings as these the protester sets down as charged on the church of rome in the first instance , as her avowed doctrine : when mr. sutcliff only alledges them , as the just interpretations and consequences of her doctrine , which differ just as much as misrepresenting and disputing ; as saying what a church professes to believe , and what the consequence of such a faith is . as to show this by an instance or two : the protester sets these propositions down as mr. sutcliffs misrepresentations . that papists speak what they can in disgrace of the holy scriptures ; that they give the office of christs mediation to the virgin mary , to angels , and to saints ; that by the doctrine of papists , the devils in hell may be saved . now indeed , had he said , that the papists teach this in express words , he had been a misrepresenter in a proper sense , for they teach no such thing ; but mr. sutcliff never charges these doctrines directly upon them , but saies , that they say , the scriptures are obscure and hard to be understood ; and this is , to speak in disgrace of the holy scriptures . that they teach , that by the merits of saints , christians obtain their desires , and are delivered out of purgatory . and this is to give the office of christs mediation to the virgin mary , and to saints . that they teach , that the devils in hell may have true faith ; and yet our saviour saith , whosoever believeth in him , shall not perish , but have everlasting life : so it follows by the doctrines of papists , that the reprobrates and devils in hell may be saved . so that he expresly distinguishes between what the papists teach , and what himself concludes from such doctrines , and therefore he does not misrepresent the papists ; for he charges them with owning no doctrines but what they do own ; but if he be guilty of any fault , it is in reasoning and disputing ; and there is no way that i know of , to confute such consequences , but by reason and dispute ; the very name of which is very uneasie to the representer , and there is good reason why it should be so . and this i suppose may satisfie the accommodator why i charged him with setting down these sayings of mr. sutcliff , seperated from the reasons of them ; for how little soever he may think himself concerned in his reasons , yet it is of great consequence in the matter of representing , to distinguish between the doctrines of papists , and what is charged on them , only , as the consequence of their doctrines . to charge them with teaching such doctrines as they do not teach , is misrepresenting ▪ and therefore , had these sayings , which he transcribed out of mr. sutcliff , been charged upon the papists as their sayings , it had been misrepresenting ; and this was the design of the protester in quoting these sayings , without giving an account upon what occasion they were said , to perswade his readers , that mr. sutcliff had directly and immediately charged these doctrines upon papists as expresly taught by them , and then he had been a misrepresenter indeed . but since it is otherwise , it is plain , mr. sutcliff was misrepresented by the protester , but he did not misrepresent papists , as that signifies charging them immediately with such doctrines as they do not own . in the next place he charges me with translating dishonestly , for not rendring proper deum , or for gods sake , in english , in the form of consecrating the cross. now i confess , why this was not translated i cannot tell , and knew nothing of it , till i was informed by him ; had it been in a dispute about the nature and reason of that worship which they pay to the cross , these words had been very considerable ; but it relating only to the manner of consecrating the cross , they signified nothing , as any one will see , who consults the place . especially considering , that the whole design of that discourse about the worship of images ( against which he has not one word to object , but this omission ) was to show the evil of image-worship , tho they gave no worship to the material image , but only worshipped god or christ , or the saints by images ; and therefore i had no occasion at all to conceal the english of propter deum . in my answer to papists protesting against protestant-popery , i took occasion to examine the bishop of condom's exposition in two very concerning points , viz. the invocation of saints , and worship of images ; our accomodator , it seems , could see no reason why he should engage in this dispute , and therefore thinks it sufficient to show , that my reasons for this dispute are not cogent , and he names two , such as they are ; 1. that i know no reason for all this dispute . but this saying related to the dispute about the bishop of condom's authority , not about his exposition of the catholick faith. 2. his second reason is like the first ; because i said , he was not satisfied with my bare telling him , that i was not satisfied with his religion ; and therefore now i would give him my reasons for it ; which he huffs at , and says , he was never concerned with my not liking his religion . what pretty reasons will serve to excuse a man from answering a discourse which he knows he cannot answer ! the plain case is this , the representer made his appeals , and put great confidence in the bishop of condom's authority , whose business is to put the softest sense he can upon the doctrines of the council of trent ; and such interpretations of the catholick faith , as have been condemned by other very catholick doctors . in my reply to the reflections , i considered what this bishops authority is ; and in my last answer i examined what the protester had returned in the defence of it , which our accommodator now says not one word to : but yet i told him , i knew no reason for this dispute , whether the bishop of condom's exposition were to be the standard of the roman catholick faith ; for if we should allow this , yet popery is a very corrupt religion , tho the bishop of condom were the authentick expositor of it . and to show that it is so , i undertook to examine that bishops exposition in those two great articles of the romish faith , the invocation of saints , and worship of images ; and how this should be a reason for our accommodator to take no notice of it , i cannot imagine : had he any zeal for his religion , and could have answered that discourse , i believe all that i could have said would not have hindred him . to conclude this whole matter , he peremptorily adheres to his first title of a representer , and declines all manner of disputation , tho in vindication of the bishop of condom's exposition , to which he so often appeals . the only point he sticks to is , that to assent to the catholick faith , as expounded in his character , and by the bishop of condom , is sufficient for any man to be received into the communion of the church of rome . but both he and the bishop of condom do not meerly represent , but reason and argue also ; and i should have thought they had been a little concerned to justifie their own representations and reasonings . but whether this reasoning and disputing were agreeable to his design or not , it was very necessary to ours . for when they endeavour to soften the doctrines of their church , and to abate a great deal of bellarmin's popery , to reconcile our people to them ; it is necessary for us to warn them of the snare , and to show them what an ill thing popery is in its best dress ; and therefore i as little desire that he should answer what i have said to this purpose , as he cares for doing it : i never writ a book with a desire to have it answered ; but to inform those , who otherwise might be imposed on . and i suppose our people will think never the worse of any book , because papists decline the dispute , who were never known to avoid disputing , when they thought they could get any thing by it . and thus i take a fair leave of the representer ; for this matter , i think , is driven as far as it will go : we have by his own confession , cleared our selves from being misrepresenters in the true and proper sense of the word ; for we have not falsly charged them with any doctrines and practises disowned by their church ; and as for their character of a papist represented , tho' it falls very short of what some great divines among them , of equal authority with the bishop of condom , have thought to be the doctrine of the council of trent ; yet we are willing to joyne issue with them upon their own terms , and to shew them our reasons , why we cannot comply with this refined and new-modelled popery . but this is to dispute , and that does not agree with a representer , whose business is to make characters without any concern to defend them : and i am not so fond of disputing , as to dispute with him whether he will or no. finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59789-e190 amicable accommodation , p. 6. p. 7. p. 8. 22 josh. 1 sam. 1. 13. p. 12. see foxes and firebrands . p. 25. p. 31. p. 35. p. 36. p. 37. p. 38. a discourse concerning the nature, unity, and communion of the catholick church wherein most of the controversies relating to the church are briefly and plainly stated / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1688 approx. 106 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 35 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59819 wing s3291 estc r25626 09029720 ocm 09029720 42307 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59819) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 42307) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1294:26) a discourse concerning the nature, unity, and communion of the catholick church wherein most of the controversies relating to the church are briefly and plainly stated / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 60 p. printed for william rogers, london : 1688. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse concerning the nature , vnity , and communion of the catholick church . wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . part i. by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london . printed for william rogers at the sun , over against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . 1688. a discourse concerning the nature , vnity , and communion of the catholick church . the introduction . in the preface to the vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome , i promised a discourse about the church , and intended to have discharged that obligation , which has been very importunately demanded of me , long before this ; and indeed had finished , what i now publish , several months ago : i shall not trouble my reader with the reasons why i then laid it aside ; i hope the preservative against popery will satisfie him , that i have not been idle in the mean time : but the true and only reason why i have delayed to publish this part , which has been so long finished , was because i intended to finish the whole before i published it , which would have given more general satisfaction to my readers : but i have not leisure for that now , and think it more advisable to publish a part than none at all , especially since what i here publish is an entire discourse concerning the nature and vnity of the catholick church . it is sufficiently known , that there is no argument of greater consequence in our disputes with the church of rome , than the vnity and authority of the catholick church . nothing will serve them but to make the church of rome the catholick church , and then no body is a member of the church catholick , who is not in communion with the church of rome ; and since no body can be saved but in the church , all hereticks and schismaticks , who are not in communion with the church of rome , must be damned , and there is a sad end of us all . thus the catholick church is an infallible teacher of faith : for who dares say , that the catholick church can fail , or err in fundamentals ? since christ himself has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church : and therefore the church of rome , which is the catholick church and principle of catholick vnity , must be infallible ; and no christian ought to dispute any thing which she has determined in matters of faith. the bishop of rome is the head of this catholick church , st. peter's successor , and christ's vicar upon earth , and therefore he is the supreme governour of the church , from whom all other bishops derive their authority , and to whom all christian princes and emperours themselves are subject in ordine ad spiritualia , which will go a great way to a temporal soveraignty , and vniversal empire . these pretences indeed have been sufficiently baffled by protestant divines , ever since the beginning of the reformation ; but we have to deal with men who have confidence enough to be baffled and not to own it , to see all their arguments confuted an hundred times over , and to repeat them again with a good grace , without replying to those answers which have been so often given them , or so much as taking notice that there ever had been any answer made to them . but after all that is said on one side and t'other , i am very sensible there never will be an end of these wranglings , without setling the true notion of the catholick church ; which , though a great many good things have been said about it , i think was never thoroughly done yet : what my present performance is , i must leave other men to judge ; but if my notion be right , i am sure there is an end of all the vain and arrogant pretences of the church of rome , as will appear to any indifferent reader , who peruses this discourse with care and judgment . the foundation of all i have laid in an inquiry into the true notion of the vnity of the church catholick ; which gives occasion to state the true notion of the church , and most of those controversies which depend on it . i have here only considered what is meant by the vnity of the catholick church , as that signifies the whole church of christ both in heaven and earth , and the whole church of christ on earth . what relates to the nature and vnity of particular churches , their government , vnion , and combinations into one catholick communion , must be reserved for a second part. errata . page 5. line 3. for intent , r. extent . p. 5. l. 13. for for , r. far . p. 32. l. 15. for universal , r. univocal . chap. i. concerning the vnity of the whole catholick church in heaven and earth . it is acknowledged by all christians , that christ has but one church , which is his one body : but then we must consider the intent of this one church . the church on earth indeed is but one , but this one church on earth is not the one church and one body of christ , but only a very little part of it . christ has but one church and one body in all , and therefore it must comprehend the whole church from the beginning to the end of the world , at least from the first planting of a church by christ and his apostles till the last judgment , for they all belong to this one church , and , this one body of christ ; so that for the greatest part of this one church is already translated into heaven , and the church on earth is but a very little part of the whole : for the church in heaven , and the church on earth , are but one church , and one body . here we must lay the foundation , if we would rightly understand , what makes one church ; for since this unity comprehends the whole church , we cannot argue meerly from the churches being one , to infer any other kind of unity , but what makes the whole , but what unites the whole church in heaven and earth into one body , for that only is the true unity of the church , because the whole church in earth and heaven is the one church . and therefore to place the unity of the church in any thing , which can concern only one part of the church , but not the whole , as suppose , that part only which is on earth , not that which is in heaven , is manifestly absurd , because it does not give an account , how the whole church is one , and yet the oneness of the church properly relates to the whole , not to a part : for a part be it never so much one , can be but one part , not the one church . now hence we may learn , wherein the unity of the church does not consist , and wherein it does . 1. wherein the unity of the church does not consist . as 1. the unity of the church does not consist in its being one organized politick body , under the government of one visible head on earth : for tho a visible head on earth might make the church on earth one , yet it cannot unite the church on earth and the church in heaven into one body , unless this visible head on earth be the head of the invisible church in heaven too : for if the unity of the church consists in being united under one head , that head must be the head of the whole church , or else the church is not united in the head , if the head , which is the principle of union , be not the head of the whole . now i suppose , no papist will say , that the bishop of rome is the head of the invisible as well as of the visible church , and then the church is not one , by being united under the bishop of rome ; tho there are some things , which would make one suspect , that the church of rome did believe the pope to be the head of the invisible as well as of the visible church ; for if his authority be confined to the church on earth , one would wonder , whence he should pretend to canozie saints in heaven , or to release souls out of purgatory , unless his being christ's vicar on earth makes him his vicar in heaven , and in purgatory also ; but this by the way . if they say , that when they speake of the unity of the church , they mean only the unity of the church on earth , and that the pope is the visible head of this unity . i answer , 1. that they must grant then , that they speak very improperly ; for the church on earth is not that one church , which is the one body of christ , and therefore the unity of the church does not consist in the headship of the pope ; but they ought only to say , that the unity of the church on earth consists in its union to the pope . 2. and therefore they must quit all their arguments for the pope's headship , taken from the churches being one , the one body of christ ; for the church on earth is not this one body of christ , and therefore it does not follow , that because christ has but one body , therefore the church on earth must have one visible head. 3. nay they must confess , that the formal and essential unity of the church on earth does not consist in its union to the pope . for the church on earth is one with the church in heaven , they being both but one church , and therefore must have the same essential unity ; for how they should be one by two sorts of unity , that is , be one without the same formal unity , is very mysterious , and near a kin to a contradiction . and therefore since the unity of the church in heaven does not consist in its union to the pope , no more does the unity of the church on earth , the unity being the same in both . and thus all their arguments from the unity of the church on earth , to prove an universal visible head of the church , are lost too . 2ly . nor does the unity of the church consist in joyning together in the external and visible acts of worship , or in maintaining mutual intercourse and correspondence with each other ; these are duties which result from church-unity , when they are practicable , ( as i shall shew more hereafter ) but the unity of the church cannot consist in them , for the church in heaven and earth are one without them ; and so may distant churches on earth be one church without any such visible correspondence . 3ly . nor can the unity of the church consist in such articles of faith as have not always been the faith of the christian church . for since the whole church in all ages is but one , it can have but one faith , and that cannot be the one faith , which has not been the faith of the whole church . and therefore it is ridiculous to talk of such a power in the church of every age , as to make or declare new articles of faith , unless there be authority to make a new church too in every age ; but then how the church should change its faith in every age , and yet continue one and the same church , is worth inquiry . as far as any church has altered the faith of the apostles and primitive christians , it is become a new church , and a new church , i think , is not the same with the old ; the unity of the present church , considered as a church , does not consist only in its unity with it self , but with the church also of former ages ; for unless it be one with the apostolick churches , it cannot be the one church of christ : and therefore thô all the christian world should at this day unite in the faith and worship of the council of trent , it would be as much divided from the one church of christ , as it differs from the faith and worship of the primitive church . i shall only observe here by the way , what a contradiction the worship of saints and the virgin mary , is to the belief of one church . for if the church in heaven and in earth be but one church , then the most glorious saints in heaven , not excepting the blessed virgin herself , are but members of the same body with us , which makes it as absurd to worship them in heaven , as it is for one member of the same body on earth to worship another , for they are the same body still , and thô there is a great difference in honour between the members of the same body , yet that relation that is between them will not admit of the worship of any member . for it is no act of communion in the same body , for one member to worship another . to pay divine honours , to erect temples and altars to the greatest saints , advances them above the degree of fellow-members , and if they be not fellow-members of the same body , then the church in heaven and in earth is not one church . from whence we may learn who they are who divide the unity of the church , they who command the worship of saints and the virgin , or those who refuse it . we believe the church in heaven and earth to be the one body of christ , and that the most glorious saints are but members of the same body with us , and therefore not the objects of our worship , but of our brotherly love and honour ; but those who worship saints destroy the unity of christ's body , by dividing the church on earth and the church in heaven , for nothing is more contrary to the sense of mankind than to worship those of our own communion . and therefore the natural interpretation of that worship they pay to saints is , that they are not members of the same body with us , but are as much above us , as the object of our worship is and ought to be . 2ly , this notion of church-unity , that it must include the whole church , from the beginning of christianity , to the end of the world , as well that part of it , which is already transplanted into heaven , as that which still sojourns on earth , which is all but one body , may direct us , wherein to place this unity of the church , which to be sure can consist in nothing , but what belongs to the whole church : any notion of unity , which does not explain , how the whole church is but one , must be false , because the unity of the church properly belongs to the whole , and not to a part . now as this unity respects the whole church , it is impossible , there should be any other head of unity , but christ ; any other medium of unity , but the gospel-covenant , nor any other kind of unity , but the unity of one spiritual body , communion , or society : that we are all united by the gospel-covenant in one body to christ , the one and onely head of the universal church . 1. the unity of the church must consist in its union to some one head. this is acknowledged by all christians , and therefore i need not prove it ; and it is as evident , that none can be the head of the universal church , but only christ , and that for this plain reason , because it is union to christ alone , which makes the christian church . the church is the church of christ , and therefore he alone is the head of his own church : this the romanists themselves grant , that christ alone is the head of his church , and that the bishop of rome is only a vicarious head , christ's vicar on earth . but when we speak of the unity of the universal church , part of which is translated to heaven , and part still militant on earth , it must be united in christ alone ; for as he needs no vicar in heaven , where he himself is immediately present , so there can be no vicar on earth , as a common head of unity for the church on earth and in heaven ; and therefore the unity of the whole church cannot consist in its union to such a vicarious head , as i observed before ; and then there can be no other head of unity but only christ. 2. it is as evident also , that the only medium or bond of this union between christ and the church , is the gospel-covenant : for that is the foundation of our relation to christ : he is our head and husband , our lord and saviour , we his subjects , disciples , spouse , and body , by covenant . and therefore the sacraments of the new covenant , baptism and the lord's supper , are the federal rites of our union to christ : baptism is our regeneration , or new birth , whereby we are incorporated into his body ; in the lord's supper we spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood , which signifies and effects as intimate an union to him , as there is of our bodies and the food we eat ; and this proves , that there can be no other head of unity , but only christ , because the gospel covenant unites us to none else : which i take to be st. paul's meaning , when he reproves the corinthian schism : 1 cor. 1. 12 , 13. now this i say , that every one of you saith , i am of paul , and i of apollos , and i of cephas , and i of christ. is christ divided ? was paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of paul ? that is , that there is no other head , to whom we can be united but only christ , who purchased the gospel-covenant by his death , and into whose name we are baptized ; his alone we are to whom we are united by baptism , we are in covenant with none else , and therefore belong to him alone : if they might have owned any other head besides him , who died for them , and into whose name they were baptized , if christ had made peter the vicarious head of unity , as the romanists pretend , st. paul's argument , against these sidings and factions , that one said he was of paul , another of apollos , a third of cephas or peter , had not been good , for at least those who were united to peter were in the right : but st. paul knew no other head of unity , but only christ , because the gospel-covenant , which is the only medium and bond of union , unites us to no other head , and therefore those , who said they were of peter , or belonged to him , as their head and center of unity , which is the case of the church of rome at this day , were as great schismaticks , as those who said they were of paul. now this covenant extends to the whole church , and therefore unites the whole church to christ. for those who are translated into heaven are still united to christ by the same covenant with the church on earth . there are several duties indeed of this covenant which the saints in heaven are exempted from , because their state and condition there is above them . their faith and hope is turned into sight and enjoyment ; their spiritual warfare is accomplished , for there is no devil , nor flesh , nor world to tempt them ; the mystical supper of our lord is celebrated by them not in external symbols and figures , but in a more divine manner , in the immediate presence of the lamb ; but thô the duties of the covenant change with their state and condition of life , yet the covenant is the same still ; by this covenant it is , that they are in heaven , and still expect the completion of their happiness in the resurrection of their bodies immortal and glorious ; and by the same covenant it is , that we hope , when our warfare is accomplished also to get to heaven , and to rise together with them , at the sound of the last trumpet : and therefore the whole church in heaven and earth is one , by being united to the same head by the same covenant . 3. the unity then of the universal church can consist in nothing but this , that the whole church , both in heaven and earth , is united in one body to christ. for since there is no other head of unity for the church , but christ , the formal reason of this unity must consist in the union of the whole church to christ , which makes the universal church the one body of christ , and this is the unity of the church . for i think it is no less than a demonstration , that the unity of the universal church , which is part in heaven , and part on earth , cannot be the unity of an organized body , which must consist in a regular subordination of different ranks and degrees of men , as the church on earth does : for the church on earth and in heaven , which is the one church of christ , is no such one common governed society ; and therefore the unity of the church cannot consist in the unity of one external government . but how then is the whole church but one body ? truly i know no other way , but that they are all united to christ in the same covenant , and all who are thus united to him , christ accounts his one body . thus christ , as bearing his church , is compared to a vine , all whose branches , we know , are united only in the stock or root , 15 john 1. and to an olive-tree , 11 rom. 17. and to a sheepfold , which consists of single and individual sheep , which are one fold only , because they are under one shepherd , 10 john 16. it is true indeed , the church is called also the body , and the spouse of christ , but as that relates to the universal church , it does not signifie an organical body ( though that the church on earth is also by christ's own institution , of which more hereafter ) but it is so called for mystical reasons , which i shall briefly explain to you . 1. now i first observe , that the relation between man and wife is but an emblem and figure of that union which is between christ and his church . hence the apostle exhorts husbands to love their wives even as christ loved his church ; and tells us of marriage , it is a great mystery , but i speak concerning christ and his church , 5 ephes. 25. 32. 2. that to be the body and the spouse of christ , signifies the same thing . hence the apostle argues , that men ought to love their wives as their own bodies , 28 v. for no man ever hated his own flesh , but nourisheth and cherisheth it , even as the lord the church , 29. for we are members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones , 30. so that the wife is the body , the very flesh of the husband , and so is the church of christ. 3. to understand this matter , why the church is called the body and spouse of christ , we must enquire why the wife is called the body of the man , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone ; and the reason of that is , because the woman was formed out of the man. god at first formed man with an entire humane body , of the dust of the earth ; and out of man , while he slept , he formed the woman ; who though a distinct separate person , yet was part of the man , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone : and this was a natural marriage , for two were by nature one flesh ; and this was the natural and fundamental reason of the matrimonial union . for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother , and cleave to his wife , and they two shall be one flesh. for though other women are not made as eve was , no more than other men are made as adam was , yet the woman being originally of the man , the reason holds as to the whole kind ; and in subsequent marriages , a legal ceremony and contract does , what a natural formation did at first , that is , unites two into one flesh. thus the blessed jesus , out of great pity and compassion to fallen man , intending to marry us unto himself , and thereby to recover us out of a state of sin and misery , first marries our nature to himself by an hypostatical union , as man was created first , and then the woman formed out of him . christ took a humane body of the substance of a pure virgin , which signifies that it was an espousable nature which he took , and was a pledge , and earnest , and medium of our marriage to him . for though we cannot be married immediately to the divinity , yet to a god incarnate we may . for marriage requires , that husband and wife be of the same nature . but this is not enough , that the husband and wife partake of the same nature , but the woman must be formed out of the man ; which makes her flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone. and thus accordingly , the church is formed out of the body of christ , and is in a mystical sense his very flesh and bones , as st. paul speaks , we are members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones . for the sufferings of christ in the flesh , gave life and being to the church ; he purchast to himself a church by his own bloud , that is , he formed to himself a church out of his broken body , as adam's body was broken , and a rib taken out of him to form the woman . and therefore as the woman was made of the same flesh with adam , so the sufferings of christ in his humane nature purchased a church not of angels , but of men , of the same nature with himself ; as the apostle observes , 2 heb. 16 ▪ for verily he took not on him the nature of angels , but he took on him the seed of abraham ; and therefore is not the saviour of angels , but of men , is not married to the angelical , but to the humane nature . and to make the analogie still more compleat ; as the woman was formed out of adam's side , so was the church out of christ's side ; for when he was pierced with the souldiers spear , there came out of his side both water and bloud , 19 john 34. and the evangelist sets a peculiar remark upon it : he that saw it bare record , and we know that his record is true : and he knoweth that he saith true , that ye might believe , 35 v. and this is especially observed , and great weight laid on it ; 1 john 5. 6. this is he that came by water and bloud , even jesus christ ; not by water only , but by water and bloud . this some think signifies no more , but that it was a demonstration that he was truly dead ; in that his heart was wounded , where there is a capsula , called the pericardium , which contains water , which being pierced , water came out together with bloud ; but the water and bloud came out distinct though from the same wound , which was never known before , and cannot be done again by the greatest artist ; and though this might be a reason why st. john might take notice of it in his gospel , where he gave an account of his death , yet it does not seem a sufficient reason why he should lay such weight on it in his epistles ; this is he who came by water and bloud , not by water only , but by water and bloud : and therefore i doubt not but the ancient fathers were in the right , who tell us , that the two sacraments of the new covenant flowed out of his side , which are the formation of this spiritual spouse his church , the birth and the nourishment of it ; baptism , and the lords supper , which came from his wounded body , and have both of them a peculiar respect to his death and passion . thus we see the church is called christ's body and spouse , for mystical reasons , because it is formed out of his broken body , his death and sufferings giving life and being to the church : and therefore it is but one body , because all those who are redeemed by his bloud , and united to him by covenant , which is a kind of marriage-vow and contract , are his body and spouse . and therefore the sacraments of the new covenant , baptism and the lords supper , do no otherwise unite us to each other , than they unite us all to christ , which makes us all one body ; or as the apostle speaks , with respect to the lords supper , for we being many , are one bread and one body , for we are all partakers of that one bread . we all partake of the same body of christ , which is therefore called the communion of his body and bloud ; and therefore we all are but one body : so that it is a vain thing to inquire after any other principle of unity for the whole church , but the union of all christians to christ , who are one body by their union to one head. but it may be objected against this , that this confines the church to the company of the elect , who are the mystical body of christ ; that according to this notion , there can be no visible church upon earth ; for no man can tell who belongs to the mystical body of christ , which is made up only of true and sincere christians , and no man can see who they are , without seeing their hearts . now this is a mighty prejudice against any notion , if it destroys the visibility of the church , which is so plainly taught in scripture , and does , for ought we know , unchurch the greatest member of visible church-members ; if the church consist only of those who were elected from all eternity , and are in time called by the grace of god to a state of real holiness and sanctification , and made the living members of christ's body , i cannot possibly see how there can be a visible church on earth ; for this internal grace which makes a church-member is invisible , and therefore church-members are invisible too , and then i fear , the church it self must be invisible , if all the members of it are invisible ; for invisible members cannot make a visible society : and to say , that the field in which the corn and the tares grow together , is visible , will not make the church visible , unless this visible field , as visible , be the church , and then the tares as well as the corn must be church-members : for to see where the corn grows , if we cannot see the corn , does not make the corn visible ; and if the corn only be the church , invisible corn cannot make a visible church . which has made me often wonder that some learned protestants , and that of late too , have so much insisted on this notion , which gives manifest advantage to their adversaries ; and serves no end , that i know of , but what may better be served without it . but the union of the church to christ , which i have now explained , is a visible union ; for we are united to christ by the gospel-covenant , and the covenant is visible , the sacraments of the covenant , baptism , and the lords supper , are visible ; the profession of faith , and obedience to christ , made by these visible sacraments , is visible also ; and therefore the church , which is united to christ by a visible covenant , visible sacraments , and a visible profession , is visible also . but you 'll say , can wicked men then be members of christ's mystical body ? yes , no doubt but they may in this world , if they can be in covenant with him . we are united by covenant , and those who are thus united , are members of his body , and christ has but one body , which is his church , and mystical spouse . and what absurdity is there in saying , that men may be in covenant with christ , and not perform the conditions of the covenant , nor obtain the rewards of it , this no man will deny , but that bad men , who live in visible communion with the church ▪ who are baptized in the name of christ , and feast at his table , are visibly in cove●ant with him for if the sacraments of the covenant do not prove that we are in covenant , no man can tell whether he be in covenant or not . now all that are in covenant with christ are his body , and unless we can find two covenants and two bodies for christ , we must grant that good and bad men in this world , are in the same covenant , and members of the same body . our saviour tells us , that there are some branches in him which bear no fruit , but they are in him for all that , though they shall be taken away , and separated from him , 15 john 2. st. paul disswades the corinthians from fornication , by this argument , that they are the members of christ : know ye not , that your bodies are the members of christ ? shall i then take the members of christ , and make them members of a harlot ? god forbid , 1 cor. 6. 15. which supposes , that such a thing may be done , that the members of christ may be made members of a harlot ; and that supposes , that very bad men may be members of christ's body . but are not all the members of christ mystically united to him ? and can there be such a mystical union between christ and bad men ? i answer , if by mystical union be meant , being united in the same life and spirit , it is plain , that bad men are not thus mystically united to christ , for they are not living , but dead members of his body , they are branches that are in the vine , but bear no fruit ; and yet may be members of his mystical body , which is so called , not upon account of any mystical union , ( which some men ●alk of , of but no man could ever explain ) but for mystical reasons , as i have already shewed you . now if those mystical reasons , for which the church is called the body of christ , include wicked professors , and concealed hypocrites , as well as truly good men , then i hope bad men may be said to be the members of christ's mystical body without such a mystical union to him . now i observed before , the mystical reason why the church is called the body of christ , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone , is because he purchas'd the church with his own blood ; the church is formed out of his broken body , as eve was formed out of the body of adam . and therefore if bad men ; who are in covenant with christ , are the purchase of his blood , and have a covenant-right to the expiation of it , and all the benefits procured by it , then they are the members of his mystical body , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone. and methinks no man should deny , that those who are in covenant with christ , should have a covenant right to the expiation of his death , and all the blessings purchas'd by his blood ; for otherwise we cannot tell , what it is to be in covenant , if it confer no right to the priviledges of it : and yet no man has a right to the purchase of christ's blood , but those , who are his body ; and therefore if bad men may have such a covenant-right , as certainly they have , if they be in covenant , then they are by covenant united to his mystical body . if you object , that by this reason all mankind are christ's mystical body , for he died for all men , and therefore they are all the purchase of his blood , and consequently they are his mystical body , which is formed out of his broken body : i answer , it is true indeed , that in some sense christ died for all , because none are excluded from the benefits of his death , who unite themselves to his body by faith and baptism ; but yet he died for none , so as to give them an immediate right and title to the purchase of his blood ; for his purchase is confined to his church , which is his body ; he is the saviour of the body ; he loved his church , and gave himself for it . and therefore his church only is his mystical body , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone , and the sufferings of his natural body extend no farther than his mystical body : and therefore christ is said to have reconciled both ( jew and gentile ) to god in one body by the cross , 2. ephes. 16. that is , he has reconciled all both jews and gentiles , who by faith and baptism are united in his one mystical body , to god by his sufferings on the cross. so that we are not the body of christ , and cannot be said to be the purchase of his blood , till we are united to him by covenant . this we may learn from that analogy there is between the law and the gospel . the legal sacrifices , especially that great sacrifice on the day of expiation , were typically of the sacrifice of christ , and the carnal israel was a type of the spiritual israel , or of the christian church , now as the virtue and expiation of legal sacrifices was applicable only to the carnal israel , so the expiation of christ's death extends only to the spiritual israel , the christian church , which is christ's mystical body ; which one thing , if well considered , would answer all the difficulties , and silence those fierce disputes , about universal redemption . however this shews , what difference there is between bad christians , and the world of infidels ; the first are visibly in covenant with christ , and are the purchase of his blood , and have a covenant-right to the redemption of it , and therefore are members of his mystical body , for none else have any right to his sacrifice ; the other have no interest in him , nor relation to him . and if we will not allow of this , i desire to know , who those children of the kingdom are , that at the last day shall be shut out . but is not our mystical union to christ then an union of spirits , a participation of his nature and life , having his spirit dwelling in us , being led by the spirit , and walking in the spirit ? i answer , this is our spiritual union to christ , this is to live in him , to be quicken'd by him , but it is not our mystical union , as that signifies such an union , as makes us members of his mystical body ; for that in a strict proper sence is only a covenant-relation : every member of christ's mystical body ought to partake of his life and spirit , or else they are onely dead and rotten members , which shall be cut off , and shall never inherit eternal life ; but such dead members are members still , till they are cut off , either by church censures in this world , or by the sentence of christ in the next . this participation of the life and spirit of christ is not our mystical union to christ , but the effect of it . we cannot receive the influences of life and grace from christ , till we are united to him , and made the members of his body ; for his spirit onely quickens and animates his own body ; and we are united to his body by covenant , and by the sacraments of it , which convey this divine life and spirit to us ; and therefore baptism is our regeneration , or new birth , the beginnings of a new life , because it incorporates us into christ's mystical body , which puts us under the influences and communications of his life and spirit : as when a branch is engrafted into a stock , it receives nourishment and life from it . so that these divine and supernatural influences are consequent upon our union to christ , and tho' all , who are united to christ , have these influences of grace , as the root naturally communicates its sap and juices to all its branches , yet all do not improve it , do not digest it into principles of life and action , do not bring forth fruits worthy of it , like dead and withered branches , who cannot receive the sap and nourishment , which ascends from the root , and would quicken them , were not its entrance stopt and hindred ; but notwithstanding this , they are members and branches still , though dead and fruitless : there is no account indeed had of them , christ knows them not , and does not reckon them as his , and therefore the description and characters of the church in scripture are such as belong onely to living members , to those who are renewed and sanctified , and quicken'd by the divine spirit ; but yet they do belong to christ's mystical body , tho' they are in it onely , as a dead branch is in the vine . but how can the church on earth , and the church in heaven be one church and one body , if the church on earth has such corrupt and rotten members in it ? for the church in heaven has none but living and holy members . i answer , the same covenant makes them the same church , and the same body of christ , and that there are bad men in the church on earth , and none but saints in heaven , does not prove , that they are two churches , but that they are in two very different states . of right , none but sincere believers , and truly pious men , ought to be members of the church on earth , as well as in heaven ; but the government of the church , the receiving in , and casting out of the church , being intrusted with men , who cannot see the heart , or who are not careful in the exercise of discipline to preserve the purity of the church , secret hypocrites may be received into the church , and those , who are openly prophane may not be cast out of it ; but in the other world christ makes the distinction , and separates the chaff from the wheat , and therefore the church in heaven can consist only of good men , because bad men can find no admission there . and besides this , it is agreeable enough to the state of the church on earth , and indeed cannot well be otherwise , that good and bad men should be intermixt in it ; because it is a state of tryal and discipline , of growth and improvement : tho' bad men , as that signifies hypocrites and unbelievers , if they were known , ought not to be received into the church , yet if they be , by the influences of grace , and the instructions of the word , and the prayers of the church , and the examples and conversations of good men , and the prudent exercise of discipline , they may be reclaimed to vertue , and become living members of christ's body ; those who were dead before may recover a new life by being engratted into this heavenly vine : nay indeed tho' all men are not equally wicked , yet no man has this divine life , but onely from christ , and the communications of his grace , which he cannot receive from christ , till he be united to him ; and therefore the apostles required no other qualification for baptism , but onely faith ; the very worst of men , who believed in christ , and profess'd obedience to him , were received into the church by baptism , and put under the influences of grace , without expecting till they had first reformed their lives ; which , besides the authority of the apostles , seems to me much more agreeable to the gospel-dispensation , than that discipline which was afterwards used in the church , when they did not immediately baptize those , who profess'd to believe in christ , but kept them in the state of catechumens a great while , till they were instructed in the principles of christian faith , and had given proof of a holy and vertuous life ; which is to expect , that men should become new creatures , before they are born again , that they should walk in the spirit , before they have received the spirit in baptism , that they should bring forth fruit , before they are implanted into this spiritual vine . now if men , who have lived very wicked lives , may be admitted to baptism , upon their profession of faith and repentance , that in this laver of regeneration they may wash away all their sins , and become new creatures , and receive the spirit of grace and sanctification to reform their lives , this shews , that the very constitution of the church on earth is such ; that there may be very bad men in it , unless all , who are baptized should infallibly prove good men : for bad men , who profess the faith of christ , and repentance of their sins , have a right to baptism , where they must receive grace to mortifie and subdue their lusts , and renew their natures , and yet if after baptism they resist the grace and spirit of god , they will continue bad men still , and this the ministers of the church can never know , whether they will or not . nay the gospel-covenant admits the children of christian-parents to baptism , and it is impossible to know , how those , who are baptized in their infancy , will prove , when they are men : and yet these are all members of the church , and the mystical body of christ , at least till they are cut off by the censures of the church : and there is no inconvenience in this , if the governours of the church were but so strict in their discipline , as to prevent all publick scandals : for since the church on earth is the school and nursery of vertue , where bad men may be reformed , and become saints , since christ is that spiritual vine , from whom alone we can receive the communications of a divine life , it is very fitting , that all believers should be received into the church , and incorporated into christ's body , for it cannot be known , whether they will prove good or bad men , fruitful or barren branches , till they partake of the sap and fatness of the root , till they receive such communications of grace , as my renew them into a divine nature . and therefore to say , that none but real saints are members of the church on earth , is to make no difference between a school of tryal , exercise , and discipline , and the state of perfect and consummate souls ; between a state of warfare , where the victory is doubtful , and the triumphant company of conquerors ; between those , who run in a race , and those , who have won the prize ; for such a difference there is between the state of the church on earth , and in heaven . we cannot run this spiritual race , unless we be in the church , for there is no prize , no crown , to run for out of it . and therefore those who lose , as well as those who win the prize , must be in the church , and members of it ▪ they are all in the same covenant , that if they overcome , they shall receive the crown : good men conquer in this world , and triumph in heaven ; bad men are conquered , and they lose their crown , and this makes the separation and difference between the church in heaven and earth ; in heaven there are none but those , who have conquered ; on earth all , who run in the same race , and are engaged in the same warfare , are mixt together in the same body and society : those who conquer , and those who are conquered , are of the same company on earth , but none but conquerors are crowned in heaven . thus i have shewed , wherein the unity of the church consists , that the whole church both in heaven and earth are united to christ in the same covenant , which makes it his one mystical body : and it was necessary to lay the foundation here ; for without this it is impossible to understand , what the unity of the church on earth means , most of the mistakes in this matter being plainly owing to that first and fundamental mistake about the true notion of catholick unity , as that includes the unity of the universal church , part of which is translated to heaven , and part still militant on earth . those who have been aware of this , that the church in heaven and earth is but one church , have hence concluded , that the catholick church is only the number of the elect ; that none but truly good men , who are renewed and sanctified by the holy spirit , are members of christ's mystical body ; which makes the church on earth as invisible to us , as the church in heaven . others , when they talk of the unity of the church , never think of the church in heaven , and therefore advance such a notion of church-unity , as excludes the church in heaven , as if the church on earth were the whole church of christ ; or that the church in heaven and earth were not one church , or that the notion of church-unity must not relate to the whole church , but only to one part of it . thus , as i observed before , the romanists do , who place the unity of the church in its union and subjection to the bishop of rome , which can concern only that part of the church which is on earth , for the church in heaven is not under his government . others considering that the unity of the church consists in the union of all the parts and members of it to christ , have no regard at all to the unity of the church on earth , as that also is one body and communion ; and therefore it will be time now to apply this notion of church-unity to the unity of the church on earth . chap. ii. concerning the vnity of the catholick church on earth . if the whole church be one , to be sure every part of it must be one with the whole , and therefore one with it self , with that same kind of unity which belongs to the whole . so that the essential unity of the church on earth , that which makes a church and makes it one , is that all true churches are members of the one mystical body of christ , as being all united to him , as to their head , by the same covenant . so that whatever makes a church a true church , makes it a member of the one catholick church , or of the one body of christ. and here comes in what the apostle makes essential to this one body ; one lord , one faith , one baptism , 4 eph. 5. which signifies what i said before , being united to christ in the same covenant . for christ is the one lord , to whom we are united ; the one faith is the condition of this covenant , and the one baptism is the faederal rite of it , or the sacrament of our union to christ. where this is not , there is no church ; and where this is , there is but one church ; how many particular churches , or distinct communions soever this church is divided into : from whence it as evident , that there never can be more than one church in the world : for those nominal churches , which have not the same lord , the same faith , the same baptism , are no churches ; and all that have , are but one : which makes it a ridiculous triumph of the church of rome , as if we protestants did not believe one catholick church , or could not tell where to find it , when we profess to believe but one church , and that all true churches are members of this one church . for it is plain from this account , that though all the churches in the world were united in one ecclesiastical body , yet this external visible union is not the thing which makes them the one body of christ : they are one body by being all united to one mystical head , the lord jesus christ , not by an external and visible union to each other ; this external union is a duty which all christians and christian churches are bound to observe , as far as possibly they can ; but all true christians and christian churches are the one body of christ , whether they be thus visibly united or not . but for the better understanding this matter , we must consider , i. the true notion of the catholick church on earth . ii. what the nature and unity of a particular church is , and how every particular church is a part of that universal catholick church , which is the body of christ. iii. what that unity and communion is , which all distinct particular churches ought to maintain with each other , and whence this obligation results . i. the true notion of the catholick church on earth : now it is evident from what i have already discoursed , that the true notion of a church is the caetus fidelium , or the company of the faithful , of those who profess the true faith of christ , and are united to him by baptism . there can be no other notion of the universal church in heaven and earth , but the whole company and family of the faithful , who are united to christ by covenant , and are his mystical body in the sense above explained : and if the universal church in heaven and earth be the whole company of the faithful , the catholick church on earth must be the whole number of the faithful on earth ; for we must still retain the same notion of a church , where the whole consists of universal parts , for there every part has the same nature with the whole . i know indeed of late the clergy have in a great measure monopolized the name of the church , whereas in propriety of speech , they do not belong to the definition of a church : they are members of the church , as they are themselves of the number of the faithful ; and they are the governours of the church , as they have received authority from christ the supream lord and bishop of the church ; but they are no more the church , than the king is his kingdom , or the shepherd his flock : and therefore st. paul expresly distinguishes the church from the apostles and ministers of it ; 1 cor. 12. 28. god hath set some in the church , first apostles , secondarily prophets , thirdly teachers , after that miracles , then gifts of healing , helps , governments , diversities of tongues . these are placed in the church , for the instruction , edification , and good government of it ; and therefore are of a distinct consideration from the church in which they are placed . thus 4 eph. 11 , 12. he gave some apostles , and some prophets , and some evangelists , and some pastors and teachers , for the perfecting of the saints , for the work of the ministry , for the edifying of the body of christ ; that is , the church of christ : which is therefore distinguished from the pastors and teachers of it . thus in directing his epistles to several churches , he gives us the definition of a church , 1 cor. 1. 2. vnto the church of god which is at corinth , to them that are sanctified in christ jesus , called to be saints , with all that in every place call upon the name of jesus christ our lord , both theirs and ours : that is , the whole company of the faithful . 1 ephes. 1. paul an apostle of jesus christ by the will of god , to the saints which are at ephesus , and to the faithful in christ jesus : which is the true definition of a church . 1 col. 2. to the saints and faithful brethren in christ , which are at coloss. and 1 phil. 1. he expresly distinguishes the saints or church , as that signifies the company of the faithful from the bishops and deacons : to all the saints in christ jesus , which are at philippi , with the bishops and deacons . the learned launoy has produced various texts of scripture for this definition of the church , that it is the company of the faithful ; and has proved by the testimony of the fathers in all ages , even down to the council of trent it self , that this was the received notion of the church , till it was altered by canisius and bellarmine ; canisius puts christ's vicar into the definition ; that the church is the visible collection of all baptized believers , under one head , christ in heaven , and his vicar on earth ; which makes the church a monarchy . bellarmine defines the church to be a company of men united together by the profession of the same christian faith , and the communion of the same sacraments , under the government of lawful pastors , but chiefly of the bishop of rome , as the one vicar of christ on erath ; which makes the church a kind of mixed and tempered monarchy ; the government of bishops , and the pope as supream vicar : whereas before these men , neither pastors nor bishops , much less the pope of rome , were ever put into the general definition of a church : for as for st. cyprian's definition , i shall account for it hereafter . and indeed it stands to reason , that they should not , for pastors and bishops are set over the church , are overseers of the flock , to instruct and govern it , and therefore must be distinguished from the church which they govern : the church is the mystical body of christ , which is in subjection to christ the head ; but the bishops and pastors of the church , considered as such , represent the head , and not the body ; for they receive their power and authority from christ , and act in his place and stead : as he tells them after his resurrection , as my father hath sent me , so send i you , 20 john 21. and , he that receiveth you , receiveth me , and he that receiveth me , receiveth him that sent me , 10 matth. 40. and 13. john 20. and therefore as christ the head is distinguish'd from his body , so are those also who act under the head , and represent and exercise his authority in the church ; as private believers , they are the members of the church ; as church-governours , they are the vicars of christ. now from hence i shall observe some few things , the use of which we shall afterwards better understand . as 1. that bishops and pastors are not the church , but the governours of the church : and therefore the promises made to the church , do not belong to the bishops of the church ; as that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : which certainly proves , that the church shall never totally fail , but does not prove , that the bishops , or any bishop of the church , shall be infallible . for the bishops are not the church : there are distinct promises to the church , and to the pastors and ministers of it , and they ought to be kept distinct ; which will put an end to a great many controversies between us and the church of rome . thus if st. paul in his epistle to timothy , 1 tim. 3. 15. calls the church the pillar and ground of truth , whatever that signifies , it belongs to the church , or to the company of the faithful , not meerly to the pastors and bishops of it : and therefore the infallibility of the pope or general council can never be proved from it , though the pillar and ground of truth should signifie infallibility . thus whatever authority popes or general councils may challenge in matters of faith , yet if they decree any thing contrary to the common faith of christians , their decrees are not the faith of the church , but the faith of popes and general councils , who are not the church , though they are the governours of it : and yet under this venerable name of the catholick church , every packt conventicle challenges an indisputable authority to its decrees . 2. nay , as bishops are not the catholick church , so neither are they the representatives of the catholick church ; much less is any one bishop the whole catholick church virtual . the office of a bishop is not to represent , but to govern the church , and therefore bishops are not the churches representatives by institution , no more than the king is the representative of his kingdom : how then do they come to be the churches representatives ? did all the christians in the world , who are the catholick church , ever intrust them with this power ? did they ever resign up their faith into the hands of their bishops ? this never was done , and yet no man has a representative but by his own consent ; and if it could be done , bishops then must sit in council , not only as bishops , but as lay representatives , if two such different capacities are not inconsistent ; and yet bishops have challenged this authority only as bishops , and excluded the laity , nay presbyters themselves , from any votes ; and therefore such councils of bishops , who acted only as bishops , could not be the representatives of the catholick church . in matters of discipline and government , bishops act not as representatives , but governours of the church , by that authority which they have received , not from the people , but from christ ; and their decrees and constitutions about such matters , have a sacred and venerable authority , when they do not contradict any divine laws and institutions . but bishops have no authority over the faith of the church , nay the church herself has no authority to alter the faith , and therefore can give no such authority to her bishops ; however , if she could , she never did , and therefore no council of bishops can be the church-representative in defining articles of faith. as bishops are the supreme pastors and teachers of the church , they may declare , what the faith is , and agree what doctrines shall be taught in their churches , and consent to censure and excommunicate those , who will not profess to believe as they do ; but if they make any decrees contrary to the common faith of christians , no christian is bound to believe them , nor is ever the worse for their anathema's and excommunications ; and it is a ridiculous thing for them to call this the faith of the catholick church , which is only the decrees and definitions of some bishops in it ; who are far enough from being the catholick church . and this i think sufficiently proves , that the most general council , that ever was , may err , and yet the catholick church not err ; for bishops are not the catholick church , nor so much as the representatives of it : and therefore could it be proved , that the catholick church could not err , this would not prove the infallibility of a general council , which is not the church ; for the faith may still be preserved pure and uncorrupt among private christians , even when general councils err . 3ly . i observe farther , that the whole catholick church on earth is not one organized body ; for it is only the whole company of the faithful , and no ecclesiastical ministers or pastors belong to the definition of it ; and yet unless some oecumenical pastor be essential to the notion and definition of the catholick church , it cannot be one organized body . the catholick church indeed is organized by parts , that is , the whole company of the faithful are distributed into particular bodies under the government of particular bishops , which makes a particular church , and is essential to the definition of it , of which more presently ; but the catholick church itself is the whole company of the faithful , who are united in one body to christ only , who is the only head of his church . now hence it evidently follows , 1. that no organized church can be the catholick church , nor the bishop of it an oecumenical pastor ; because the catholick church is not organiz'd , but every organized church is a particular church . which shews how vain the pretences of the church of rome are to be the catholick church , and of the pope of rome to be the universal bishop . 2. it as evidently follows , that there neither is , nor can be any visible tribunal of the catholick church , which shall be the center of catholick communion , and have authority over all particular churches in matters of faith , and worship , and government . for the catholick church being no organized body , it has no authority , and can have no tribunal . 1. it has no authority . for the whole company of the faithful , which is the true notion of the catholick church , are the mystical body of christ , and in subjection to him , as a wife is subject to her husband . the catholick church is made up of particular and individual christians , who are all immediately united to christ their head , and are made one in him ; and though bishops as the ministers of christ , have received authority from him to govern the church , which they exercise in particular churches , over which they are placed , yet as members of the catholick church , they are not considered as bishops , but as private christians : for it is not their authority in the church , but their union to christ , which makes them members of his body , and thus they are united to christ no otherwise then all other private christians are . now if the chatholick church be only a company of private and particular christians , united immediately to christ , and made one body in him , the catholick church has no more authority , than particular christians have , which is none at all . the catholick church is united to christ by a belief of his gospel , obedience to his laws , and a participation of his spirit , which is a state of perfect and absolute subjection to him , and therefore can have no authority to alter the faith , to make a new creed , or a new gospel , which would be to have power over christ , not to be subject to him . to be sure , unless we will grant this authority to every particular christian , the catholick church cannot have it , which is only the whole multitude of particular christians , who are united singly to christ , and made one body in him ; and therefore are not such a body , as can make a new faith , and new laws , but are made one body by embracing the same faith , which they must receive from christ , but have no authority to make ; because their receiving this faith unites them into one body in christ , and they continue one body in christ , no longer than they profess this faith , and therefore never can have authority to change it : where a multitude of men unite themselves into one body or civil society , to form and model their own government , and to make laws for themselves , there the whole authority is in the community , and they may make and alter and repeal laws as they please : but where a society is formed by a voluntary submission of single and particular persons to known and stated laws , and no man can be of this society without submission to these laws , nor continue longer in it , than he does submit to them , it is a contradiction to say , that such a body of men have any power over the laws , because it is only their submission to such laws , which make them such a society : the whole society in this case have no more authority than a single man , for they are not a society for government , but for obedience and subjection . christ indeed has placed an authority in his church for the instruction and government of it , but an authority in the church , and the authority of the church , are two very different things . the first signifies the authority of christ , who is the head ; the second is the authority of the body , which is the church , the head has authority over his church , and may appoint what ministers he pleases to exercise this authority , but the church has no authority at all , no more than the body has , which is subject to the head. this may be thought a very nice distinction between the authority in the church , and the authority of the church , but it is as useful , as it is true . for thô the authority of christ must be much more sacred and venerable , than the authority of the church , whatever authority it were supposed to have , yet the name of the catholick church is thought much more venerable than the name of bishops , thô they are the ministers of christ ; and therefore those , who would impose upon the faith of christians , talk of nothing less than the authority of the catholick church , which sounds very big , and frights people into a submission . while they pretend only the authority of christ's ministers , private christians make bold to examine their commission , and how far their authority reaches , ●d whether they do not prevaricate in the exercise of this authority , as it is possible ministers may do ; but the name of the catholick church strikes all dead , for who dare oppose the decrees of the catholick church ? which is to condemn the whole catholick church of error or heresie ; who dares separate from the catholick church ? which must be an unpardonable schism , and a state of damnation ; since it is universally agreed , that there is no salvation to be had out of the catholick church ; and thus when a packt conventicle of schismaticks and hereticks usurp to themselves the name of the catholick church , they impose upon christians under so venerable a disguise , and enslave them to their own dictates ; but now all these amusements vanish , when we remember , that the catholick church has no authority ; that whatever the authority of bishops in or out of council be , it is not the authority of the church , but the authority of christ , and it is not his authority neither , when they exceed their commission , and teach such things as he has given them no authority to teach ; and therefore we may reject such a council of bishops , without condemning the catholick church , and renounce their communion , without separating from the catholick church . and this very consideration , that the catholick church has no authority , and therefore cannot innovate in matters of faith , nor alter the laws and institutions of our saviour , is little less than a demonstration , that there is no authority in the church neither to do it . for the bishops and pastors of the church , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 christ's ministers , so they are themselves members of the catholick church ; now as they are members of the catholick church , they must receive nothing but what christ has taught ; for the church is founded on the faith of christ , and has no authority to alter it : now is it imaginable , that bishops as private christians and members of the catholick church are obliged to believe nothing but what christ has taught , and yet as bishops , or christ's ministers , have authority to teach , what christ has not taught ? that is , that as bishops they have authority to teach that , which as private christians , they themselves must not believe , if they will continue members of the catholick church : nay , can we imagine , that christ has given authority to his ministers to teach that , which the catholick church must not receive ? for if the catholick church has no authority , it must no more receive new doctrines , than make them . i know indeed , no body will pretend to an authority of making new articles of faith , but only of declaring what the faith is ; but this is the very same thing , if this authority of declaring be such as to oblige all people to believe such declarations without any dispute or examination ; for then they may make a new faith under a pretence of declaring the old ; as we see the council of trent has done , which has declared such doctrines , as the christian church was a stranger to before : and there is no difference , that i know of , between declaring and making an article of faith , which was neither declared , nor made before . and therefore christian bishops and pastors have no such authority either to make or to declare articles of faith , as can oblige all christians to believe it meerly upon their definitions and declarations : it is their office to preach the gospel , to convince and perswade gainsayers by scripture and reason , which obliges all christians diligently and impartially to attend to their instructions , but yet leaves every man at liberty to judge , whether they preach the gospel of christ , or their own inventions . 2ly . that the catholick church has no authority , is evident from this also , that it has no visible tribunal , wherein to exercise this authority . for the catholick church is nothing else but the whole company or multitude of individual christians , who are all singly united to christ , and made one body in him , and considered as the catholick church are not the one body of christ , nor can be , under any other notion . so that had the catholick church any authority , it could be exercised only by the whole multitude of christians , for nothing else is the catholick church , and this is as impossible , as it is for the whole multitude of christians to meet together in one place . but cannot the catholick church meet and act by its representatives , as kingdoms and common-wealths do ? i answer ; i have already proved , that all the bishops of the church , much less any one bishop , cannot represent the catholick church ; for as bishops they are not the church , but the governours of it under christ ; and no man ever yet thought of any other representatives for the church ; and it is evident de facto , that there are no other representatives ; for the whole multitude of christians never did make choice of any such representatives , and no man can be represented but by his own consent : and if there could be any such representatives made by the unanimous vote of all the christians in the world , ( which i think is morally impossible ) yet then the highest and most soveraign authority in the church would be derived from the people , which ▪ i suppose , the church of rome will not very well like . nay indeed it is absolutely impossible , that the catholick church should be represented ; for the catholick church is the whole multitude of christians , considered as the whole company or multitude ; now a multitude as a multitude can never be represented by any thing but itself , there can be no formal , nor virtual multitude , but the whole entire number . the catholick church signifies all christians , and if you leave out any of the number , it is not all , and therefore is not the catholick church . now if the catholick church have any authority , it must have it as it is the catholick church , that is , as it is the whole company of christians ; for particular christians have no such authority , as all men grant ; and therefore that which destroys the catholick church , must destroy its authority too , and any thing less than all , makes it cease to be catholick ; and therefore the catholick church cannot be represented by a few of the whole number , because a few are not all , and therefore not the catholick church . it is a different case indeed , when every particular man has an original right and share in the power , and the whole power is not formally seated in the whole body , for then it may by common consent be contracted into one or more hands , by particular mens giving up their share in the government , as some fancy that civil societies were first formed ; but where the power is formally seated in the whole , and not in particular members , as the authority of the catholick church must be , if it be the authority of the church considered as catholick , there it is evident the authority must continue in the whole , and can by no consent be put into a few hands ; and then it is impossible that the catholick church can have any representatives , nor consequently any visible tribunal . and yet that dispute between the church of rome and some protestant divines , which is managed with so much warmth and zeal , about the perpetual visibility of the church , issues in this controversie about a visible tribunal of the catholick church ; for nothing else will do the protestant cause any hurt , or the popish cause any good . we do say , and we may safely say , that there always has been , and ever will be a visible church ; for while there are any men , who visibly profess christianity , there will be a visible church : and what then ? what then ? why then you must hear the church ; then you must submit to the authority of the church ; then you must believe as the church believes , and receive your faith from the decrees and definitions of the church : but pray why so ? has every visible church this authority ? no ; but the catholick church has . suppose that ; but how shall i speak with the catholick church , which is dispersed over all the world , and is nothing else but the whole number of christians all the world over ? now it seems impossible for me to speak with all the christians in the world , and to know what their belief is in all matters of controversie ; and though the catholick church is visible , and part of it is to be seen in england , and part in holland , and part in france , &c. yet no man can see it all together , nor speak with all the christians in the world together ; and therefore tho' the catholick church be visible , it cannot determine any one controversie , unless there be some visible catholick tribunal , from which we must receive the faith of the whole church : this the papists assert , and make the church of rome to be that visible catholick church , or visible tribunal of the catholick church , to which all christians are bound to submit . now besides what i have already proved , that the catholick church neither has , nor can have any such visible tribunal , suppose such a thing might be , yet this dispute about the visibility of the church , is nothing to the purpose : for though the church be visible , it does not hence follow , that the catholick church has such a visible tribunal , to which all christians must submit ; and if the visibility of the church does not prove one supream catholick tribunal , what do the papists get by the churches visibility , or what do the protestants lose by it ? the church of rome is a visible church , and so is the church of england ; and if meer visibility give this authority to a church , the church of england has as good authority as the church of rome , because it is as visible a church . 4. in the next place i observe , that the essential unity of the catholick church is not an external and visible union of an organized body , because the catholick church it self is not an organized body . there is and can be but one catholick church , because the whole company of christians is this catholick church ; but then the essential unity of the catholick church does not consist in an external and visible union of all christians , which is the unity of civil societies , of kingdoms , and common-wealths , and other inferiour corporations , which are united under one visible government , which knits and tyes them together , as nerves and sinews do the members of the natural body ; but though there be an external and visible union in and between particular churches , of which more presently , yet the unity of the catholick church consists only in the union of all christians to christ , which makes them his one mystical body . this is a very material point in opposition to the pretensions of the bishop of rome , who will needs be the supream and oecumenical pastor , and head of unity to the catholick church ; and though the christian world never owned him so , as has been abundantly proved by learned men , especially by the learned dr. isaac barrow in his treatise of the popes supremacy , which is a sufficient confutation of such a claim , yet it will be of great use to shew from the nature of the catholick church , and the essential unity of it , that it cannot be so ; and there are several considerations , which will make this very evident . 1. that there is no other head for the whole catholick church on earth to be united to , but only christ : for the catholick church is the whole company of christians ; and to whom can the whole company of christians be united , but only to christ ? for the whole clergy , as well as laiety , are included in the notion of the catholick church , in the whole company of christians ; and therefore unless you can find out a bishop who is not of the number of christians , ( and such an one would be a very monstrous head for the christian church ) he cannot be the head , because he is a member of the catholick church , and must himself , with the rest of christians be united to the head : which i think is a demonstration that no bishop can be the head of the catholick church , because it is a contradiction to be the head and a member of the same body . a bishop is the pastor and governour of a particular church , and a member of the universal church ; but to be the head of the universal church , of which he himself is a member , is a contradiction . 2. nor can the essential unity of the church consist in our union to any other head but christ , because it is our union to christ alone , which makes the church ; and that which makes the church , must make it one ; for what does not belong to the essence of a thing , cannot be the principle of an essential unity . it is the church of christ , because it is united to him , and to him only , by faith and the christian sacraments ; and therefore it is the one church of christ , because the whole church is united to him , and to him only , as it must be , if no other union can make a church ; and where there is but one head of union , there can be but one body . no other union can make a church , and therefore no other union can be essential to the unity of the church . 3. and therefore though our saviour had appointed an universal pastor , as the bishop of rome pretends to be , yet he could not have been the head of unity to the catholick church ; he had in that case been the supream governour , whom all christians had been bound to obey , nay more than that , he had been the center of church-communion to all christians ; which is the external and visible unity of the church , when all christians live in the same communion , like one houshold and family . but there is a vast difference between the essential unity of the church , and the external exercise of it in a visible communion among christians ; between being one and living in unity ; union to christ alone makes the church one , but the exercise of this unity in a visible communion , is a duty which results from our unity , and must be expressed in such ways as christ has prescribed , of which more anone ; and had christ appointed an universal pastor , communion with , and subjection to , this universal pastor had been necessary to the external unity of church-communion , but yet had not been that which makes the church one , which is one before and without it ; the not distinguishing of which , has occasioned great mistakes in this matter , as will appear in the process of this discourse . 4. i observe farther , that there is a wide difference between being a supream pastor , and a vicarious head of the church , a title which is given to the bishop of rome , not without great injury to christ our head. christ , had he pleased , might have appointed a supream pastor for the government of his church ; but as he is head of the church , he cannot have a vicar , or vicarious head : for though a head signifies a supream governour too in scripture phrase , yet christ is not meerly a head of government , but of union ; and though a governing head may have a vicar or lieutenant , yet a head of union cannot , no more than a natural head can ; for the union between christ and his church , is as immediate , as between the head and the members , between the husband and the wife , which will admit of no intermediate vicars . the church is called the body and spouse of christ , as i have already observed , for mystical reasons , because it is formed out of his broken and crucified body , as eve was out of the body of adam ; upon which account we are said to be flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone ; that is , the church is redeemed and purchased by the bloud of christ : and thus he is the head of that body which he himself has bought at the price of his bloud . we are united to christ by faith in him , by being baptized in his name , by feeding on the sacrament of his body and bloud ; the effect of this union is , that we receive from him the pardon of our sins , and the influences of his grace and spirit : thus christ is our head , and thus none but christ can be the head , not so much as the vicarious head of the church , as i think i need not prove . we are redeemed by no other but christ , and therefore the church is his mystical body only ; we are united to no other by faith and sacraments ; our union to no other person can entitle us to the pardon of sin , and the grace of the holy spirit , and therefore christ alone is the head of union to his church ; it is a church , and it is one church , not by its union to the supream pastor on earth , if there were such an one , but by its union to christ : for the unity of the church consist in its union to its head , and it is evident that the church can have no other head but christ ; and therefore can have no other principle or center of unity . now from hence it plainly follows , that no christian can separate from the catholick church ( in this sense of it , as it signifies the whole company and family of christians , which is the true notion of the catholick church ) while he continues a christian ; for that is a contradiction , to be a christian , and not to belong to the whole number of christians ; that is , to be a christian , and to be no christian : for if he be a christian , he belongs to the number of christians , and then he is a member of the catholick church , and consequently not a separatist from it : nothing can separate us from the catholick church , but what forfeits our christianity , either a final apostacy , or such heresies as are equivalent to apostacy : which shews how vainly the church of rome charges us with schism and separation from the catholick church , because we disown the authority of the pope , their pretended head of the church , and reject a corrupt communion , though we are christians still , and we hope of a much purer communion than they are . schism and separation is a breach of the external and visible communion of the church , not of the essential unity of it ; the church is one church still , whatever breaches and schisms there are in its external communion ; for the unity of the catholick church consists in the union of the whole to christ , which makes them one body in him , not in the external communion of the several parts of it to each other . and therefore it is not a separation from one another , but only a separation from christ , which is a separation from the catholick church . but what the true notion of schism is , i shall discourse more at large hereafter . 5. i observe further , that the indefectibility of the catholick church does not depend upon the indefectibility of any organized churches ; for the catholick church does not consist of organized churches , as organized , but is made up of particular christians ; and therefore while the whole race of christians does not fail in the world , the catholick church cannot fail . there is no promise , that i know of , to any particular church , that it shall not fail , and all organized churches are particular . several of them have totally failed , others have been very greatly corrupted both in faith , and manners , and worship , but had these failures and corruptions been much greater and more general than ever they have been yet , while there are a number of good christians preserved in the world , though not united in one visible body , the catholick church does not fail ; for since the catholick church is not an organized church , nor made up of organized churches , as such , though all the particular organized churches in the world were so corrupt , as not to deserve the name of true churches , if there be a number of good christians preserved among them , though unknown , and concealed , as it was in the time of elias , the catholick church is safe , amidst all the corruptions of particular churches . i am abundantly satisfied , that there always has been , since the first planting of christianity in the world and i believe always will be to the end of the world a true visible church , but yet i do not think the indefectibility of the church necessarily requires a perpetual visibility ; that the church must needs be owned to fail , if there should be no visible organized church , with whom we could hold communion . this indeed would mightily eclipse , but not extinguish the church ; for it is certain the catholick church subsists in single and individual christians , who may lie concealed from publick not notice , and therefore it is not sufficient to prove that the church has failed , though there were no visible society of christians , but what were corrupted with damnable practices and errors . it is very true were there no visible society of christians , no administration of baptism , by which men are made members of the christian church and this state should continue so long till the whole race of baptized christians were lost in the world , there would be too much reason then to say , that the church had failed too , for i cannot see ; how the church can subsist without a number of baptized christians ; but this never was the state of the church , and i believe never will be ; for antichrist himself sits in the temple of god , which supposes , that even in his reign there is a visible society of christians . now how corrupt and degenerate soever the external state of the visible church may be , while there is a society of baptized christians , though so corrupt in their external policy and government , faith , and worship , that it may admit or a dispute , whether they are a true christian church or not , yet tho' the visible state of the church may be antichristian , there may be an invisible number of christians among them , who may preserve themselves from the corruptions , superstitions , heresies , and idolatries , of the visible church , and in these men the catholick church is preserved from a to al failure . indeed this is the only difference between protestant divines in this matter : they all agree , that the catholick church shall not fail , because christ has promised it shall not fail , that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; but some doubt , whether there shall be always a true visible organized church in the world. they agree , that there shall be always a visible society of christians in the world , who shall profess the whole christian faith , and administer the true christian sacraments , but they differ , whether such a church may be called a true christian church , if together with the true christian faith and sacraments , they set up an antichristian hierarchy , and impose an antichristian faith and worship . those , who affirm , that such a church is a true christian church , do consequently teach , that the true church shall be always visible , tho it may be corrupt , even to the degree of antichristianism ; those who affirm , that such a corrupt church is not a true church , do also consequently affirm , that the true church may be sometimes invisible , and consist only of such private christians , as preserve themselves from those corruptions , which unchurch the visible church : i may have occasion to consider this more hereafter , all that i observe at present is , that this does not alter the case , as to the indefectibility of the church ; for while there is a visible society professing the christian faith , and administring the christian sacraments , the catholick church may subsist in an invisible and unorganized number of christians , who profess the true faith without such corrupt and antichristian mixtures . were the catholick church an organical body , then indeed it must be always visible , and the church would fail , if ever it became invisible ; but if the catholick church be an unorganized body of christians , who are united only in christ , it is possible , that it may be unknown and invisible , as great numbers of private christians may be , and yet the church not fail . now this shews the weakness and fallacy of several arguments used by the church of rome . as 1. that the perpetual visibility of the roman church proves it to be that indefectible church , of which our saviour promised , that the gates of hell should not prevail against it . a promise , which all men grant , our saviour made to the catholick church , not to any particular church , that is , to the whole company of christians , that there should never want a succession of true believers in the world , not to any particular organized church , or body , of christians , such as the church of rome is . and therefore the indefectibility of the church cannot prove , that it shall be always visible , and then the uninterrupted visibility of any church cannot prove , that it is indefectible ; for if the indefectible church may be sometimes invisible , then that visible church may not be always indefectible ; when the indefectible church is invisible , to be sure that church , which at that time is visible , is not the indefectible church , and thus i am sure it may be , whether it has been or not , but if it may be , the argument is naught . 2. and so is that argument to prove the church to be infallible , because it is indefectible . that it cannot err , because it never shall so grievously err as to cease to be a church . the indefectibilty of the church , as you have already heard , does not necessarily prove , that there shall be any one visible , organized church , which shall never fail ; for the church does not fail , while there are any true christians in the world ; it may be preserved in a number of single and concealed christians , who are neither known to one another , nor much less to the world. and therefore if indefectibility proves infallibility , it proves only , that there shall be some private infallible christians , not that there is any visible infallible church . for it can prove only those to be infallible , who are indefectible , and therefore since it does not necessarily prove , that any visible organized church shall be indefectible , it cannot prove any such church to be infallible neither . the infallibility of private christians the church of rome will not allow , and yet if indefectibility prove infallibility , this is all the infallibility which the indefectibility of the church can prove , that there shall always in the greatest degeneracy of the church be a number of private infallible christians , who shall continue in the true faith and worship of christ. when our saviour says , that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church , we may consider it either as a promise , or a prophecy , or both , that there always shall be some sound and orthodox believers in the world , who in the greatest degeneracy of the church shall be the seeds of a reformation , and a new visible resurrection of it ; now i hope christ can make good such a promise ( if we consider it as a promise ) without bestowing infallibility upon any christians , for men may be orthodox christians without being infallible ; and if we consider it as a prophecy , i hope christ can certainly foretel things , which have no necessary causes , and then he can foretel , that there shall never want true believers , tho' it is possible , there might be none ; that all christians shall not err , tho' they are all fallible , and therefore may err ; and then neither the promise nor the prophecy can prove the infallibility of any christians : and this is all that protestants can mean , when they say , that the catholick church cannot err in fundamentals , not that there is any visible society of christians , which is infallible in its definitions of fundamental doctrines , but that the catholick church or the whole number of christians shall never err fundamentally , that is , that there shall always be some true and orthodox believers in the church . 3. nor is it a good argument to prove any church to be a new upstart church , because after some time of concealment it reassumes its visibility , and appears openly in the world. the stabbing question , as the church of rome thinks , to the reformed churches is , where was your church before luther ? those who own the church of rome with all her corruptions to be a true church , have a plain and easie answer to this , that the church was before luther , where it was afterwards ; for they did not make a new church , but only reformed that part of the old , which consented to such a reformation ; they profess the same faith still , have the same sacraments , and the same christian worship , but purged from those innovations and corruptions , which had deformed the visible communion of the roman church , which can no more make a new church , than a man's washing off the dirt makes a new-face . and i confess , i think , those who deny the visible organized church of rome to be a true church , do not want a good answer neither . for during the degeneracy of that church , the church might subsist in those private christians , who preserved themselves in a great measure from the corruption of that church , which might more easily be done before the reformation than since ; for many of their doctrines and practices were not then so peremptorily decreed by their councils , nor so strictly imposed upon the consciences of men , as the council of trent has since done . and there are evidences enough , that there never wanted some in all ages , who have condemned their innovations , and that profound ignorance , wherein that church brought up honest and devout men , was the true reason , why there were not more ; now all these men may be reckoned the seeds of the reformation , out of which a visible church would spring , as soon as a new light broke in upon the world. there was no failure of the church , tho' it was obscured and concealed ; we may as well say , that it is a new sun , which rises every morning , not that which set at night , as make a new church of the visible resurrection of old and primitive christianity , the profession of which was never lost , thô the professors of it were not so visible . if the true church be indefectible and never fails , it can never be new again ; and if the indefectibility of the church may be preserved in some private and unknown christians , the want of a visible society of such pure and orthodox christians cannot prove , that the church has failed , and then when the old christian church appears again with a new glory , it is ridiculous to call it new , only because for some years it has been concealed . thus i have considered the true notion of the catholick church on earth , which there is so much talk of in our disputes with the church of rome ; and i hope have made it appear , how little service this can do them . finis . books printed for , and are to be sold by w. roger. bp wilkins his fifteen sermons . octavo . dr. wallis of the necessity of regeneration : in two sermons to the university of oxford . quarto . — his defence of the royal society and the philosophical transactions ; particularly those of july , 1670. in answer to the cavils of dr. william holder . quarto . the necessity , dignity and duty of gospel-ministers , discoursed of before the university of cambridge . by tho. hodges , b. d. quarto . the peaceable christian. a sermon . quarto . price , 3 d. a treatise of marriage , with a defence of the 32d article of the church of england , viz. bishops , priests and deacons are not commanded by god's law , either to vow the state of single life , or to abstain from marriage , &c. by tho hodges , b. d. octavs . history of the affairs of europe in this present age , but more particularly of the republick of venice . by battista nani cavalier , of st. mark. fol. sterry's freedom of the will. folio . light in the way to paradise , with other occasionals . by dudley the 2d , late lord north. octavo . molins of the muscles , with sir charles scarborough ' s syllabus musculorum . octavo . a collection of letters of gallantry , twelves . leonard's reports , in four parts . the second edition . folio . the compleat child ; containing the best forms of all sorts of presidents , for conveyanees and assurances ; and other instruments now in use and practice . quarto . sir simon degges parsons counsellor , with the law of tithes and tithing . in two books . the fourth edition . octavo . an answer to the bishop of condom ( now of meaux ) his exposition of the catholick faith , &c. wherein the doctrine of the church of rome is detected and tha● of the church of england expressed , from the publick acts of both churches . to which are added reflections on his pastoral letter . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . second edition . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods , by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the first part : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part : wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable , to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part , in the first dialogue , between him and his lay-friend . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english reformation ; in a book that came lately from oxford . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . 8 o. a manual for a christian souldier , written by erasmus , and translated into english. twelves . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book , whereby one ( who hath a good voice and ear , may without other help ) learn to sing true by notes . design'd chiefly for , and applied to , the promoting of psalmody ; and furnished with variety of psalm-tunes in parts , with directions for that kind of singing . a book of cyphers , or letters reverst : being a work very pleasant and useful , as well for gentlemen as all sorts of artificers , engravers , painters , carvers , chacers , embroiderers , &c. where you may find a cypher for any name whatsoever , curiously composed after the newest mode . by jeremiah marlow . price bound 5 s. a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . in octavo . price 3 d. a discourse against transubstantiation . in octavo . price 3 d. the state of the church of rome when the reformation began , as it appears by the advices given to paul iii. and julius iii. by creatures of their own. with a preface leading to the matter of the book . 4 o. a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecter's defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholic letter . in four dialogues . 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry : in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . 4 o. the protestant resolv'd : or , a discourse , shewing the vnreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . second edition . 4 o. a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy , d. d. and late minister of st. lawrence-jury , lond. jan. 7th , 1685 / 6. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . 2d edition . a preservative again●t popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part. the fourth edition . the second part of the preservative against popery : shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of unlearned protestants . the second edition . these four last by william sherlook , d. d. master of the temple . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59819-e160 johan . launoius nicolao gatinaeo , ep. 13. vol. 8. a letter to a member of the convention of states in scotland by a lover of his religion and country. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1689 approx. 15 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 5 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a48200 wing l1684 estc r30992 11759861 ocm 11759861 48651 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a48200) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 48651) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1486:30) a letter to a member of the convention of states in scotland by a lover of his religion and country. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 8 p. s.n.], [edinburg : mdclxxxix [1689] place of publication suggested by wing. reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng james -ii, -king of england, 1633-1701. great britain -history -revolution of 1688. great britain -politics and government -1660-1714 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a letter to a member of the convention of states in scotland by a lover of his religion and country . printed in the year mdclxxxix . a letter to a member of the convention of states in scotland sir , i had fully determined not to encrease the number of these scriblers , who now a dayes fill the press , with every little product of their empty brain : and lov'd better to please my self with reading other mens opinions ; than hazard my own to the censure of the world. but when i consider the great heats and animosities , among all sorts of people , and the vast pains that some violent men are at , to throw us back into a thousand worse miseries , than these from which god has most graciously delivered us : the duty i owe to my religion , to my country , and the particular freindship i bear to you , will not suffer me any more to be silent . you are now called together , sir , by his highness the prince of orange , to consult and deliberate , what methods will be most proper to secure our religion , laws and liberties ; in order to which , the first thing that will fall under your consideration , is the setling the soveraign power . i take for granted , that you are fully convinced , that k : iames the 7th : by his many violations of the fundamental laws , by his endeavouring to establish a despotick and arbitrary povver , and introduce popery , ( tho he himself had confirmed all the laws that were enacted in favours of the protestant religion , ) has thereby subverted the constitution , and that our miseries might have no redress from him , has left us in a time when we needed his protection most . the eyes of all europe are upon you , and it is in your power to make your selves and your posterity either happy or miserable ; by making a choise either to call back the same king iames , and hazard once more all that men account dear , to his mercy , or to settle the government on some other , under whom you may live quiet and peaceable lives , without the perpetual terror of being swallowed up by popery and arbitrary government , which all good men hoped were now quite banished , and yet behold a new off spring is sprung up , which plead eagerly for both , tho' under the mistaken names of duty and allegiance ; it 's strange that any man can so far degenerate , as to prefer slavery to liberty , and that they should be so much in love with chains , that when they were fairly shaken off , they should run furiously to be fettered again ; as if the ottoman and french government were so charming in our countrey that we cannot not live without it , tho' we have so lately groaned under the dismal burden of it : and it might have been supposed that even these who had been instrumental in enslaving their fellow-brethren , and were grown fat with sucking in the nations blood ; would have taken another method to reconcile themselves , than by perswading us to purchase their safety , at so vast an expence as the ruine of more than three parts of the nation will necessarly amount to . do but a little reflect sir , on the motives which these men ( blinded by self interest ) make use of , to delude the nation into a security , that wanted very little of proving fatal to it , and compare them with the strong reasons , we have to disswade us from being so imposed on , and they will be found so weak , and impertinent , that you must judge it next to impossibility , to suffer our selves to be twice deceived . but if the experience of our former miseries , so lately hanging over our heads , ( the very thoughts of renewing which make all good men to tremble ) has not made us wiser , and be not of efficacy enough , to deterr us from venturing another shipwrack , and exposing all again to the discretion of a roman catholick ; it 's more than probable that god has abandoned us , and given us up to believe strong delusions . first , sir , they will endeavour to perswade you , that kings are eximed from punishments here on earth , and nothing they do can be quarrelled by their subjects ; which indeed might with some reason be urged among the turks , who reserve nothing from the power of their sultans and where its death to dispute his commands , tho' never so arbitrary and tyrranical : but with what impudence can such stuff be imposed on us , who never admit our kings to the government , till they swear to rule us according to lavv and no otherways ? the lavvs are the only security we have for our lives and properties , which if our soveraign subvert , subjects cannot be blamed , for making use of the ordinary means to preserve them , and since that cannot be done without withdrawing obedience from such a magistrate as goes about to destroy them , such an act cannot properly be said to punish him , ( because we take nothing from him to which he has a just claim ) but do only shun the occasion of making our selves miserable . the speculative doctrine of passive obedience , has done too much mischief among us , and what has befallen the king may be justly imputed to it , for the believing that without opposition he might do what he pleased , encouraged him to take such measures as have drawn all these misfortunes on him . secondly , others are so fond as to believe , that we may be secure in calling the king back , providing they so limit him , that it will not be in his power to hurt us : these men do not consider , how small a complement this is to a man of the kings temper , from an absolute prince as he was pleased to fancy himself , to content himself with the bare title of a king , and how insupportable the change must be , if from being master of all , he must force himself to comply with a thousand masters and see his throne become his prison . but how airy is it to fancy , that any restrictions of our contrivance can bind the king. for 1 st . it 's most certain they can never be voluntary , and what is constrained and done by force , is by lavv declared to be void and null ; to whose assistance the popes dispensing power being joined , would quickly blow off these samson-cords , and the royal power would again revive with all its vigour and lustre . secondly , the king is of a religion that has in a famous council decreed , that no faith is to be kept with hereticks , much less with subjects whom he looks upon as so many rebels , and will not miss to treat them as such , when ever they give him the opportunity of doing it , for his greatest admirers do not runn to that height of idolatry , to imagine him so much angel , as not to take all methods to revenge so great an affront , and secure himself at our cost from such a treatment for the future , the apprehension of which resentment , will strike such terror in mens minds , that nothing will be capable to divert them , from offering up all for an atonement , and popery and slavery will be thought a good bargain , if they can but save their lives : then we may lament our miseries , but it will not be in our power to help them , for a prince of orange is not alwayes ready to rescue us , with such vast expence and so great hazard to his person , and if our madness hurry us so far , we deserve rather his pity than his resentment . thirdly , what argument has the king given since he left us , to perswade us he will be more faithful in observing his words and oaths , than hitherto he has been ? does he not in a letter lately printed here , expresly say he has ruled so , as to give no occasion of complaint to any of his subjects ? is not the same letter signed by one , who sacrificed both conscience and honour to interest , whose pernicious and head-strong councils has posted him to his ruine , tho all that has been done cannot make him sensible of it ? sure the reducing hereticks to the see of rome , is not less meretorious than before , nor king iames the 7 th . by breathing the french air a little become less bigot , it were a dream to fancy it ; for so long as the vatican thunders excommunications , against all such as do not use their outmost endeavour to extirpate heresie ; a roman catholick must have no religion at all if they be not terrible to him . the third argument they make use of to perswade such as are , and shall be chosen members of the convention , that it 's their interest to call back the king , is that the peace and happiness of the nation , cannot be otherways secured , nor factions or divisions extinguished ; but what factions sir do you observe , but such as they themselves do foment on purpose , to disturb our harmony ? all which would immediately die , if the government were once setled on these who deserved it best , for then if these fopps continued still fond of popery and tyranny , they would be chastised , as disturbers of the publick peace . the argument may very justly be retorted , for if the king return wee will burst out into a flame , and england which has already declared , will quickly be on our top , an enemy too potent and too numerous for us , tho we were all united , besides the danger to which such a procedure will expose us , we cut off all hopes of an union with that nation , and thereby deprive our selves of an unspeakable advantage , which would redound to all sorts of people , and would be the only means to support an impoverish'd and sinking nation . neither is this the only inconveniencie , tho it be a very great one , for if we state our selves in opposition to england , by restoring the king whom they rejected , it is not to be doubted but he will use his outmost endeavour to recover that kingdom the loss of which is so considerable . now seeing it were vain to suppose that the scots alone were able to second his desires , he must needs have recourse to the french and irish , whose religion will procure a more entire confidence , than his majesty can repose in any others . these therefore must be received into our bosome , and because scotland is the most proper place , for invading england , it must be the scene of all the blood and confusion that this melancholly thought gives us a prospect of . the happy success the prince his enterprise has met with , has made a considerable alteration in the affairs of europe , for that great enemy of the protestants and even of christianity it self , who had propos'd nothing less to himself than an vniversal monarchy , whom the strictest leagues and contracts cannot bind , but without regard to god or man , threatens all his neighbours with utter desolation ; by the scen's being changed among us , is so far humbled that from a proud and insulting enemy , he is become a supplicant for peace , well fore-seeing that if britain join with those other princes , whom his insolence , cruelty , and avarice , has so justly armed against him , his ruine is inevitable ; so that if we have not soul enough to enjoy this great blessing , and can easily part with the glory of being once more the arbiters of europe , let us at least have so much christian love and charity , for the neighbouring nations of our own perswasion , as not to expose them to a necessary participation of these plagues , which our common enemies are prepraing for us , and which will certainly terminat in all our destructions . lastly , sir , i beseech you to consider what persons they are who would instill this poyson in you , and you will find them of three kinds , first those who postponeing the common good of the nation , are wholly acted by self interest , considering that in a government where iustice and mercy equally flourish , vertue and merit , not villany will be rewarded . 2 dly . they who are ignorant of the nature of government , and were never at the pains to inform themselves what measures the lavv of nature , and nations , have set to mens obedience , but are angry at every thing that thwarts their wild notions , and will admit of nothing tho' never so reasonable and convincing , if their dull capacities cannot reach it . the 3 d. sort are such as have been instrumental in enslaving their countrey , and are afraid if they be called to an account , they may be brought to suffer condign punishment , if such cannot succeed in their design they at least hope to be overlookt in a general confusion , so they leave nothing unessayed that may tend to their own safety ; and if heaven fail them , they summond hell to their aid , not that love to their prince but meer ambition and interest , drives these criminals to such attempts , neither are they much to blame , if they are at such pains to sow divisions among us : but no person of your witt and iudgement nor any good man that is truly protestant and minds the good of his country , will suffer himself to be so grosly imposed on by such fire-brands , who would build their future imaginary greatness , on the ruine of our religion , laws and countrey . sir , your humble servant . a sermon preached at white-hall, before the queen, on the 17th of june, 1691 being the fast-day / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1691 approx. 43 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59878 wing s3349 estc r15763 12255835 ocm 12255835 57454 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59878) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 57454) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 899:1) a sermon preached at white-hall, before the queen, on the 17th of june, 1691 being the fast-day / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [34] p. printed w. rogers ..., london : 1691. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sermons, english -17th century. fast-day sermons. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached at white-hall , before the queen , on the 17th of june , 1691 , being the fast-day . by william sherlock , d. d. dean of st. paul's , and master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to their majesties . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church , in fleet-street . 1691. lxxvii psalm 10 , 11 , 12. and i said , this is my infirmity ; but i will remember the years of the right hand of the most high. i will remember the works of the lord : surely i will remember thy wonders of old . i will meditate also of all thy works , and talk of thy doings . the psalmist , at the penning of this psalm , was oppressed with very black and desponding thoughts : the state of the church seems to have been very calamitous , they had been so long and so grievously afflicted , that he began to question , whether god would ever be merciful to them again : will the lord cast off for ever : and will he be favourable no more ? is his mercy clean gone for ever ? doth his promise fail for evermore ? hath god forgotten to be gracious ? hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies ? but in my text he recollects himself , confesses his wickedness and sin in giving the least entertainment to such unworthy thoughts of god , as if he could forget his promise and covenant , which he had made to their fathers abraham , isaac , and jacob , this is my infirmity ; want of faith and trust in god's promises : and to cure this diffidence , to revive his dying hopes , and to confirm his faith in god , he calls to mind those glorious deliverances which god had wrought for his church , and his people israel in former ages : i will remember the years of the right hand of the most high ; those days when god did so visibly deliver israel with his own right hand ; as it follows 14 , 15 verses , thou art the god that doest wonders ; thou hast declared thy strength among the people . thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people , the sons of jacob and joseph . and instances in those miraculous deliverances in aegypt , the red sea , and the wilderness , as a reason and foundation of a firm faith and trust in god in all ages ; these are those works of the lord , and wonders of old , which he will remember , which he will meditate , and talk of , with which he will support his spirit , whatever dangers seem to threaten the final ruin and desolation of the church ; which is the argument of the 80 psalm 14 , 15. return , we beseech thee , o god of hosts : look down from heaven , and behold and visit this vine , and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted , and the branch that thou madest strong for thy self . that god had made a covenant with abraham , and chose his seed and posterity for his peculiar people ; that he had delivered them out of aegypt by a mighty hand , and an out stretched arm ; that he had given them passage through the red sea , and fed them in the wilderness forty years ; that he had fought their battles for them , and given them possession of the land of canaan , as he had promised to their fathers ; that he had in all succeeding ages protected them by a visible providence , raised up judges and saviours to deliver them out of the hands of their enemies , when they cried to him ; this was a sure foundation of their faith and hope , that god would not utterly cast off his people , but though for their sins , he might deliver them into the hands of their enemies , yet when they repented of their evil ways , and returned unto god , god also would return , and be merciful unto them . and this is the wisest course we can take , whatever troubles we suffer , whatever we fear , whatever our sins have deserved , whatever our enemies threaten , to remember the works of the lord , and his wonders of old , to meditate of all his works , and to talk of his doings . and this is what i at present intend , to make such remarks on the providence of god towards the jewish church , not omitting the experience the christian church has had of the same kind , and watchful providence , as may be of present use to us , both to direct us what we must do , and to give us a firm hope and trust in god's mercy ; for god is always the same under all the dispensations of his grace and providence ; and as the jewish church was a type of the christian , so god's providence towards them , assures us , what we may expect in like circumstances , or else the scriptures of the old testament would be of very little use to us now , whereas st. paul tells us , that these things happened to them for ensamples , and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come , 1 cor. 10 , 11. but what difference there is between their state and ours , and how far we are concerned in the examples , i shall distinctly observe under the several particulars , as there is occasion for it : i. first then i observe as st. paul did , that the gifts and calling of god are without repentance , 11. rom. 29. god having made a covenant with abraham , and chosen his seed for his peculiar people , whatever their provocations were , he would never wholly cast them off ; he many times very severely punished them , delivered them into the hands of their enemies , who oppressed them , the aramites , and moabites , and aegyptians , and assyrians , and at last into the hands of nebucadnezar , who destroyed their city and temple , and carried them captive into babylon , where they continued seventy years , and then they returned into their own country , and rebuilt their temple and city , and so continued till in punishment of their great sin in crucifying their messias , and for their obstinate infidelity , they were finally destroyed by the romans , and dispersed into all nations , and have never been a nation since ; that is , till christ came , who was the promised seed , in whom all the nations of the world are blessed , as st. paul proves , 3 gal. 16. to abraham and his seed were the promises made : he saith not , vnto seeds , as of many ; but as of one , and to thy seed , which is christ. i say till christ , who was the promised seed , and typified by isaac , came , the carnal posterity of abraham , descending from isaac and jacob , were the typical israel , and god's peculiar people , and visible church on earth , and all this while god never wholly cast them off ; but when christ came , then the promise was established to the spiritual seed of abraham , those who are the children of abraham by faith in christ , as the apostle proves in the same place , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9. and in several other places : and this is the answer , which the apostle gives to that terrible objection against christ's being the messias , and god's owning the christian church for his peculiar and elect people , as formerly he did the jews ; that then god's promise to abraham and his seed fails : his answer is , that the promise to abraham and his seed , was meant of christ , and his spiritual seed , those who are the children of abraham by faith in christ ; as he proves at large in the 9 , 10 , 11 chapters to the romans ; though he gives another answer to this too , that though the promises do no longer belong to abraham's carnal seed , yet god so far remembers his covenant with abraham and his carnal seed , that he has not wholly cast them off , but will in time engraft them into his church again by faith in christ : for out of sion shall come the deliverer , and shall turn away ungodliness from jacob. but i cannot enlarge on this now . to apply this then to the times of the gospel : we certainly learn from god's care of the jewish church , that god will always preserve and protect the christian church , that the true faith of christ , and his true and sincere worshippers shall never wholly fail in the world , as christ promises , that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church : for god established an everlasting covenant with abraham and his seed , that is , with christ , and the christian church , who are the true spiritual seed of abraham ▪ to whom the promises belong ; and if god so punctually performed his promise to the carnal seed of abraham , while they were to be his visible church until christ came , who was the promised seed , we learn by that example , how he will protect , defend , and support the christian church to the end of the world ; till christ the promised seed return again to judge the world , to put an end to all things , and to receive his church into the kingdom of his father . to this we owe the continuance and preservation of the christian church to this day , amidst all the dangers which have threatned its final ruin ; when the church is tossed on the foaming billows of this world , like the ship into which christ and his disciples entred : 8 matth. 23 , 24 , 25. when there arose a great tempest in the sea , insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves ; and christ was asleep , and his disciples came to him , and awoke him , saying , lord , save us ; we perish . and he saith unto them , why are ye so fearful , o ye of little faith ? then he arose and rebuked the wind and the sea , and there was a great calm . this was a figure and emblem of the condition the church is very often in in this world : for most of our saviour's miracles had some spiritual significations in them : his curing the halt , and blind , and lame , and deaf , represented his diviner power in curing the diseases and distempers of our souls , in making the blind to see , and the deaf to hear , and the lame to walk ; and therefore when he cured the man that was born blind , he turned his discourse to spiritual blindness , 9 john 39 , 40 , 41. when he had fed that great multitude with a few loaves and small fishes , he discourses to them of that bread that comes down from heaven , and will nourish them unto eternal life , and which he only could give them , 6 john , when he discoursed with martha about raising her brother lazarus from the dead , he preaches to her his divine power to raise dead souls as well as dead bodies , into immortal life , 11 john 25 , 26. when the disciples at christ's command had cast their net into the sea , [ after having toiled all night and taken nothing ] and encompassed a great multitude of fishes , he tells them the meaning of it , that he would make them fishers of men. thus here christ's rebuking the wind and sea , which were ready to swallow up the ship , wherein he and his disciples were , is a figure of the state of the church in this world , and of his readiness to protect it : how threatning soever the dangers are , christ is in the ship , and all the powers of the world , how much soever they rage and foam , can never swallow up that ship , wherein christ is , unless they can swallow him up too : and though he may seem to be asleep , and to take no notice of the sufferings and dangers of his church , yet the importunate prayers and cries of his disciples will awake him , and then he will arise to their defence , and hush the winds and seas into a calm . this the church had frequent experience of under the pagan persecutions , which raged with fire and sword , and all the witty arts of cruelty ; when nothing would serve but the final extirpation of the name of christians : but how often did christ rebuke the wind and sea , and restore profound peace and rest to his chuch ? what a glorious triumph did he give his church over the last and most terrible efforts of the pagan powers , when he raised constantine into the throne , and made the empire christian ? and this is a very comfortable consideration to us at this time : the protestant churches which profess the pure and uncorrupt faith and worship of christ , as to all the essentials of faith and worship , have now for many years groaned under the antichristian tyranny and persecutions , and now at last , and i hope it may be the last , as it is the most terrible insult of the anti-christian powers , a great and mighty prince bends his whole force to root out the protestant name , as well as to usurp upon the liberties of europe : what he has done in his own country , and where-ever his power and influence reached , i need not tell you : from some of his subjects he has forced away their faith ; others to keep their faith have lost their estates , their liberty , their country , their lives . what danger we were in at home , we all saw and felt not long since , though some men would now perswade us , it was but a dream ; but it was a very terrible dream , if it was one , and thanks be to god that we are awakened out of it , and may we never fall into such frightful slumbers more ; or rather let us neither be lulled asleep , nor dream awake , lest these frightful dreams prove realities at last . for should that mighty monarch prevail , and like an irresistible torrent bear all before him ; as some kind friends to the liberties of europe , and the protestant name and interest , wish and pray he may ; it requires not a spirit of prophesy , to foretel what will become of protestants : but our hope and trust is in god , that the true christian faith shall never be rooted out ; and i am as certainly perswaded , that the protestant faith and worship , as to the essentials of it , and as opposed to popery , is the true christian faith and worship , as i am of the truth and certainty of christianity itself : and when i remember by what little beginnings , and weak and contemptible means , god spread the true light of the gospel over great part of the european world , when it was covered with the aegyptian darkness , and oppressed by the unsupportable tyranny of popery ; notwithstanding all the follies , divisions and miscarriages of protestants , i cannot fear , that god will cause our sun to set again , and that he will finally remove his gospel from us ; and that gives great reason to hope , that he will check the pride and ambition , and put a stop to the successes of a prince , who glories in the extirpation of his protestant subjects , and at once enslaves both the bodies and the souls of men ; who challenges as absolute a dominion over the faith , as over the estates of his vassals , to fill his exchequer and purgatory together . this i am sure , we ought heartily to beg of god in our most solemn prayers and fasts ; and those who scruple this , if they understand themselves , must never say the lord's prayer more , wherein our saviour has taught us to pray , thy kingdom come , which those who wish success to persecuting and antichristian powers , do not and cannot pray . ii. i observe farther , that as god's covenant with abraham and his posterity , was sure and stedfast , that no provocations could ever tempt him utterly to destroy them , so he never inflicted any publick judgments and calamities on them , but when he was greatly provoked by their sins . this was god's express covenant with them , 26 levit. that if they walked in his statutes , and kept his commandments , then he would bestow all temporal blessings on them , rain in its season , and the encrease of their land , in corn , and wine , and oyl ; peace at home , and victory abroad , and his special presence and favour : i will set my tabernacle amongst you ; and my soul shall not abhor you , and i will walk among you , and will be your god , and you shall be my people . but if they would not hearken unto him , and would not do all his commandments , then he threatens all sorts of evils should befal them , sickness of body , to flie before their enemies , the unfruitfulness and barrenness of their land , that they shall be a prey to wild beasts , that the sword shall devour them , and they shall be enslaved to their enemies , and buy their own bread of them ; that they should suffer famine to such extremity , as to eat their owns sons and daughters , that he would lay wast their cities , and make their country desolate ; and carry them away captive into foreign countries , as you may see at large in that chapter : this was his covenant with them ; and this he punctually observed : whenever they did obey him , they were a happy and prosperous people , their enemies crouched before them , they injoyed plenty and peace , enlarged their borders , and made their neighbours subjects and tributaries to them ; and tho' god did not always punish them according to their deserts , yet he never did inflict any publick or national judgments on them , but when they were grown very corrupt and wicked in their manners ; as it were easie to shew from the history of those times and all the remarkable judgments god inflicted on them . now , i must confess when we apply this to the christian church , the case is very different , for god has not so expresly covenanted with the christian church for external peace and prosperity , as he did with the jews ; they were the carnal seed and posterity of abraham , heirs of an earthly canaan and external prosperity , but the spiritual seed of abraham are heirs of spiritual and eternal blessings , which were typified by the carnal promises made to the jewish church : the christian church was founded in the sufferings of our lord ; the christian faith was at first propagated by the courage , patience , and sufferings of the apostles , and the primitive martyrs and confessors : the terms our saviour proposes to us are , if any man will come after me , let him deny himself , and take up his cross , and follow me : he that loveth his life , shall lose it , but he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it : and therefore the most sincere believers , and most exemplary christians , may suffer very severely in this world , and their support and comfort is , that they shall be proportionably rewarded in the next : this was the great objection the jews made against christians being the sons and peculiar people of god , that they were hated and persecuted for the faith of christ , and god suffered them to be so ; whereas he had promised all temporal prosperity to the observance of his laws and statutes ; and if believing in christ had been the will and commandment of god , he would certainly have made good all the promises of their law to the disciples of jesus : an objection which very much troubled many believing jews themselves , who did not thoroughly understand the difference between the jewish and christian dispensation , between the law of moses , and the gospel of christ , and therefore is particularly answered by st. paul , 8 rom. and in the 7 heb. but this shews , that their faith and worship of christ is not always rewarded with external prosperity , and we must not expect it should be , and consequently that very severe sufferings and persecutions may befal christians , not always for the correction and punishment of their sins , but for the trial of their faith and patience , to make them conformed to their suffering head , to prepare them for richer and brighter crowns , to convince and convert their persecutors , and to propagate the christian faith in the world. though it is observed by some of the ancient fathers , and particularly by st. cyprian , that god never sent a general persecution upon the christian church , but when their sins , the general declension of piety and discipline , their worldly mindedness , the formality and coldness of their devotions called for a scourge . thus it was with the church , while it sojourned , as i may so speak , in the world , as in a strange land , had no place of its own , no earthly power and authority to support it , but lived under pagan powers , was intermixt with them , and oppressed by them , when they pleased ; but the case of a christian nation , where the power and authority is christian , seems very different , and to come nearer the state of the jewish church ; for god does not use to inflict publick judgments and calamities upon nations , but for the punishment of some publick and national sins : and , therefore a christian nation , which professes the true faith and worship of christ , preserves the reverence of religion , corrects and suppresses vice , may expect to be blessed with all external prosperity ; for righteousness , exalteth a nation ; it does so in its natural tendency and effects , and it does so by the blessing of god ; and therefore when god brings any publick judgments upon a nation professing the true faith of christ , we have reason to take notice of god's anger and displeasure ; to inquire what is amiss among us ; what that accursed thing is , which hath provoked god to jealousie , and made him take the rod into his hand . we have then reason to humble our selves before god , to deprecate his anger and displeasure ; to turn from all the evil of our ways , that he may return , and be merciful to us . but there is one thing worth observing , which may be matter of hope and comfort to us at this time , that god never delivered the jewish church into the hands of their enemies to oppress them , never carried them away into captivity , excepting the last destruction of jerusalem , in punishment of their sin in crucifying their messias , but only when they were guilty of idolatry : a corruption of manners might bring other judgments upon them ; but it was generally , and i think always , for their idolatry , that god made their enemies rule over them , and carried them captive into a strange land . this we have a summary account of , judges 2. how that after the death of joshua and those elders who had seen all that god did for them , they forsook the lord , and served baal and ashtaroth ; and the anger of the lord was kindled against them , and god deliver'd them into the hands of spoilers , who spoiled them , v. 11 , 12 , &c. for this sin of idolatry , the ten tribes were carried away into a perpetual captivity , and judah carried captive to babylon , which they were threatned with by the prophets , for their whoredoms , that is , their idolatries , 2 , 4 , 5. chapt . of hosea ; and this is the account the prophet jeremy gives of it , like as ye have forsaken me , and served strange gods in your land , so shall ye serve strangers in a land which is not yours , 5 jer. 19. now in proportion to god's dealing with the jewish church , we have reason to hope , that though a church and nation which professes the true faith and worship of christ , may be severely punished for their other sins , yet while they preserve themselves clean from spiritual fornication , from all antichristian idolatries , god will not un-church them , nor deliver them finally up into the power of idolatrous oppressors : i am sure we of this nation , ever since the reformation of religion among us , though god has made us smart severely for our other sins , have yet always found a watchful providence defending us from all attempts , though contrived with art and skill , and backed with power , to reduce us again under the roman yoke . may the same good providence still watch over us , and defend us , and neither suffer our popish enemies to rejoice over us , nor deluded protestants to make dangerous and fatal experiments . 3dly . when god did think fit to correct his people , he always kept the rod in his own hand , and prescribed the measures and continuance of their sufferings . this is so plain , from all the promises and threatnings of the law , and from the examples of god's providence towards israel , that there is no need to multiply particular instances . there was no good nor evil befel israel , but by a particular providence ; god inflicted judgments on them when he saw fit , and he removed them again ; he gave commission to plague , and sword , and famine , which they could not exceed . in the 26. levit. we may observe , that god proportion'd his judgments to their sins . when their sins were grown so publick and national , as to deserve some publick judgments , yet at first god threatens them with some more light and gentle punishments ; but if they continued incorrigible , he tells them he had more terrible judgments in reserve for them ; which proves , that god determines the kinds , degrees , and continuance of his judgments . when david for his sin in numbring the people , had that hard choice given him , of seven years famine , or to flee three months before his enemies , or three days pestilence ; he answers , let me fall now into the hands of the lord , ( for his mercies are great ) and let me not fall into the hand of man , 2 sam. 24. 14. that is , he chose pestilence before the sword ; for pestilence is god's immediate hand ; and tho the sword be god's judgment too , yet it is put into the hands of men , who gratifie their own lust and rage , and revenge with it . and yet , tho god leaves more to man in this , than in any other judgments , he does not put the sword wholly out of his own hands , when he puts it into the hands of men , but gives laws to it ; as appears from the example of the king of assyria , whom god sent against jerusalem , to take the spoil , and to take the prey , and to tread them down like the mire in the street . howbeit he meaneth not so , neither doth his heart think so , but it is in his heart to destroy , and cut off nations , not a few : wherefore it shall come to pass , that when the lord hath performed his whole work upon mount zion , ( what he himself , not what the king of assyria intended to do ) , i will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of assyria , and the glory of his high looks , 10 isa. 5 , 6 , 7 , — 12. now god has the same tender care of a christian nation , that he had of israel ; he mingles our cup for us , he prescribes what we shall suffer , and how long : and he corrects as a father , not to destroy , but to reform ; and this is a mighty comfort , that whatever men threaten , we are in the hands of god , who has the winds and seas at his command , who giveth salvation to kings , who delivereth david his servant from the hurtful sword , psal. 144. 10. the most powerful oppressors are but the rod of god's anger ; the more fierce and savage instruments god employs to correct us , we may conclude , the more angry god is ; but whatever the rod is , it is god that strikes , who knows when to strike , and when to spare : we never have any reason to be afraid of men , whatever their power , how great soever their rage and vengeance be ; but ought to pray to god as the prophet does , o lord , correct me , but with judgment , not in thine anger , lest thou bring me to nothing , jer. 10. 24. o lord rebuke me not in thine anger , neither chasten me in thy sore displeasure ; have mercy upon me , o lord , for i am weak , o lord heal me , for my bones are vexed , psal. 6. 1 , 2. or as it is in psal. 56. 1 , 2 , 3. be merciful to me , o god , for man would swallow me up , he fighting daily oppresseth me ; mine enemies would daily swallow me up , for they be many that rise up against me , o thou most high. what time i am afraid , i will trust in thee ; in god i will praise his word ; in god i have put my trust , i will not fear what flesh can do unto me . 4thly , when god does think fit to correct his people , yet he always removes his judgments upon their sincere repentance : this was god's express covenant with israel , 26. levit. 40 , 41 , 42. if they shall confess their iniquity , and the iniquity of their fathers , with the trespass which they trespassed against me ; and also that they have walked contrary to me , and that i also have walked contrary to them , and have brought them into the land of their enemies ; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled , and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquities , then will i remember my covenant with jacob , and also my covenant with isaac , and also my covenant with abraham will i remember , and i will remember the land . thus in the time of the judges , when god for their sins delivered them into the hands of their enemies , when they cried to god , he raised up saviours for them : nay , many times , when their repentance was not very sincere , nor lasting , yet in great goodness and compassion he spared them : when he slew them , then they sought him , and returned , and inquired early after god ; and they remembred that god was their rock , and the high god their redeemer ; nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth , and they lied unto him with their tongue , for their heart was not right with him , neither were they stedfast in his covenant ; but he being full of compassion forgave their iniquities , and destroyed them not ; yea many a time turned he his anger away , and did not stir up all : his wrath ; for he remembred that they were but flesh , a wind that passeth away , and cometh not again , 78 psalm 34 , &c. so that how angry soever god be ; we have a certain way of appeasing his anger . nothing but sin can provoke a merciful god , and a compassionate father to punish ; he has a great tenderness for all his creatures ; he doth not afflict willingly , nor grieve the children of men ; and therefore he is more easily appeased , than he is provoked ; judgment is his strange work , but he delights in acts of mercy , and seems pleased with an honourable occasion to shew mercy , without exposing his laws and government to contempt : and therefore repentance and reformation will always appease him ; nay sometimes we see , that the very shews and appearance of a publick and solemn repentance , though it be not so sincere and hearty as it ought to be , makes him stay his hand , and expect our return . and this is a great encouragement , and a powerful obligation on us to return to god when he strikes , to humble our selves under his mighty hand , for there is no other way to remove his judgments , and this will do it . it is a vain thing to trust in armies and navies , in the courage and conduct of princes and generals , when our sins fight against us , when god refuses to go forth with our armies : for no king is saved by the multitude of an host ; a horse is a vain thing for safety , neither shall he deliver any by his great strength ; but the eyes of the lord are upon them that fear him , upon them that hope in his mercies . 33 psal. 16 , 17 , 18. nay , the justice and righteousness of our cause will not always secure us of success ; for those who have a very just cause , may deserve to be punished ; and then god may justly punish them , and deliver them into the hands of their enemies : god does not always determine what is right and wrong by the events of war ; for he is the sovereign judge of the world , and may punish a wicked nation by unjust oppressors , as he often did the israelites . the profession of the true religion will not always secure us , when our sins cry for vengeance : when the jews cried , the temple of the lord , the temple of the lord ; the prophet told them , they trusted in lying words ; for will ye steal , and murder , and commit adultery , and swear falsly , and burn incense to baal , and come and stand before me in this house , which is called by my name , and say , we are delivered to do all these abominations ? 7 jer. 4 , — 10. to glory in the profession of the true faith , or in a vigorous opposition to the errors and corruptions of religion , when we are atheists or infidels in our lives , may make god punish us , but is no reason on our part , why he should save us ; but true and sincere repentance will save us . we profess the sincere faith of christ , we fight in a just cause , if it be lawful to defend our selves against the powerful oppressor of the protestant , that is , the true christian faith , and the liberties of europe ; and we have no reason to fear any thing but our sins : let us but reform our lives , and put away the evil of our doings , and our arms will be as prosperous , as our cause is just : god will then gird our princes and soldiers with strength to the battel ; will teach their hands to war , and their fingers to fight . 5thly . faith and prayer are more powerful than arms ; as it must necessarily be , if god only gives victory and success . this we learn from the whole history of the jews ; the apostle to the hebrews gives us a particular account of the power of faith , 11 heb. 32 , 33 , 34. of gideon , and barach , and sampson , and jeptha , and david , who through faith subdued kingdoms , wrought righteousness , obtained promises , stopped the mouths of lions , quenched the violence of fire , escaped the edge of the sword , out of weakness were made strong , waxed valiant in fight , turned to flight the armies of the aliens . moses his prayer was more powerful than joshua's arms ; for when moses held up his hands , israel prevailed ; when he let down his hands , amalek prevailed , 17 exod. 11. hezekiah's prayer overthrew the assyrian army , when rabshekah came against jerusalem , and reproached them with their trust in god. we must not indeed expect such miraculous victories as god gave to israel ; but this makes no difference ; for the power of faith and prayer is the same still ; and all victory is god's still , who gives success as well by invisible means , and seeming accidents , as by the most visible interposal of a miraculous power : for god gave israel miraculous deliverances ; not because he could not save them without a miracle , but because he would make it visible to all the world , that he was their saviour . but still god hears our prayers , and answers them ; he is still the saviour and deliverer of all those who trust in him , and hope in his mercy ; and therefore the only sure way to conquer our enemies , is to prevail with god by our fervent and importunate prayers for a blessing upon our arms ; to pray in faith , in hope , with an entire dependance on god , and a perfect resignation to his will : thus gideon , and barak , and david , and the worthies of old , subdued kingdoms , waxed valiant in fight , and turned to flight the armies of aliens ; and there is no other way that i know of , still : if god be still the only giver of victory , faith and prayer is still the only way to obtain victory from god ; and therefore if we are cold and remiss in our prayers ; if we do not pray at at all , or expect nothing from our prayers , let us not charge any ill success to ill conduct or cowardize , but to our infidelity and irreligion ; and indeed this is the only melancholly consideration in our present circumstances ; if the courage and conduct of a prince , if the bravery and resolution of soldiers , if a numerous army and navy , if an arm of flesh could give victory , we have reason to hope well ; but if god go not forth with our armies , all our other preparations are vain ; and how can we expect that , when we will not ask it , or only mock god with some formal and customary addresses , without being concerned whether he hears or no ; or without expecting , or at least without trusting and depending on his help ? 6thly . but to encourage those good men , how few soever there are among us , who have a great sense of the divine providence , and a firm trust and faith in god , to be very importunare in their prayers for this church and nation , i observe farther , that god many times has spared a wicked people at the earnest intercessions of some few good men . thus at the intercession of abraham , god promised to have spared sodom , had there been ten righteous persons found in that great city : god spared israel , when they had so provok'd him by their idolatries , that he threatned to destroy them , only at the importunity of moses , as the psalmist observes ; therefore he said , he would destroy them , had not moses his chosen stood before him in the breach , to turn away his wrath , lest he should destroy them , 106 psalm 23. the story of which we have , 32. exod. 7 , 8. at another time , when they had provoked god by their idolatries and whoredoms with the daughters of moab , and the plague broke in among them , then stood up phineas and executed judgment , and the plague was stayed , 25 numb . and therefore when god declared his resolution to punish them , he forbad his prophet so much as to pray for them . 7. jer. 16. and in 14. ezek. 14. professes , that he would not accept of any intercessions for them : tho these three men , noah , daniel , and job , were in it , yet they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness , saith the lord : which supposes , that at another time , the intercessions of these good men would have prevailed ; and that it is very extraordinary for god to deny it . and if the importunate prayers of a few good men may obtain victory and success , and save a church and nation ; let every good man at this time cry mightily to god , especially as the prophet isaiah exhorts , ye that make mention of the lord , keep not silence , and give him no rest , till he make jerusalem a praise in the earth , 62. isa. 6 , 7. 7thly . to add no more , and it is a very comfortable consideration , god many times saved israel for his own names sake , when their sins provoked him to destroy them . 48. isa. 9. for my name sake will i defer mine anger , and for my praise will i refrain for thee , that i cut thee not off . 11. v. for mine own sake , even for mine own sake will i do it ; for how should my name be polluted ? and i will not give my glory to another . thus god assigns the reason , why he did not destroy israel in the wilderness , when they so highly provoked him . i wrought for my name sake , that it should not be polluted before the heathen , among whom they were , in whose sight i made my self known unto them , in bringing them forth out of the land of egypt , 20. ezek. 9. that is , they were god's peculiar people , the only worshippers of the lord jehovah , whom he had brought out of egypt by a mighty hand , to make his name known in the world ; and though they never so much deserved to be destroyed , had he then destroyed them , his own great name would have suffered with them ; as moses pleaded with god ; wherefore should the egyptians say , for mischief did he bring them out to slay them in the mountains , and to consume them from the face of the earth ? 32. exod. 12. and thus the psalmist prays , help us , o god of our salvation , for the glory of thy name , and deliver us , and purge away our sins for thy name sake ; wherefore should the heathen say , where is their god ? let him be known among the heathen in our sight , by revenging the blood of thy servants , which is shed , 79. psalm 9. 10. and this is matter of hope to us , that tho our sins are very great , yet god will not utterly destroy us , but will send deliverance for his name sake ; for the sake of that holy faith which is professed among us ; lest our antichristian enemies should triumph and say , where is now their god ? when the preservation of a wicked people is for the defence and honour of the true christian faith , we have reason to hope , and good men have a very powerful argument to plead with god , that he will save us for his own names sake . finis . books published by the reverend dr. sherlock , dean of st. paul's , and master of the temple . an answer to a discourse entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . 2d edition . 4to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer , 4to . a sermon at the funeral of the reverend benjamin calamy , d. d. 4to . a vindication of some protestant principles of church unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . 4to . a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests . first part , 4to . 5th edition . a second part of the preservative against popery . 2d edit . 4to . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit , 4to . a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. 4to . a sermom before the right honourable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday , nov. 4. 1688. 4to . a practical discourse concerning death . fifth edition . 8vo a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god ; occasioned by the brief notes on the creed of st. athanasius , and the brief history of the vnitarians or socinians ; and containing an answer to both . 4to . the second edition . the case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers stated and resolved , according to scripture and reason , and the principles of the church of england ; with a more particular respect to the oath lately enjoined , of allegiance to their present majesties king william and queen mary . 4to . the sixth edition . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to sovereign powers : in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet , entituled , obedience and submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop overall's convocation-book ; with a postscript in answer to dr. sherlook's case of allegiance , &c. 4to . printed for william rogers . a papist not misrepresented by protestants being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to (a papist misrepresented and represented.) sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 114 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 37 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59834 wing s3306 estc r8108 11902912 ocm 11902912 50614 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59834) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50614) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:6) a papist not misrepresented by protestants being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to (a papist misrepresented and represented.) sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [3], 71 p. printed for ric. chiswel ..., london : 1686. attributed to william sherlock. cf. halkett & laing (2nd ed.). the reflections upon the answer is by j. gother. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. 1704. -reflections upon the answer to the papist mis-represented. catholic church -controversial literature. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur . c. alston r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domesticis . decemb. 29. 1685. a papist not misrepresented by protestants . being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to [ a papist misrepresented and represented . ] london : printed for ric. chiswel , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvi . a reply to the reflections upon the answer to the papist misrepresented , &c. i do not love to be behind-hand in civility with any man , and therefore , in the name of the answerer , i return the reflecter his complement , and that with some advantage : for i heartily thank him for the civility of his language , and more for the civility of his arguments ; and having done this once for all , i shall apply my self to consider his reflections , and will complement no more . his reflections consist principally of two general heads . i. what concerns the misrepresentation of a papist . ii. concerning the rule of true representing . i. the misrepresentation of a papist . and here i confess , he has shewed some art , but very little honesty . he was told in the answer , that some of those misrepresentations which he had made of a papist , and given out for the protestant character of popery , were his own ignorant , or childish , or wilful mistakes . as that papists are never permitted to hear sermons , which they are able to understand ; or , that they held it lawful to commit idolatry ; or , that a papist believes the pope to be his great god , and to be far above all angels . these , i think , may pass for misrepresentations , and very childish and ignorant ones too : and hence the reflecter craftily insinuates , that we grant all his misrepresentations of a papist , to be ignorant , childish , or wilful mistakes ; and is willing to end this dispute ( and i very much commend him for it ) ▪ upon these terms , that his character of a papist misrepresented , should be confessed to be made up of false apprehensions , ignorant , childish , and wilful mistakes ; and that he may use the authority of the answerer to assure his friends and acquaintance ▪ that wheresoever they shall for the future , either hear , or read such things charged upon the papists , they must give it no credit , and esteem it no better than the false apprehensions , ignorant , childish , and wilful mistakes of the relators . this would be a great point gained indeed , and i am sorry we cannot oblige him in it . especially , since he has taken the pains to prove by great and good authorities , that his character of a papist misrepresented , is not made up of such childish mistakes ; but is indeed what the best and wisest men have believed of them ; and this we thank him for . he alleadges the authority of the homilies , a book which we greatly reverence . fox's book of martyrs , where we read , how many were burnt for not believing , as his papist misrepresented believes . bishop ridly ' s writings , a very learned and holy man , who may be supposed to have understood what popery was , and that he was not so fond of misrepresenting , as to burn for it . the publick test , a very authentick and lasting proof of this matter ; with several other good authors he mentions , whose credit is never the worse , because he hath thrust one bad man into the company . nay , he has been so civil , as to grant the answerer to be as very a misrepresenter as the rest ( and he had been a very strange answerer , if he had not ; ) which argues great modesty in him , to desire leave to use his name and authority to condemn the misrepresentation ; that is , to confute his own book , ( which in all the material points , proves what he calls the misrepresentation ( i wo'nt say not to be ignorant mistakes , but ) to be the avowed doctrine and practice of the church of rome ) which is the only way i know of , that it can be confuted ; for unless he condemn it himself , i am sure this reflecter can never confute it . well , but what then is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double character of a papist misrepresented and represented ? why are we so angry with what he calls the misrepresentation , if it be true ? or , what is the fault of it ? this is a mystery which ought to be explained : and i doubt our reflecter will have no reason to glory , that he gave the occasion of it . and i shall do these two things . i. show you what are the faults of the misrepresentation . ii. that allowing for such faults , the papist represented ( excepting some very few cases ) professes to believe all that the papist misrepresented is charged with . i. as for the faults of the misrepresentation , they are briefly these . 1. that he puts such things into the character of a papist , as no man in his wits ever charged them with ; and these the answerer calls childish , and ignorant , or wilful mistakes . 2. that the opinions of protestants concerning popish doctrines and practices , and those ill consequents which are charged , and justly charged upon them , are put into the character of a papist misrepresented , as if they were his avowed doctrine and belief ; which is misrepresenting indeed , but is his own , not our misrepresentation . we charge them with nothing , but what they expresly profess to believe , and what they practise , and we tell them what we think of such doctrines and practices , what their nature , and what their consequences are ; but do not charge them with believing as we believe , concerning these matters ; and therefore it is not fair to put such things into a protestant character of a papist misrepresented . as to give an instance of a like nature ; there are some dissenting protestants , who think it lawful to resist their prince , and take up arms against him : this we say is rebellion ; and yet it would be a very ridiculous misrepresentation of such men , to say , they are those , who believe it lawful to rebel ; for no man believes rebellion , no more than idolatry , to to be lawful : and they no more believe taking up arms in such cases to be rebellion , than the papist thinks his worship of saints and images to be idolatry ; which shows how unjust it is , to put the interpretations and consequences of mens opinions and practices , which they themselves disown , into their character . and tho we never do this , the misrepresenter has done it for us ; which makes it a false character , tho every thing which is said in it may be true . 3. it is still so much the worse , when the interpretations and consequences , which are charged upon mens practices and opinions , are set in the front of the character , as first and original principles . as , to keep to our former instance . to say , that men believe rebellion to be lawful , and therefore make no scruple of taking up arms against their prince ; is a very different thing from saying , that men believe they may lawfully take up arms in some cases , and in doing so are guilty of rebellion . these are some of the principal arts our author has used in drawing the character of a papist misrepresented , as i will presently show in particular . but then on the other hand , to draw a fair character of a papist represented ; he , ( 1. ) as easily he might , denies that he believes those interpretations and consequences , which we charge their doctrines and practices with , and which the misrepresenter has put into their character , and charges them with believing . but , ( 2 ) he generally owns the doctrines and practices , which we charge them with , and attempts to vindicate them , and to put new colours on them ; so that the main difference between us is not in the character , but whether their doctrines and practices be of so hainous a nature as we say they are , which is matter of dispute , not of representation . though , ( 3. ) in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their church , which manifestly is so , and has been proved on them , beyond all possibility of a fair reply , by the learned answerer . that this is the true state of the case , with reference to the two-fold character of a papist misrepresented and represented ; i come now to show , which i shall do in these characters , which he himself has given us of them : only i must desire the reader , for his own satisfaction , to compare what i write with his characters , for i shall not transcribe them at large , both to save my labour and paper . i. of praying to images . the misrepresentation here , as to the matter , is every word true ; but yet is a false character by the second and third rules of misrepresentation . a papist misrepresented , worships stocks and stones for gods. we only charge them with worshipping images ; and the fault of that , we say , is , ( though we never charge them with saying or thinking so ) that they worship stocks and stones for gods. but now to misrepresent us in the character of a papist misrepresented , he makes us charge a papist with believing his images of wood and stone to be gods ; and that this is the reason and foundation , ( not meerly the true interpretation ) of their image-worship ; as he adds , and for this reason he erects stately monuments to them in his churches — falls down prostrate before them , and with his eyes fixed on them , cries out , help me mary , &c. whereas we only charge them with worshipping images , and do say , and prove too , that in the scripture-notion , this is to worship stocks and stones for gods. now comes the representer , and he says , that a papist represented , believes it damnable to worship stocks and stones for gods : that is , he does not believe , that worshipping images , ( as we say , it is ) is worshipping stocks and stones for gods : and whoever said that they did believe this ? but does he worship images or not ? this he grants , when he says , that the honour which is exhibited to the images , is referred to the prototypes , which they represent ; which is all that can be possibly meant by worshipping christ , or his saints , by images ; that they refer all that worship , which they pay to images , to christ , or the saints , whom those images represent . now if they refer that worship , which they give to the image , to christ , they must worship the image ; and this ( image-worship ) is all we expressly charge them with owning . what the nature and true interpretation of this worship is , which we say , is worshipping stocks and stones for gods , we will dispute with them when they please . ii. of worshipping saints . thus the papist misrepresented , is said to make gods of dead men : whereas we only charge them with praying to the virgin mary , and saints departed ; and this we say , is to make gods of them , such gods as the heathens made of their inferior daemons , and intercessors between god and men. and does the representer deny that they pray to saints ? no , but owns and defends it , as well as he can ; and there we are ready to joyn issue with him . well , but he confides in saints as his mediators and redeemers , and expects no blessing , but what is to come to him by their merits , and through their hands . that they trust in saints , as their redeemers , no understanding protestant ever yet said , though they think it a great injury to the intercession of our saviour , to apply to any other advocates , of what nature soever , especially to think , that christ , who died for us , and is our advocate with the father , needs any other advocates to make him merciful and propitious to us ; or that he , who merited with his own blood , needs any additional merits of the saints to make his intercession the more efficacious . but i am not to dispute now , but only represent ; and the papist represented owns all that we protestants charge them with . his arguments and colours must be dismissed , till there be farther occasion to consider them . iii. of addressing more supplications to the virgin mary , than to christ. we charge them with nothing , but what is their daily practice , of saying ten ave maries for one pater noster , or ten prayers to the virgin mary for one to god. and this we think ( if prayer be a sign of honour ) is to honour her ten times more , than they do her son , or god the father ; and if prayer signifie our belief of the power , or interest of that being , to whom we pray to help us , the frequency of our prayers to the virgin must signify , that we expect more help and relief from praying to her , than from directing our prayers immediately to god or christ ; for it is natural to pray oftenest to those , from whose power or intercession ( which is power too ) we expect most . but now our misrepresenter has made a very false character of this , by putting these consequential charges into the character , and setting them in the first place as the reason , not the consequences or interpretation of their frequent prayers to the virgin. that he believes the virgin mary to be much more powerful in heaven than christ , and that she can command him to do what she thinks good ; ( which is not a protestant but a popish misrepresentation , if it be one , it being found in some of their old missals , and modern poets ) and for this reason he honours her more than he does her son , or god the father , for one prayer he says to god , saying ten to the holy virgin. and now the representer might safely deny , that they believe the virgin more powerful than god , or that they intend to honour her more ; for we pretend not to know their private belief and intentions , and therefore never made this a personal charge , but only a charge upon their practice ; he owns the practice , and we 'll make good the charge , when he pleases , not by inquiring into their private intentions , but from the natural interpretation of such actions . iv. of paying divine worship to relicks . we only charge them with giving religious honour to the relicks of saints and martyrs , by falling prostrate , kneeling down to them , kissing them , and going in pilgrimages to their shrines and sepulchers , and expecting aid and help from them , to go to them opis impetrandae causâ , as the council of trent directs . this is matter of fact , and owned by the representer . now we think this is to ascribe divinity to them , if religious worship signifies any divinity in the object of worship . this the misrepresenter puts into the character of a papist , which we never did ; and the representer on the other hand denies , that they believe any such thing , which for ought i know , may be true : but the question is , whether they do not give a divinity to them by worshipping them ? and this we assert they do , and this they may do without believing any divinity in them . v. of the eucharist . as for worshipping the host , we only charge them with worshipping the consecrated bread , which we say is bread still ; but which , they say , is the natural body of christ , which was born of the virgin , and suffered on the cross : and for so doing , some protestants charge them with idolatry in worshipping a breaden god ; and some papists acknowledge it would be idolatry , if what they worshipped were only bread , and not the natural body of christ : but no protestant ever gave such a character of a papist , that he believes it lawful to commit idolatry , that he worships and adores what he believes only to be a breaden god , and the poor empty elements of bread and wine . the question is not , what a papist believes , but what the truth of the thing is ? not whether he believes the host to be only bread , but whether it be so or not ? not whether he believes idolatry to be lawful , but whether he be not guilty of idolatry in worshipping the host ? and therefore this ought not to be put into the character of a papist ; for those who believe that he worships nothing but bread and wine , and is guilty of idolatry in it , do not charge him with believing so . and therefore , the representer , who acknowledges the worship of the host , might very truly deny all the rest . as for transubstantiation , we charge them with believing no more , than what they themselves own ; that the consecrated bread and wine is changed into the natural substance of christ's flesh and blood ; which the misrepresenter very fallaciously calls christ's being really present under those appearances ; that our people may not perceive the difference between transubstantiation , which the church of england denies , and a real presence , which she owns , not under the appearances of bread and wine , but in the use of the consecrated bread and cup ; which differ as much as a bodily and sacramental presence . now if this doctrine of transubstantiation be true , besides many other absurdities , we say , christ must have as many bodies , as there are consecrated hosts ; and that his body must be on earth , and that in fifty thousand distant places at the same time ; though the scripture assures us , that he ascended in his body into heaven , and is to continue there till he come to judgment . but we do not charge the papists with believing these absurdities , ( for we cannot guess what they believe ) ; much less do we charge them with believing , that there are as many christs , as many redeemers , as there are churches , altars , or priests . for there is ( we grant ) some little difference between . christ's having many bodies , and there being many christs . what an easy task has the representer to take off such characters as these . vi. of merits and good works . here we only charge them with saying , as the council of trent does , that the good works of justified persons , are truly meritorious of the increase of grace , and of eternal life : and though we think this is too much for any creature , especially a sinner , to pretend to merit , and know not how to reconcile grace , and strict merit together ; yet we never charged a papist with believing christ's death and passion to be ineffectual and insignificant , and that he has no dependance on the merits of his sufferings , or the mercy of god for attaining salvation . for , it is plain , the council of trent owns both the grace of god , the merits of christ , and the merits of good works . the representer indeed qualifies this by saying , that through the merits of christ , the good works of a just man proceeding from grace , are so acceptable to god , that through his goodness and promise , they are truly meritorious of eternal life . the answerer alleages the 32 d canon , sess. 6. of the council of trent , where no such qualification is used , which yet is the canon purposely designed to establish the merits of goods works . this the reflecter grants , ( pag. 8. ) and refers us to the 26 th canon of that session , where there is not one word of the merit of good works ; and therefore , how we should learn from that canon , in what sense good works are said to merit , i cannot tell ; but in the sixteenth chapter of that session , this doctrine is explained at large , and there we may expect the fullest account of it , which in short is this . that that divine vertue which flowes from christ into justified persons , as from the head to the members , and from the vine to the branches , makes the good actions of such men acceptable to god , and meritorious ; and that such good works which are done in god , do satisfy the divine law , and truly and properly merit eternal life . that this is called our righteousness , because we are justified by its inhering in us ; and the righteousness of god , because it is infused into us by god , through the merits of christ : and that the goodness of god as to this matter , consists in this , that he will have his own gifts to be our merits : and therefore in the 32 d canon , they pronounce an anathema against those , who shall say , that the good works of a justified man are so the gift of god , as not to be his own merits . so that though they do indeed own the grace and promise of god , and the merits of christ , as the cause and foundation of their own merits ; yet they do assert , that the inherent righteousness and good works of a justified man , have that intrinsick vertue , as to satisfy the divine law , and to be truly meritorious of the increase of grace and eternal life . this we think injurious to the grace of god , and the merits of christ : they think it is not , and we never said they did . vii . of confession . we charge them with making a particular confession to a priest of all our sins committed after baptism , necessary to obtain pardon and forgiveness , and with attributing a judicial and praetorian authority ( such as is exercised by judges and magistrates ) to the priest to forgive sins . and tho we do not say , that he believes it part of his religion to make gods of men ; yet we say and prove it too , that this is a power , which god has reserved wholly to himself . we do not charge them with saying , that the absolution of the priest is valid without any thoughts or intentions of amendment in the penitent : but they do say , that attrition , which is but an imperfect degree of sorrow for fear of hell , and can produce only some faint and sudden thoughts of amendment , does qualifie sinners for absolution ; and we say , whatever the doctrine of their church teaches , the constant practice of absolving all that confess , without any apparent signs of repentance , and purposes of a new life , and that after many and repeated relapses , is apt to teach men to place their confidence in the priest's absolution , without any serious intention to forsake their wickedness . viii . of indulgences . we charge the church of rome with teaching the pope's power to grant indulgences , not to commit sin for the future , but for the pardon of those sins which are committed ; that is , for the remitting those temporal punishments , which are due to sin in purgatory . the absolution of the priest remits the eternal punishment of sin , and keeps men out of hell ; but still the temporal punishment in purgatory remains due : and this must be taken off , either by humane satisfactions and penances ( of which presently ) or by the pope's pardon , which surely is a differently thing from the relaxation of canonical penances , as the representer states it ; for i never heard before , that purgatory fire was a canonical penance , enjoyned by the church ; for sure the decrees of the church did not kindle purgatory , and it is strange the church should grant so many thousand years pardon of canonical penances , ( if they concern this life ) as some indulgences contain , when few men live an hundred years in this world , and then have no need of all the rest . we say the popes have , and do to this day sell these indulgences , at different rates , according to the nature of the crime ; and men who have mony , need not fear the purgatory fires , and men who have none , must be contented to endure them : this we grant with the representer to be a great abuse , but it is an abuse of their popes , and hardly separable from the doctrine and practice of indulgences . ix . of satisfaction . we charge them with making human penances necessary to satisfy for the temporal punishment which is due to sin in purgatory , when the eternal punishment is pardoned for the merits and satisfaction of christ ; which we say is injurious to the satisfaction of christ : for all men must grant , that christ had been a more perfect saviour , had he by his death and passion delivered us from the temporal punishment of sin in purgatory , as well as from the eternal pains of hell. yet we do not say , that they believe very injuriously of the passion of christ , that his sufferings and death were not sufficiently satisfactory for our sins ; and therefore think it necessary to make satisfaction for themselves ; but that they believe , as their church teaches them , that they must satisfy themselves for the temporal punishment of their sins , and this is injurious to the satisfaction of christ. we do not charge them with evacuating christ's passion by relying on their own penitential works ; but that they rely on christ to satisfy for the eternal punishment of sin , and on their own satisfactions for the temporal punishment ; which ascribes indeed the better half , but not the whole , to christ ; and all this the representer owns . x. of reading the holy scriptures . we only charge them with denying the people the use of the bible in the vulgar tongue , as every body knows they do , and as the representer owns , and defends it . and to justify this practice , we say , many of their divines have charged the scripture with being a very dark , obscure , unintelligible book ; and that it is of very dangerous consequence to grant a liberty to the people to read it ; and this we think is not much for the credit and reputation of the holy scriptures . but we do not , as the misrepresenter says , charge the papist with believing it part of his duty , to think meanly of the word of god , and to speak irreverently of the scripture . whether denying the people the use of the bible in a language they understand , be an argument of their respect or disrepect to the scriptures , let any man judg ; but for whatever reason they do it , the effect is plain , that it keeps people in great ignorance ; and as we fear , occasions the eternal damnation of many souls ; though we do not say , as the misrepresenter does , that they do it with this design , that men may be preserved in ignorance , and damned eternally . but they know their own designs best . xi . of apocryphal books . here can be no pretence of misrepresenting , unless it be in the first clause , which he usually takes care shall contain some misrepresentation . that he believes it lawful to make what additions to scripture his party thinks good . for , as for their receiving such apocryphal books , as tobit , judeth , ecclesiastious , wisdom , and the maccabees , into the canon of scripture , which is all we charge them with , the representer owns and defends it . this indeed we think to be making additions to the scripture , but we don't charge them with believing , that they may make what additions to the scripture they please ; for we believe they have so much wit , as to know it safer to do it , than to say it may be done . xii . of the vulgar edition of the bible . all that we charge them with here , is , that they make the vulgar latin edition of the bible so authentick , as to allow of any appeals to the originals for the interpretation of doubtful places ; and we know not what authority can make a translation more authentick than the original . that this is truly charged on them , the representer cannot deny , though the misrepresenter makes tragical work with it ; as any one may see , who will divert himself with reading that character ; which though in some parts it may have too much truth in it , was never before made the character of a papist ; but we must give them leave to speak some blunt and bold truths of themselves . xiii . of the scripture as the rule of faith. xiv . of the interpretation of scripture . we do not charge them with denying in express words the authority of the scripture to be a rule , but with saying that which is equivalent to it , that the sense of it is so various and uncertain , that no man can be sure of the true meaning of it in the most necessary and fundamental articles of the faith , but by the interpretation and authority of the church , which does effectually divest it of the authority of a rule : for that is my rule , which can and must direct me , which ( it seems ) is not the scripture considered in it self , but as interpreted by the authority of the church , which makes the faith and interpretation of the church , not the scriptures , my immediate rule . but why does he now complain of misrepresentation ? when the representer owns and justifies every particular of it ; except it be , those goodly introductions ; that he believes it lawful , nay , that it is his obligation to undervalue the scripture , and take from it that authority which christ gave it ; and that he believes his church to be above the scripture , and prophanely allows to her an uncontroulable authority of being judge of the word of god. for though there may be some truth in such consequences as these from their doctrine , yet they were never charged upon them by us , as their principles , or faith : which is the chief art he uses in drawing up these misrepresentations . xv. of traditions . we charge them with making some unwritten traditions of equal authority with the scripture , and believing them with a divine faith. this we say , derogates from the perfection of the scripture , or the written word of god. for if our rule be partly the written , partly the unwritten word ; then the scripture ( or written word ) is but part of the rule ; and part of a rule cannot be a whole and perfect rule . and we say , that these unwritten traditions are but humane ordinations , and traditions of men : but we do not say a papist believes them to be humane , but divine , though unwritten , traditions : and therefore , though we affirm , that they give equal authority to such traditions as are in truth no better than humane ordinations , as to the scriptures themselves ; yet we do not say , that they admit what they believe to be only humane traditions , to supply the defects of scripture , allowing equal authority to them , as to the scriptures themselves ; which is the only misrepresentation in this character , all the rest being owned by the representer himself , who then had very little cause to complain of misrepresenting . xvi . of councils . the difference between the misrepresenter and representer in this article , is no more but this , that the papist misrepresented is said to receive new additions to his creed from the definitions and authority of general councils , and to embrace them with a divine faith. the papist represented , owns the authority of general councils , as well as the other , and receives all their definitions , and believes them as firmly ; but though they define such doctrines for articles of faith , as were never heard of in the christian church , and least were never put into any christian creed before , yet he will not believe them to be additions to his faith , or to what was taught by christ and his apostles : but pope pius the 4 th his creed must be the faith of the church from the apostles days . now here i fancy our author mistook his side , for the papist represented has much the worse character , that he is so void of all sence , that he cannot tell which is most , twelve , or four and twenty articles in a creed . this is a hard case , that men must believe all the definitions of their councils , but though they see their creed increase every day , must never own that their faith receives any additions . however , i think , he has no reason here to complain of misrepresenting , since he owns all that any protestant charges him with , such an implicit faith in general councils , as receives all their definitions , and rather than fail in defiance of sense and history , will believe that to be the old faith , which was never defined till yesterday . xvii . of infallibility in the church . the misrepresenter says , a papist believes that the pastors and prelates of his church are infallible : which , if it be understood of every particular pastor and prelate , no protestant ever charged them with , and therefore the representer might very safely deny it ; and this is all the difference between them , except it be this , that what the misrepresenter barely affirms , the representer endeavours to prove , viz. the infallibility of the church , at least , as assembled in general councils ; and yet this must be called misrepresenting too : a word , which ( i suppose ) must have some secret charm in it to convert hereticks . xviii . of the pope . here the misrepresenter is very rhetorical and facetious , and we may give him leave to be a little pleasant with his own universal pastor . he says , the papist believes the pope to be his great god ; how great i cannot tell , but some flatterers of the papal greatness , have given the title of god to the pope , and possibly some protestants have repeated the same after them , but never charged the papists with believing it ; much less do they charge them with denying christ to be the head of the church , or with saying , that the pope has taken his place ; but we do charge them with making the pope the universal pastor and head of the church under christ : and this ( i hope ) is no misrepresenting ; for it is asserted , and proved after this fashion , by the representer . but why is the pope's personal infallibility put into the character of a papist misrepresented ? why not as well the infallibility of general councils ? since he grants some papists do believe the pope's infallibility , and such papists are not misrepresented by charging them with it ; and there are others , who do not believe the councils infallibility without the pope , which therefore cannot be an inherent infallibility in them . the truth is , the infallibility of the church is the faith of a papist ; but in whom this infallibility is seated , whether in the diffusive , representative , or virtual church , in pope or council , or the whole body of christians , is not agreed among them . but neither of these are misrepresentations of a papist , unless you tell , what particular sort of papists you represent ; and then , i am sure , you misrepresent a jesuit , if you make him deny the pope's infallibility . xix . of dispensations . here , i confess , the misrepresenter and representer do flatly contradict each other ; and i am heartily glad to hear the representer so fully disown those principles , which are destructive to all religion , as well as to humane societies ; and should be more glad still had there been never any foundation for what he calls the misrepresentation . however , this he does very ill in , to charge protestants with this misrepresentation of a papist ; for i know no protestant that charges these principles upon papists in general : but i hope it is no misrepresentation to charge those men with such principles , who charge themselves with them ; and i suppose our author will not say , that these principles were never taught or defended by any papist . whenever he is hardy enough to say this , i 'll direct him to such popish authors as will satisfy him about it . xx. of the deposing power . here the dispute between the misrepresenter and representer , is only this , whether the deposing power be the doctrine of the church of rome ? for it 's granted on all hands , that it is , or has been , the doctrine and practice of many popes , divines , and canonists ; but that it has been condemned by other divines , and some famous universities , tho i do not hear , that it was ever condemned by any pope . but what does he think of this being decreed by general councils ? does not this make it the doctrine of their church ? this he says nothing to here , but we shall meet with it by and by in his reflections , and therefore will dismiss this cause till then . xxi . of communion in one kind . here we charge the church of rome with altering the institution of christ in the sacrament of the lord's supper ; for christ instituted it in both kinds , but the church of rome denies the cup to the layity : but yet we do not say , that a papist believes that he is no longer obliged to obey christ's commands , than his church will give him leave ; but we say , that herein he transgresses the institutions of our saviour , to comply with the innovations of his church . and does the representer deny this ? yes , he denies , that they alter the institution of christ ; for ( he says ) christ did not command them to receive in both kinds , but left it indifferent . but does he deny , that the church of rome takes away the cup from the people ? no , this he owns and justifies . wherein then do we misrepresent them ? for we charge them only with taking away the cup : whether this be agreeable , or contrary to the institution of our saviour , is not matter of representation , but of dispute . xxii . of the mass. here we charge them with making the sacrament of the lord's supper ( as the council of trent defines ) a true proper propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead . and this , we say , infers an insufficiency in the sacrifice , made by christ upon the cross. for if christ by his death upon the cross had made a complete and perfect atonement and propitiation for sins , by his once offering himself , what occasion can there be for the repetition of such a propitiatory sacrifice ? for the only reason the apostle assigns , why the legal sacrifices were so often repeated , was , because they could not make the comers thereunto perfect , hebr. 10. but we do not charge them with believing an insufficiency in the sacrifice , made by christ on the cross. much less do we say , that they are taught , wholly to rely on the sacrifice of the mass , and to neglect the passion of christ , and to put no hopes in his merits , and the work of our redemption . the first is a consequence which we charge upon their doctrine and practice , but do not charge them with believing it . the second was never charged on them , that i know of before . so , that if there be any misrepresentation here , it must be in charging them , that they believe the sacrifice of the mass to be a true proper propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead . but this is the very definition of their council , and an anathema pronounced against those , who deny it : and this the representer acknowledges , though he conceals as much of it as he can , calling it a commemorative sacrifice , representing in an unbloody manner , ( what , when the blood of christ is actually shed in the sacrifice of the mass , is it still an unbloody sacrifice ) the bloody sacrifice which was offered for us upon the cross : but is it a propitiatory sacrifice or not ? does it make an actual propitiation for our sins ? if they do not own this , then indeed we misrepresent them ; if they do ( as they must , if they own the council of trent ) we represent them truly ; and whether the consequences we charge upon this doctrine , be true or false , that is no part of the representation : we may argue ill , but we represent right ; though we are ready to justify that too whenever they please . xxiii . of purgatory . to carry on the humour of misrepresenting , he complains of misrepresenting here too ; when all that is charged on them is , the belief of purgatory , a middle place between heaven and hell , where souls departed , who are acquitted from the sentence of eternal punishment , must undergo a temporal punishment for those sins , which were not expiated in this life . that there is such a state , the representer most industriously and zealously proves : why then is the belief of purgatory thrust into the character of a papist misrepresented ? all that i can perceive is , that the misrepresentation consists , not in charging them with believing a purgatory , but with believing it contrary to all reason , the word of god , and all antiquity ; for the representer says , he believes it damnable to admit of any thing for faith , that is contrary to reason , the word of god , and all antiquity . damnable is a very dangerous word , especially when it is applied to believing things contrary to reason ; and therefore though it may serve now and then to bluster with , i would advise him to use it sparingly : but though i must confess , we think , that they do believe a purgatory , and a great many other things , which are contrary to reason , scripture , and antiquity ; yet we do not say , that they admit any thing for faith , which they believe contrary to reason , scripture , and antiquity ; and therefore this is no part of their character , and therefore no mirepresentation . xxiv . of praying in an unknown tongue . here indeed i meet with somewhat of misrepresentation . for he says , he ( the papist misrepresented ) is counselled by his church to be present at sermons , but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand ; they being all delivered in an unknown tongue . this is misrepresenting with a witness . but no protestant ever charged them with preaching , as well as praying in latin : but the meaning of this is easily understood , to perswade those people , who place all their religion in hearing sermons , that it is no matter what language their prayers are in ( which they care not much for hearing when they are in english ) if they have but english sermons to entertain their curiosity and itching ears . and it is , i confess , a cunning suggestion , and i hope will warn all sober christians to joyn more devoutly in the prayers of the church , which they do understand , and that will teach them the difference between an english liturgy , and latin mass-book . the rest of the character only charges them with praying in latin , a language which the people do not understand ; and therefore , whatever other devout thoughts they may have , they cannot joyn with the priest in offering up the same petitions to god , when they do not understand what it is he says : all this is granted on all hands to be true , and yet this also which the representer owns , is called misrepresenting . xxv . of the second commandment . we charge them with making the second commandment , which forbids the worship of images , only a part and branch of the first , which forbids the worship of other gods , which is designed to obscure the true sense and interpretation of that law , and to excuse all men from the sin of image-worship , who are not so sensless to believe the images to be gods. and yet not thinking themselves safe in this , they dare not trust the people with the second commandment , but leave it out of their catechisms and manuals , and such offices are like to come into peoples hands . is this charge true , or is it not ? the representer grants the whole , and excuses it ; thinks the second commandment too great a burden to mens memories , and a needless explication of the first : but whatever may be said for or against it , if the charge be true , why is this called misrepresenting ? xxvi . of mental reservations . the representer himself grants all that we charge them with ; not that this doctrine was ever defined by any general council , or that it was universally received and practised by all of that communion , but that it has been taught and defended by great numbers of their divines , and casuists ( not to take notice of any greater authorities now ) and practised , as occasion served , by themselves and their disciples . to charge all papists in general with this , would indeed be a misrepresentation , but i hope it is none to charge those who are really guilty . xxvii . of a death-bed repentance . vve do not think so ill of any sect or profession of christians , but that they will all grant , that men ought to live , as well as die in the faith and fear , and obedience of god ; nor did we ever charge the church of rome with teaching otherwise : but then we say , that men may teach such doctrines , as may give great encouragement to sinners to take their fill of sensual lusts , and to put off the thoughts of repentance to a death-bed ; and this indeed we think the church of rome has done ; but do not charge her with teaching her children to make such an ill use of these doctrines , or with encouraging them to live wickedly in their health , and to repent when they are sick . this is no part of the character which we give of a-papist ; but we alleadg it only to convince men , how dangerous the communion of such a church is , which has found out so many easy ways to keep good catholicks out of hell , as without her teaching any such consequence , is very apt to incline men , who believe them , to take greater liberties than are consistent with the safety of their souls . xxviii . of fasting . vve do not blame the church of rome for enjoyning fasting , which is a very useful duty , when it serves the true ends and purposes of religion ; nor do we deny , that a papist may fast very devoutly and religiously ; but we say the common practice of fasting among papists , is far enough from being religious ; an ecclesiastical fast being very reconcilable with the greatest excesses : and though this be the fault of the men , and we charge none with it , but those who are guilty , which , i suppose , is not misrepresenting , yet their church has given occasion to it by making fasting to signify eating , so they do but abstain from all meats forbidden by the church ; and their casuists have stated this matter so loosely , that no men who have not an antipathy to the best fish , and most delicious wines and sweet-meats , need do any great penance in fasting ; and it is hard we cannot be allowed to complain of these abuses without being charged as misrepresenters . xxix . of divisions and schisms in the church . in this point we are not the assailants , but are only on the defensive part ; when they make it an argument against the reformation , that there are so many divisions and different opinions among us : we desire them to look home , and to the eternal shame of a pretended infallibility , consider how many different opinions there are among themselves . we are all agreed in following the same rule of faith , as he says they are , only our rule indeed differs ; we take the scripture to be the safest rule , and we all agree , that it is so ; they the sense , and judgment , and faith of their church ; and i doubt not , but we shall as soon agree in the sense of every text of scripture as they will , what that authority in the church is to which they must yield , what these traditions are they must receive , and what is the true sense and interpretation of the definitions and decrees of their councils . we agree in the articles of the apostles creed , which was the ancient faith of the church ; and our differences as to matters of faith , are as meer school-disputes , as they say theirs are , and in most cases the same ; as about predestination , election and reprobation , the efficacy of grace , and free-will . we have some indeed which they have not ; and they have some that we have not ; as about the the immaculate conception , the infallibility of the pope . &c. they have a way indeed to confine these disputes to their schools , which we have not , and that is to keep the common people in ignorance , which will effectually cure their disputing ; but we think it better that our people should understand their religion , tho they dispute a little about it . now we are so far from misrepresenting in this case , that we do not think this a reasonable objection against either side ; but if they will needs be talking of our divisions , to perswade people for peace and unities sake to take sanctuary in an infallible church , they must give us leave to tell our people , that infallibility , tho it sounds big , does not do such feats in the church of rome as is pretended . their common people indeed do not dispute about religion , because they know little of it ; and their divines and scholars agree just as our divines do , or it may be not so well : and this is all the misrepresenting we are guilty of in this matter . xxx . of friers and nuns . vvherein the misrepresentation he complains of here consists , i cannot guess ; is it , that papists are taught to have an high esteem of friers and nuns ? this he himself owns ; is it , that many who enter into this religious course of life , live very irreligiously ? this he also confesses , and apologizes for ; and these two things make the character : i suppose he forgot something else , which was to be the misrepresentation . xxxi . of wicked principles and practices . here also i cannot find wherein the misrepresentation consists . there are a great many ill things said to be committed by some persons of the roman communion ; this the representer grants , and excuses the church from the scandal of such examples ; how well is not my business at present to enquire , who am no farther concerned , than to see right done them , that they be not misrepresented . xxxii . of miracles . here the papist is charged with believing a great many idle stories , and ridiculous inventions , in favour of his saints , which he calls miracles . and if this be a misrepresentation , they themselves are guilty of it ; for these popish miracles were not invented by protestants , but published by themselves , who are the only persons that ever saw them ; but their believing such miracles ( which i hardly think a wise man among them does , tho they are willing the people should ) is the least thing in it : for bare credulity , which does no hurt , is very innocent , though very silly ; but to recommend such miracles as credible , which are no better than impostures , is an injury to common christianity , and makes men suspect the miracles of christ and his apostles to be cheats too ; and it is a horrid abuse of christianity to coin such miracles to nurse men up in superstition , which is the general design of them : so that here the matter is not represented so bad as it is , which is the only misrepresentation i have hitherto met with . xxxiii . of holy water . the papist misrepresented , is said highly to approve the superstitious use of many inanimate things , and to attribute wonderful effects to holy water , blessed candles , holy oil , and holy bread. the papist represented , disproves all sort of superstition , but yet is taught to have an esteem for holy water , &c. so that when we charge them with using such religious charms as these , we do not misrepresent them , for they own they do so ; but the misrepresentation is in charging these usages with superstition ; but if this be misrepresenting , it is not to misrepresent a papist , but to misrepresent popery : we charge them with nothing but what they own and justify , but we charge their doctrines and practices with such guilt , as they will not own ; but this is not matter of representation , but of dispute . xxxiv . of breeding up people in ignorance . we do indeed charge them with breeding people up , and keeping them in ignorance , because they deny them the means and opportunity of knowledge ; will not suffer them to read the bible , nor say their publick prayers in a language , which they understand , and forbid them to read such books as might inform them better . is this true or not ? if it be , then though they may have a ●●at many learned men among them , their learned men may keep the people in ignorance . we deny not , but they do instruct people after a fashion , but yet they take care to let them know no more , than they are pleased to teach them , and they may be very ignorant for all that . but i think , though this be a very great fault , it belongs neither to the character of a papist misrepresented nor represented ; but is the fault of their governours , their popes , and bishops and priests , and i charitably hope , it will be some excuse to the ignorant and deluded people . xxxv . of the uncharitableness of the papists . we here charge them with damning all , who are not of their church and communion ; and this we think very uncharitable . for it damns far the greatest number of christians in the world. the representer does not deny , that they do this ; only endeavours to prove , that it is not uncharitableness in them to do it . i am not to dispute this point with him now , but if this be his charity , i like it as little , as i do his faith. xxxvi . of ceremonies and ordinances . we charge them with corrupting the christian worship by a great number of ceremonies and ordinances , which we judge useless , burdensom , or superstitious , unworthy of the simplicity and spirituality of the christian worship , and a great infringement of true christian liberty . that they do command great numbers of such ceremonies , the representer grants ; and therefore we do not misrepresent them in it : whether they do well or ill in this , is no part of the character , but the matter in controversie between us . xxxvii . of innovations in matters of faith. and so is his last character about innovations , a meer dispute , and cannot be made a character , unless we should charge them with believing those doctrines to be innovations , which we say , and prove to be so ; but never charge them with believing so : at this rate he may make characters of a papist misrepresented , out of all the disputes which are between us . it is but saying , what we charge their doctrines and practices with , and this makes the character of a papist misrepresented ; and it is but denying this charge in another column , and then you have a character of a papist represented : if we charge them with believing any thing , which they do not believe , or with doing what they do not , then indeed we misrepresent them : but he has not given any one instance of this in all his 37 characters . but if to condemn their doctrines and practices , if to charge them with contradicting the evidence of sense , of reason , and of scripture , that they are innovations in faith , and corruptions of the christian worship , be to misrepresent them ; we confess we are such misrepresenters , and , for ought i can perceive , are like to continue so ; unless they have some better arguments in reserve , than ever we yet saw ; for character-making will not do it : so that all this cry about misrepresenting is come to just nothing . we like a papist as little , as he has represented him , as when we see him represented by a protestant pen ; for there is no difference at all in the parts , proportions , and features , though there is some difference in the colours . a papist is the same in both characters , only with this difference , that a protestant thinks him a very bad christian ; and a papist , we may be sure , thinks him a very good one . a protestant thinks the faith and worship of a papist to be contrary to sense , reason , and scripture , and the faith and practice of the primitive church ; a papist thinks it agreeable to all these rules , or can give a reason why it should not . and therefore i could not but smile at his concluding proposal , to convince us , that the faith , as he has represented it , is really the faith of the papist , ( which we believe is true , excepting the deposing doctrine , and some few other points , which i have already observed ) that the decision of this whole affair depend upon an experience . do but you , or any friend for you , give your assent to these articles of faith in the very form and manner as i have stated them , and if upon your request , you are not admitted into the communion of the roman catholicks , and owned to believe aright in all those points , i 'll then confess , that i have abused the world , &c. and truly i am apt to think so too ; but we must like his faith better , before we shall make the experiment . secondly , but it is time now to proceed to his other reflections , which concern the rule , whereby the doctrine of the church of rome is to be known . for though the faith of their church be infallible , it is wonderful hard to know what their faith is . now his reflections may be reduced to two general heads . first , concerning the authority of the council of trent in england , and the rules of expounding it . secondly , concerning the false rules the answerer has used in judging of the faith and doctrine of the church of rome . first , concerning the authority of the council of trent , and the rules of expounding it . the author of a papist misrepresented and represented , in drawing the character of a papist represented , professes to follow the doctrine prescribed in the council of trent . this the answerer says , he finds no fault with , and therefore would not ask , how the council of trent comes to be the rule and measure of doctrine to any here , where it was never received , p. 9. ed. 1. to this the reflecter answers , that the council of trent is received here , and all the catholick world over , as to all its definitions of faith , p. 5. by which , i suppose , he means , that all english catholicks do own the authority of the council of trent , and take their rule of faith from it ; but this is not , what the answerer means by that question ; whether english catholicks singly for themselves , and in their private capacities , own the doctrine of the council of trent ; but by what publick act of church or state it has been received in england , as it has been in other catholick countries . the church of england had no representatives in that council , nor did by any after act own it's authority , and therefore it is no authentick and obligatory rule here . but allowing the authority of this rule to determine , what is popery , and what not , which the answerer allows reasonable enough , considering that its definitions of faith are received all the catholick world over , as the reflecter saith , the greater difficulty is about the interpretation of this rule . for not only we hereticks interpret this council a little differently from our author , but catholick doctors themselves cannot agree about it . now when other good catholicks differ from him in explaining the definitions and decrees of this council , why must his sense , and not theirs , pass for the character of a papist ? pope pius iv. did strictly forbid any private man to interpret the council according to his own private sense and opinion ; but if any dispute happened about the true meaning of their definitions and decrees , he reserved the decision of it to the apostolick see ; and a very wise decree it was , considering that many of their definitions were penned in loose and ambiguous words on purpose to compose the disputes and differences of their divines ( who were many times very troublesome to the council ) that each party might think their own sense favoured ; but then considering what ill consequence this might be of , to suffer them to dispute the sense of the council , and wrest it to countenance their private opinions , which would rather inflame , than compose these disputes ( a fresh example of which , they had in the dispute between catharinus and soto while the council was sitting ) the pope very prudently forbids this , that if they would still wrangle among themselves , yet the authority of the council might not be concerned in it . but now if their doctors do differ still about the sense of the council , and affix their private opinions on it , and popes think fit rather to connive at these differences , than to undertake to determine them , why must any one of these different opinions be so made the character of a papist , as to exclude the other ? if some , and those of greatest note and authority in the church , and not inferiour in number ( to say no more ) are for the deposing doctrine , and others against it , why must those only be thought papists , who deny this deposing power , and not those also , who assert it ? whether it be the faith of the church or not , is a dispute between them : and though our author denies , that it is the faith of the church , and therefore that a papist is not bound to believe it ; yet those who are for the deposing power , assert that it is the faith of the church , and that with much greater reason than he denies it ; and what authority has he to decide this dispute , and who gave him this authority ? does not his representation of a papist , in this point , depend upon his own private sense and opinion . no , he says , he is so far from being guilty of this fault of interpreting the council of trent in his own sense ? that he has only delivered it , as it is interpreted to him , and to all their church in the catechism ad parochos , composed and set forth by the order of the council and pius v. for the instruction of the faithful in their christian duty touching faith and good manners , in conformity to the sense of the council : and is he sure , that all his representations are conformable to the sense of this catechism ? may he not play tricks with the catechism , and expound that by a private spirit , as well as the council ? well , but he appealed in his conclusion to veron ' s rule of faith. and what of that ? how comes veron's rule to be so authentick , as to justifie any interpretation , which agrees with it ? why did not our author appeal to his own character ? which may have as much authority , for ought i know , as veron's rule . but besides veron , he appeals to the bishop of condom , who drew up a like character in paris of the belief of a papist . and what is the authority of this bishops character ? for bishops have no more authority to expound the council of trent ( which is intirely reserved to the apostolick see ) than private doctors . yes , the bishop of condom's book has all requisite authority , because the second edition was published with several distinct attestations of many bishops and cardinals , and of the present pope himself , wherein they at large approve the doctrine contained in that treatise for the faith and doctrine of the church of rome , and conform to the council of trent . i shall take it for granted , that it is , as the reflecter says , but what then ? had not cardinal bellarmin's controversies as great an attestation as the bishop of condom's exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church ? did he not dedicate them to pope sixtus v. and that with the popes leave and good liking , te annuente , as he himself says ? and how much inferiour is this to a testimonial under the popes hand ? and why then are not bellarmin's controversies as authentick a rule for the exposition of the catholick faith , as the bishop of condom's ? but melchior canus , to whom the reflecter refers us , would have taught him , that the popes private approbation is as little worth , as any other bishops . that the name of the apostolick see does not signifie the pope in his personal capacity , but acting as it becomes the chair ; that is , not giving his own private sense , but proceeding in council , with the advice of good and learned men. and therefore that is not to be accounted the judgment of the apostolick see , which is given only by the bishop of rome privately and inconsiderately , or with the adv●ce only of some few of his own mind , but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing , by the advi●e and counsel of many wise men. and therefore i doubt , notwithstanding the present popes approbation , he is a little out , when he calls this the authority of the apostolick see. but the answerer did not only charge him in general with interpreting the council of trent by his own private sense and opinions , but gave some particular instances of it , and i must now consider , how the reflecter takes off this charge . 1. as to invocation of saints , he limits their power of helping us to prayers only , whereas he grants the council mentions their aid and assistance , as well as prayers . and the only vindication he thinks necessary to make for this is , that no other means of their aiding and assisting us , is expressed in the council , or in the catechism ad parochos , besides that of their prayers ; and it is thus limited by the bishop of condom on this subject with the pope and cardinals approbation . but though the council does not specifie , what other aid and assistance we may expect from the saints besides their prayers ; yet it mentions aid and assistance , without limiting it to the assistance of their prayers ; and the answerer ( p. 25. ) told him what reason he had to believe , that neither the trent council nor catechism did intend any such limitation : but this he thought fit to take no notice of , for it had been very troublesome to answer it . as for the bishop of condom , though his authority is nothing , yet i do not find , that he limits their aid and assistance only to their prayers for us ; for after repeating the decree of the council , that it is good and useful to invoke the saints by way of supplication , and to have recourse to their succors and assistances , &c. he quietly drops the last clause without saying any thing of it , and only tells us , it is evident that to invoke the saints according to the intent of this council , is to resort to their prayers , for the obtaining the blessings and benefits of god by jesus christ. and no doubt but this is true ; but the council speaks not only of invoking the saints , but of flying to their aid and assistance : and pray what does that signifie ? that he had no mind to tell us , and when he says nothing of it , how comes our reflecter to know , that he limits it to their prayers ? as for the point of merit , i have already considered that , though i do not see upon second thoughts , how the answerer is concerned in it ; for he does not alledge the 32 canon to oppose , what he asserts , that good works are meritorious by the goodness and promise of god , but for the sake of the anathema , which it denounces against those , who deny , that good works are truly meritorious of the increase of grace and eternal life : and therefore his next instance is the popes personal infallibility . this our reflecter denys , and makes it the character of a papist misrepresented to assert it : and yet there are as many papists , who believe the popes infallibility , as there are , who deny it ; and were they to make characters , to deny the popes personal infallibility , would certainly be one character of a papist misrepresented : but he says , this is only a school-debate , and not matter of faith , because not positively determined by any general council . and yet whoever reads cardinal bellarmin and several others on this subject , would think they made a matter of faith of it . but i would ask him , whether the infallibility of the church be an article of faith ? if it be , my next question is , in what general council it was defined ? it seems indeed to be taken for granted in some later councils , but i am yet to seek , what general council has positively defined it . i am sure bellarmin and other learned divines of the roman communion , who use all manner of arguments , they can think of , to prove the infallibility of the church , never alledge the authority of any council for it : so that it seems infallibility it self was never determined by any general council ; and if the infallibility of the church be matter of faith , though it were never defined by any general council , why may not the infallibility of the pope be so too ? nay how does our reflecter come to believe the infallibility of a general council ? for this is no more defined by any general council , than the infallibility of the pope is . if there must be infallibility in the church somewhere , i think , the pope , whom they acknowledge to be the supream pastor , has the fairest pretences to it . for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute power . if we must have an infallible judge of controversies , it must be the pope , not a council ; because if you place infallibility in a council , the church has no infallible judge any longer than while the council is sitting . for the definitions and decrees of councils , how infallible soever they are , yet certainly cannot be an infallible judge , which they will not allow to the scriptures themselves . and therefore if the church can never be without an infallible judge , he who is the supreme pastor and judge must be infallible . now this being the case , i desire to know , why our reflecter prefers the infallibility of a general council , before the pope's personal infallibility ? how one comes to be matter of faith , and not the other ? or if neither of them be , why one makes the character of a papist misrepresented , the other of a papist represented . for though he pretends not to deliver his own private sentiment or opinion concerning this point ; but only to relate matter of fact , yet he has so cunning a way of telling his tale , as to let every body know , which side he is of . for we may guess , that he does not over admire the papist misrepresented , and then he cannot be very fond of the pope's infallibility , which is part of that character . and now i come to the goliath-argument , as he calls it , concerning the deposing power , which he puts into this form . in my character of a papist represented , i pretend to declare the faith of a roman-catholick , as it is defined and delivered in allowed general councils ; and yet though the deposing doctrine has been as evidently declared in such councils , as ever purgatory and transubstantiation were in that of trent ; yet still with me , it is no article of our faith. this indeed is an untoward argument , and i wish him well delivered , and i think he does very prudently to keep at a distance with a sling and a stone ▪ and not venture to grapple with it . to this he thus replies : i answer it in short , that though all doctrinal points defined in any approved general council , and proposed to the faithful to be received under an anathema , are with us so many articles of faith , and are obligatory to all of our communion ; yet not so of every other matter declared in such a council : there being many things treated of , and resolved on in such an assembly , which concern not the faith of the church , but only some matter of discipline , government , or other more particular affair ; and these constitutions and decrees are not absolutely obligatory , as is evident in the council of trent — whose decrees of doctrine are as much acknowledged here by catholicks in england or germany , as within the walls of rome it self , or the vatican . and yet it s other constitutions and decrees are not universally received , and it may be never will. now , sir , although we allow some councils have made decrees for deposing in particular cases ; yet the power it self not being declared as a doctrinal point , and the decrees relating only to discipline and government , it comes short of being an article of our faith , and all that in your answer depends on it , falls to the ground . now in answer to this , i must inquire into these three things . first , whether nothing be an article of faith but what is decreed with an anathema . secondly , whether the deposing decree be a doctrinal point , or only matter of discipline and government . thirdly , what authority general councils have in decretis morum , or such matters as concern discipline and government . first , whether nothing be an article of faith , but what is decreed with an anathema . now here we must ( 1 ) consider , what they mean by an article of faith. for an article of faith may be taken in a strict , or in a large sense . in a strict sense , it signifies only such articles , the belief of which is necessary to salvation ; in a large sense , it includes all doctrinal points , whatever is proposed to us to be believed : there are articles of both these kinds , both in scripture , and in some general councils ; and the difference between them is not , that we must believe the one , and may refuse to believe the other , when they are both proposed with equal evidence and authority ; but that a mistake in one is not of such dangerous consequence , as it is to mistake the other . whoever refuses to believe , whatever is plainly taught in scripture , and which he believes to be taught there , is an infidel , and guilty of disbelieving god , though the thing be of no great consequence in it self , but what he might safely have been ignorant of , or mistaken in ; and thus it is with general councils , if we believe them to be infallible ; though their definitions are not all of equal necessity , yet they are all equally true : and therefore we must not pick and chuse , what we will believe , and what we will not believe in the definitions of a general council ; but we must believe them all , if not to be equally necessary , yet to be equally true ; and therefore to reject the belief of any thing plainly taught in the council as points of doctrine , is to disown the authority and infallibility of the council . whatever is defined in the council is the faith of the council , and therefore of the catholick church , which is both represented , and infallibly taught by a general council ; and if we will give men leave to distinguish , they may soon distinguish away all the council ; for it is easie for every man to find a distinction to excuse him from believing , what he does not like . and i believe this is the true reason of this dispute about the marks and characters of articles of faith , that roman catholicks must maintain the infallibility of their general councils , and yet meet with some things in them which either they do not believe or dare not own : and therefore ( though it may be they do not believe the infallibility of councils themselves , yet ) they are put to hard shifts , to find out some salvo to reconcile the infallibility of their councils , with their disowning some of their decrees . but this will not do ; for though men , who believe these councils to be infallible , are not bound to believe all their definitions to be articles of faith in such a strict sense , as to make the belief of them necessary to salvation , yet they are bound to believe all their definitions to be true : and therefore we have no need of any other ●●●k of the roman catholick faith , than to examine , what is defined in their councils , whether with or without an anathema , it is all one ; for all doctrines decreed by the council must be as infallibly true , as the council is , and must be owned by all those , who own the authority of the council . secondly , and therefore the use of anathema is not to confirm articles of faith , but to condemn hereticks , and does not concern the faith , but the discipline of the church . anathemas relate properly to persons , not to doctrines . the faith of the church is setled by the definitions of councils , and must be so , before there can be any place for anathemas . for till it be determined , what the true faith is , how can they curse or condemn hereticks ? the infallible authority of the council to declare the faith , gives life and soul to the decree ; the anathema signifies only what censure the church thinks fit to inflict upon hereticks , who deny this faith. and therefore even in the council of trent the decrees of faith , and the anathematizing canons are two distinct things ; the first explains the catholick verity , and requires all christians to believe as they teach , and this establishes the faith before the anathemas are pronounced by their canons , and whether any anathema had been denounced or no. and thus it is even in the council of trent , which decrees the doctrine of purgatory without an anathema , and yet asserts it to be the doctrine of the scriptures , and fathers and councils , and commands the bishops to take care this doctrine be preached to all christian people , and believed by them , which , melchior canus saies , is a sufficient mark of an article of faith without an anathema ; and i suppose 〈◊〉 reflecter will grant , that the doctrine of purgatory is an article of faith. the validity of the anathema depends upon the truth and certainty of the decree or definition of faith , not the truth of the definition upon the anathema ; for it is strange , if the church cannot infallibly declare the doctrines of faith without cursing ; that the most damning councils should be the most infallible ; which , if it be true , i confess , gives great authority to the council of trent . i do not deny , but that there is great reason for the church in some cases to denounce anathema's against great and notorious hereticks ; but i say this belongs to the discipline , not to the faith of the church ; and it is very unreasonable to think , that when a council defines what we are to believe in any particular point , they should not intend to oblige all christians to believe such definitions , unless they curse those who do not : in the council of florence they decreed the procession of the holy ghost from father and son , the doctrine of purgatory , the primacy and supremacy of the bishop of rome , without an anathema , which i suppose , the church of rome owns for articles of faith , and the council intended should be received as such : and in the same council pope eugenius iv. in his decree for the union of the armenians , delivers them the whole faith of the church of rome , all their creeds , seven sacraments , &c. without any anathema ; which shows that tho anathema's have been anciently used , yet this is but a late invention to distinguish articles of faith from some inferior theological truths by anathema's ; for had it been known in the time of the council of florence , we may suppose they would have anathematized too , as well as decreed . but this council supposing that now the greeks and armenians were united to the church of rome , the heresie and schism at an end , and the persons reconciled , there was no need to exercise any church censures , and therefore no use for anathema's : for this seems to be the true reason why the council of trent was so liberal of anathema's , because there were so many obstinate and incorrigible hereticks at that time . 2. the next enquiry is , whether the deposing decree be a doctrinal point , or only matter of discipline and government : for thus the reflecter says ; that the deposing power is not declared as a doctrinal point , and the decrees relate only to discipline and government , and therefore come short of being an article of faith. this i confess , i look on as a very childish evasion . for as they have been lately told , to decree what shall be done , includes a virtual definition of that doctrine on which that decree is founded . but i will only ask this reflecter one short question , why he rejects this decree of deposing heretical princes , or favourers of hereticks ? is it because he thinks the doctrine of deposing heretical princes , erroneous , or only because he don't like the practice of it ? if the first , then it seems this is a doctrinal decree , as well as a decree of discipline and government : if he only condemns the practice of it , without renouncing the doctrine ; let him say so , and see how princes will like it . when papists dispute among themselves about this deposing decree ; those who are for it , vindicate the popes power to depose princes ; those who are against it , deny that the pope hath any such power ; which shows that they think it a doctrinal dispute ; for there is no other difference between them , but whether the pope has , or has not , power to do it , which is a point of doctrine : but when they dispute with us hereticks , then the church has not decreed it as a point of doctrine , but only of discipline and government : but let them tell me then , if this decree do not involve a doctrinal error , what is the fault of it ? 3. but suppose this decree must be only ranked among the decreta morum , which concern the discipline and government of the church , is not the authority of the church as sacred in such matters , as in points of doctrine ? is not the church guided by an infallible spirit in making such decrees as concern the whole christian world , and the propagation and security of the christian faith ? at least , is not the church secured from making wicked and sinful decrees ? the only example they have in scripture , whereon to found the authority and infallibility of general councils , is the conncil of the apostles at jerusalem , acts 15. and yet that contains no definition of faith , but a decree of manners , as they call it , that is , a rule whereby they are to guide their actions , without defining any point of doctrine , whereon that decree is founded : it seemed good to the holy ghost , and to us , to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols , and from blood , and from things strangled , and from fornication , from which if you keep your selves , ye shall do well ; fare ye well . they might as well object here , as they do against the deposing decree , that there is no point of doctrine determined in it , but it is only a decree to direct them what to do ; and yet we find the holy ghost assisting in such decrees ; for indeed the rules of discipline and government , to direct the lives and manners of men , is the only proper subject of ecclesiastical authority ; and therefore we may most reasonably expect , that god should assist and direct his church in such matters . the church has no authority to make new articles of faith ; the gospel was preached by christ , and what christ could not perfectly instruct them in , because they were not able to bear it at that time , was supplied by the holy spirit , who led the apostles into all truth ; and now we must expect no farther revelations . and therefore as to matters of faith , the authority of general councils was no more than the authority of witnesses , to declare what doctrine they received from christ and his apostles ; and therefore their authority could reach no farther , than we may reasonably presume them to be credible witnesses , that is , while the tradition might be supposed clear and strong , which i doubt , will go no farther than the four first general councils , which are received by the church of england ; but the authority of the church in decrees relating to discipline and government is perpetual ; and therefore in all later councils ( if there be any infallibility in the church ) i should more securely rely on such decrees than on their definitions of faith. and therefore bellarmin for the pope , and melchiorcanus for general councils ( the two authors to whom our reflecter refers us ) declare , that they cannot err in those decrees which relate to manners , if they concern the whole church , and are in things necessary to salvation , that is , that they cannot forbid any vertue , nor command any thing which is a sin. so that they who believe the infallibility of popes and councils , must acknowledg the lawfulness of deposing heretical princes ; for if it were unlawful to do it , popes and councils could never command it . our reflecter indeed proves , that such decrees and constitutions as concern discipline and government , are not absolutely obligatory from the example of the council of trent , whose decrees of doctrine are as much acknowledged here by catholicks in england , and germany , as within the walls of rome it self , or the vatican ; and yet it s other constitutions and decrees are not vniversally received , and it may be never will. but pray can he tell me , for what reason this is ? let him say , if he dare , that it is for want of authority or infallibility in the council to make decrees to oblige all the christian world ; and if christian princes will not submit to the decrees of councils , and the church dares not compel them to it , does this justify such a refusal ? the truth is , such decrees ought not to take place , nor become laws in a christian nation , without the consent and authority of the soveraign prince ; and therefore the roman emperors gave authority to the decrees of councils , and made them laws ; but since the church has pretended to act independently on the secular powers , and to give laws to them without their consent ; no wonder that princes , who understand their own authority , and have power to defend it , take what they like , and reject the rest . and for the same reason ( as our reflecter observes ) the popes suffer so many positive assertors of the no-deposing power to pass without any censure of heresy . which is no argument , that they do not believe it an article of faith , as he suggests ; but only that they want power to do it . princes will not be deposed now , nor suffer those to be censured , who deny the deposing power ; but should the blessed hildebrandtimes return again , we should quickly see , whether the deposing power be an article of faith or not . what i have now discoursed will abundantly justify an argument which i find our reflecter much grieved at . the answerer in his introduction ( p. 14. ) lays two passages together , which he thinks will oblige them to own the deposing power : for in the papist misrepresented ( p. 42 . ) the author saies , the orders of the supream pastor are to be obeyed , whether he be infallible or not ; and in another place he confesses , that popes have owned the deposing doctrine , and acted according to it ; and others are bound to obey their orders , whether infallible or not , and consequently by the doctrine of their church , to act when the popes shall require it , according to the deposing power . to this the reflecter answers , that he only made a comparison between civil and ecclesiastical power , taht as in the civil government the sentence of the supream judge or highest tribunal is to be obeyed , tho there be no assurance of in●allibility or divine protection from error or mistake , so is he taught should be done to the orders of the supream pastor , whether he be infallible or not . now he saies , it is as unjust from hence to infer , that all the orders of the pope must be obeyed , as it would be to say that subjects must obey their princes in every thing they command , whether it be good or bad : and i ackowledge his answer to be good , if he will grant the deposing decree to command a sin , which he has never done yet ; and when he does it , i would desire him to consider how to reconcile himself to his two friends bellarmine and canus , who assert that popes and general councils can make no sinful decrees which shall relate to the whole church . 2 ly . let us now consider what faults the reflecter finds with the answerers way of proceeding ; and they are reduced to four heads . 1 st . he saies , that in some points the answerer owns the doctrine ( which he has represented to be the faith of a roman-catholick ) to be the established belief of the church of england ; as in part , that of the power of priestly absolution , confession , of due veneration to the relicks of saints , of merit , of satisfaction , of the authority of the church , of general councils . now here our reflecter returns to his old trade of misrepresenting again ; for every one who will believe his own eyes , may soon satisfie himself , that the answerer in these doctrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the faith of a papist , as distinguished from the common faith of all christians . he might as well say , that because protestants own that christ is to be worshipped , therefore they in part own the doctrine of the church of rome , that christ is to be worshipped by images . this is the very case here . the answerer grants , that christ gave to the bishops and priests of the catholick-church , authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins , and that such absolution is ratified in heaven . therefore in part he owns the popish doctrine of absolution , which is a judicial and pretorian authority to forgive sins ; tho we think , that to absolve as a minister and as a judge , are two very different things ; as different as the kings granting a pardon , and the chancellors sealing it , which is a publick and authentick declaration of the thing . the answerer owns the ancient practice of canonical confession , as part of the discipline of the church for publick offences ; that is , that those who had been guilty of any publick and scandalous sins , were not reconciled tothe church without making as publick a confession , and giving publick testimonies of their sorrow and repentance ; therefore he in part owns the auricular confession of the church of rome ; there being little difference it seems , between confessing our sins to the whole congregation , and in the ear of a priest. he owns the use of voluntary confession , for the ease and satisfaction of the perplexed minds of doubting or dejected penitents ; and therefore he in part owns the sacramental confession , as necessary to the remission of sins before god. the answerer allows , a due veneration to the bodies of saints and martyrs , i. e. a religious decency to be observed towards them , which lies in avoiding any thing like contempt or dishonour to them ; and using all such testimonies of respect and decency , which becomes the remains of excellent persons . and therefore in part , he agrees with the church of rome in giving divine worship to relicks , just as much as a decent respect is a part of religious worship . the answerer grants , the necessity of good works in order to the reward of another life . and if he will call this merit ( in which large sense the fathers sometimes use that word ) we will not dispute with him about it ; but is this to own the popish doctrine of merit ? that the good works of justified persons , are truly meritorious of the increase of grace , and eternal life . the answerer distinguishes between satisfaction to the church before absolution , ( according to the discipline of the primitive church , which did not use to reconcile publick penitents , till by a long course of penance and mortification , they had given sufficient testimonies of the sincerity of their repentance , and had made some satisfaction for that scandal they had given to the church ) and satisfaction to the justice of god , for some part of the punishment to sin , which is unremitted . the first we own , as a very useful part of church discipline , and wish the restoring of it ; but the second , we utterly disown ; for there is no other satisfaction to the justice of god for sin , but the meritorious death and sacrifice of christ ; whereas the church of rome takes no notice of satisfaction in the first sence , but has changed the ancient discipline of satisfaction to the church , into satisfaction to the justice of god for sin. the answerer grants , that truly penitential works are pleasing to god , so as to avert his displeasure , but denies the popish doctrine of satisfaction , that there can be any compensation by way of equivalency , between what we suffer , and what we deserve : and is this in part , to own his doctrine of satisfaction ? the answerer owns the right and necessity of general councils , ( upon great occasions ) if they be truly so ; which have been , and may be of great use to the christian world , for setling the faith , healing the breaches of christendom , and reforming abuses ; and that the decrees of such councils ought to be submitted to , where they proceed upon certain grounds of faith , and not upon unwritten traditions . but this is no part of the doctrine of the church of rome concerning councils , which owns the authority of all councils called by the pope , and confirmed by him , tho ( as we say ) neither free nor general ; and ascribes an unerring infallibility to them , and so puts an end to all inquiries into the grounds of their faith. we are sorry we are at such a distance from the church of rome , that there are few things besides the common principles of christianity , wherein we can own any part of their doctrine ; and if we own no more than the answerer has done , i think the reflecter has no great reason to glory in it . 2 ly , the reflecter charges the answerer , with appealing from the definitions of their councils , and sense of their church , to some expressions found in old mass-books , rituals , &c. what this &c. means , i cannot tell ; for i find but one instance of this in the whole answer , relating to the worship of the virgin mary , that famous hymn , o felix puerpera nostra pians scelera jure matris impera redemptori ! o happy mother ! who dost expiate our sins ! by the right of a mother command our redeemer , being found in the old paris missal , which the answerer himself has seen , and as balinghem a jesuit saith , in the missals of tournay , liege , amiens , artois , and the old-roman . now i confess , i should not have thought it so great a fault , to have taken the sence of their church from their missals , be they never so old : for their missals are not like private books of devotion , but are the allowed and approved worship of their church , as our liturgy is ; and therefore is either the sence of their church at present , or once was so ; and if it be damnable to own that the virgin is more powerful than her son ( or can command him , which seems to be an argument of greater power ) it is very hard to charge it upon an infallible church , that her publick offices did once contain damnable errors ; for surely , she was not infallible then ; which may bring her infallibility into question still . and therefore old missals have so much authority still , that nothing contained in them ought to be thought damnable . and yet the answerer does not appeal from the definitions of councils , to old mass-books ; for the church of rome has never condemned this hymn , nor the doctrine of it . the council of trent , in her decree for invocation of saints , faith nothing in particular of the worship of the virgin mary , and yet all roman catholicks make a vast difference between the worship of the virgin , and other saints ; how then shall we learn the sense of the church , but from her practice , from her publick offices and hymns ? and tho , since hereticks have been inquisitive into these matters , they have reformed some of their hymns , yet they have never condemned the old ones . and if he remembers , the answerer in the same place told him a notable story , whereby he might guess at the sense , at least , of the governing part of their church still ; that a book , which was writ by a gentleman ten years since , to bring the people to a bare ora pro nobis , to the blessed virgin , was so far from being approved , that it was condemned at rome , and vehemently opposed by the jesuits in france , and a whole volume published against it . 3 ly , he complains , that the answerer appeals from the declaration of their councils , and sense of their church , to some external action , as in case of respect shewn to images and saints , upon which , from our external adoration , by construction of the fact , viz. kneeling , bowing , &c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of idolatry : as if a true judgment could be made of these actions , without respect to the intention of the church , who directs them , and of the person that does them . the paragraph in the answer ( p. 21. ) to which the reflecter refers us , is but a short one , and if he had thought fit to answer it , it would have cleared this point . he saies , to worship stocks or stones for gods , ( as far as we charge them with any such thing ) signifies , to give to images made of wood and stone , the worship due only to god , and so by construction of the fact , to make them gods , by giving them divine worship . and if they will clear themselves of this , they must either prove that external adoration is no part of divine worship ( notwithstanding the scripture makes it so , and all the rest of mankind look upon it as such , even jews , turks and infidels ) or that their external adoration hath no respect to the images ( which is contrary to the council of trent ) or that divine worship being due to the being represented , it may be likewise given to the image ; and how then could the gnosticks be condemned for giving divine worship to the image of christ , which bellarmin confesses , and is affirmed by irenaeus , epiphanius , st. austin , and damascen ? wherein now does the answerer appeal from the declarations of their councils , and sense of their church , to external actions ? does the council forbid such external acts of adoration , as kneeling , bowing , offering incense , & c. to be paid to images ? no it injoyns it . does the council then deny , that the worship which is paid before the image , has regard to the image ? no , both the trent council and catechism teach the worship of images . the whole mystery of this pretended appeal from their church and councils to external actions , is no more than this , that they do not believe the giving such worship to images , to be giving the worship due to god to images ; and the answerer considering the nature of those external acts of adoration , knows not how to excuse them from it , but has put him into a way of doing it , if he can ; if he can either prove , that external adoration is no part of divine worship , or that they do not give this external worship to images , or that divine worship being due to the being represented , it may likewise be given to the image ; then he will grant that they are not guilty of worshiping stocks and stones for gods ; but till he can do this , he must give us leave to interpret such actions , as all mankind besides themselves interpret them . but our reflecter did not like this , he is for judging of actions by the intention of the church that directs them , and of the person that does them . well , and what is their intention in it ? is it not to worship images ? yes , this is the intention , and the express declaration of their church . right ! but their church does not intend to break the second commandment , and to commit idolatry in the worship of images , and therefore you ought not to charge this upon them . very true ! nor did ever any man in the world intend to commit idolatry . we charge them not with any such intention ; but if they worship images , we desire to know how they excuse themselves from breaking the second commandment , and committing idolatry ? whether they are idolaters or not , let god judg ; but we think we should be guilty of idolatry if we did it , and that is the reason , why we cannot comply with such practices . i would only desire to know , whether there be any such thing as external and visible idolatry ? if there be , it must consist in external and visible actions , for we can never know what mens intentions are , but by their actions ; and then if men do such actions as are idolatrous , how can the intention excuse them from idolatry ? especially no intention can alter the nature of actions , which are determined by a divine or human law ; for then men might murder , or commit adultery , or steal , or forswear themselves , and yet avoid the sin and guilt of such actions , by intending to do no evil in them ; if then the external acts of kneeling or bowing to or before an image , directing such actions to the image , be called worshiping of them , and are forbid in the second commandment , without any regard to what intentions men have in doing so , we put no other interpretation upon such actions , but what the divine law puts upon them ; and if they will venture to expound them otherwise , and think to justify themselves in doing forbidden actions , by their good intentions ; they think they may ; but we dare not . as for what he says , that these actions , such as bowing , kneeling , &c. are in themselves indifferent , and capable of being paid to god and men ; i readily grant it ; but is there then no way to distinguish between civil and religious worship , between the worship of god and men ? i will tell him one infallible distinction , allowed by all the rest of mankind , viz. the worship of the invisible inhabitants of the other world , tho with such external acts as may be paid to creatures , has always been accounted religious worship . civil respects are confined to this world , as all natural and civil relations , which are the foundation of civil respects , are ; but we have no intercourse with the other world , but what is religious . and therefore as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour are distinguished by the fight of the object , to which they are paid , tho the external acts and expressions are the same ; as when men bow the body , and are uncovered , you know what kind of honour it is by seeing who is present , whether their father , their friend , or their prince , or some other honourable persons ; so the most certain mark of distinction between civil and religious vvorship is this , that the one relates to this vvorld , the other to the invisible inhabitants of the next . but god allows us to worship no invisible being but himself , which would unavoidably confound the worship of god and creatures . if the reflecter can give me any one instance of any nation in the world , which did not account the worship of all invisible beings to be religious , i will own my self mistaken . and if all worship of invisible beings is divine and religious worship , this puts an end to this dispute , and abigail might fall down on her face before david , and the beggars in lincolns-inn-fields may beg upon their knees ( as the reflecter argues ) without any constructive idolatry ; but so cannot a papist , who prays to the virgin mary , to saint peter , and saint paul ; now they are in an invisible state , with all the external signs of worship and adoration , excepting sacrifice , which we can give to god himself . and as for his instance of joshua's falling down before the angel , when he can prove that this was only a created angel , and that joshua took him for no more , we will consider it farther . now , if to worship any invisible being , be to give divine honours to it ; then to be sure , to worship the image of such an invisible being , must be religious worship also . for if the worship of the image be referred to that invisible being , whom the image represents , it cannot be civil , but religious honour . 4. the last complaint is , that the answerer appeals from their councils , and sense of their church , to the sentiments of some private authors . and this i confess were a just exception against the answer , if it were true ; but i challenge him to give any one instance of it , wherein the answerer has set up the judgment of private authors against the declared sense and judgment of their councils and church . he has indeed quoted several of their authors , and to very good purpose ; as to give an account of matter of fact , and what the practice of their church is , and what opinion wise men among them had of such practices ; to which purpose he cites some french authors , wicelius , and vives , ( p. 27 , 28. ) which our reflecter is so much grieved at ; or to give an historical account of the state of the controversie , what it was before , and what since the council of trent ; as about the worship of images , p. 17. about the necessity of confession , p. 61. or about the sense and interpretation of some controverted texts of scripture ; or to state the notions of things expressed , but not defined by the council ; as what merit is ; ( p. 57. ) for tho the church has defined the good works of justified persons to be truly meritorious , yet it has not told us what true and proper merit is , and therefore we must learn this from the allowed and received definitions of their divines . thus the council has determined due honour and worship to be given to images , but has not determined what this due honour and worship is ; and therefore we have no way to know it , but by appealing to the general practice of the church , and the doctrine of their divines ; which is not to oppose the sentiments of private authors to the judgment of the church , but where the church has not explained her self , to learn her sense as well as we can , from their most approved divines . thus the council has decreed the use of indulgences , but has not defin'd in what cases and to what purposes they may be used ; and therefore when the representer says confidently , that it is only a relaxation of canonical penances , the authority , and especially the argument of greg. de valent. and bellarmin are good against him , tho not against their church , had their council defined it . ( p. 66. ) when he asserts that indulgences are not sold , the tax of the apostolick chamber is good authority against him ; especially , if those who sell indulgences receive the money only under the notion of alms , which is allowed by the council ; and when he denies , that indulgences do concern the remission either of mortal or venial sins , the answerer might well appeal to the very form of the popes bulls , which not only grant the remission of sins , but in some cases the plenary , and most plenary remission of sins . thus in what cases the pope can dispense , and in what not , is not determined by the council , and therefore there is no other way of knowing how large this power is , but by appealing to the practice of popes in granting dispensations , and the opinions of their divines and canonists about it : and i cannot imagine what should make the reflecter so angry with the answerer for stating this matter , as he seems to be ( p. 17. ) but that he rebukes his confidence by discovering his unskilfulness in such disputes : nor do i discern the answerers fault in saying , we know this dispensing power is to be kept as a great mystery , and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent causes of great consequence and benefit to the church , as their doctrines ( tho the errata , which a reflecter ought to have consulted , would have told him it should be doctors ) declare ; for if their doctors , who may be presumed best to understand the intrigue , do say this , what fault did the answerer commit in saying it after them ; and thus it is in several other cases ; the answerer has alledged the opinions of their divines and casuists , not to oppose them to the authority of the church , but to learn from them what is the most received and currant doctrine in such matters as are not expresly defined by their councils ; and is this like picking up some particular sayings out of private authors , to charge them upon any church ? i do not think my self concerned to examine his citations out of some of our authors , there being so great a disparity between these two cases ; but if he have dealt by others as he has done by the answerer , he is a very misrepresenter still . he says , the answerer seems to maintain , that good works of justified persons are not free . and the answerer indeed does say , that they are not free , as freedom is opposed to a divine assistance in doing them , and to an antecedent obligation to do them , which freedom is necessary to merit ; but does this destroy the liberty of the will as assisted by the divine grace ? or will the reflecter own such a freedom as the answerer denies ? these are all the material exceptions the reflecter has made against the answer , which come to little more than some popular talk ; for i do not think the vision of st. perpetua worth disputing about ; and if he did not think this vision gave some credit to the doctrine of purgatory , i would know why he mentioned it . the answerer does not charge them with making such visions and apparitions , the only foundation of purgatory ; but certainly those who have taken so much pains to tell , if not to invent , such stories , and to father them upon ancient writers , did think that they would do some service to propagate the belief of it in the world : and if this be true , i know no reason they have to be ashamed of them , and notwithstanding all their other arguments , i confess i think they want them . and now i know nothing in his reflections unanswered but some popular harangues and insinuations ; but plain truth , like a true beauty , needs no paint and varnish ; and therefore i shall only for a conclusion assure our people , that the answer is every way agreeable to its title , the doctrines and practises of the church of rome truly represented ; and when this reflecter , or any one for him , shall think fit to examine any part of it as it becomes men , and scholars , they shall either have a fair reply , or a recantation . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59834-e140 doctrines and practices of the church of rome , &c. p. 10. reflect . p. 4. toid . pag. 2. pag. 3. page 19. the introduction . page 5. page . 6. page 7. sidis apostolic●e nomen , non s●lum summuon pontificem significare sed ipsum , ut facit ea , que ad cathedram spectant ; hoc est , qua●●●us non ex suo , sed ex consilio bonorum virorum & doctorum procedit . i●a sedis apostolice ju●●icia intelligi , non que occulte , malitios● , inconsultè , per solum romanum episcopum , aut etiam cum pa●cis sibi faventibus , proferunt●r , sed quae ab ●o ex consilio plurimorum virorum sapientium pl●nè prius re examinata prod●unt . canus de auct . concil . libr. 5. page . 7. page 8. page 9. de auct conc. 1. 5. concil . to. 13. p. 510. lubb. ib. p. 530. vindicat. of dr. sherlock's serm. p. 18. bellarm. de rom. pontif. 1. 4. c. 5. canus de auct . concil . 1. 5. p. 9. p. 10. pag. 15. 16. pag. 60. pag. 62. p. 40. p. 55. p. 67. p. 91. p. 11. p. 35. p. 36. p. 11 , 12. p. 12. page 17. their present majesties government proved to be throughly settled, and that we may submit to it, without asserting the principles of mr. hobbs shewing also, that allegiance was not due to the usurpers after the late civil war : occasion'd by some late pamphlets against the reverend dr. sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1691 approx. 62 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59897 wing s3368 estc r9971 11906832 ocm 11906832 50721 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59897) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50721) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:10) their present majesties government proved to be throughly settled, and that we may submit to it, without asserting the principles of mr. hobbs shewing also, that allegiance was not due to the usurpers after the late civil war : occasion'd by some late pamphlets against the reverend dr. sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 35, [1] p. printed for robert clavel ..., london : 1691. advertisement at end. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng allegiance. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-04 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion their present majesties government proved to be throughly settled , and that we may submit to it , without asserting the principles of mr. hobbs . shewing also , that allegiance was not due to the usurpers after the late civil war. occasion'd by some late pamphlets against the reverend dr. sherlock . london , printed for robert clavel , at the peacock in st. pauls-church-yard , 1691. their present majesties government proved to be throughly settled , &c. having lately perus'd several pamphlets , which the authors stile , remarks on dr. sherlock's new book about the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers , i find they pretend to charge him with hobbism : i presume , it may not be thought useless to give the true state of the case , and thence to prove the lawfulness of our submission to their present majesties ; and that without approaching or bordering upon the opinion of mr. hobbs , who i still think is much in the wrong , as i shall shew by and by : and this i shall the rather do , because it may help to remove the prejudices of our brethren , who have not yet own'd the government , being scandaliz'd , that we seem to favour his principles . having wip'd off this stain , i shall briefly shew , that those principles , by which i am govern'd , are not dangerous to the thrones of princes : this i undertake to prove , because , any principle that shakes the throne , would be a stumbling-block to all loyal men , and at least prejudice them against such arguments as may be urg'd to prove our submission lawful : and it seems the more necessary to give this argument its full weight , because the learned dr. sherlock has but touch'd upon that point , and only ballances this danger on the princes side , with the doctrine of non-resistance on our part ; and indeed , it shews an excellent providence , that god has so settled the governments of the world , as to establish an irresistible power in each government , to preserve the peace of it , and yet lays a most considerable restraint upon such governours , by putting it into the power of their oppress'd subjects , to be idle spectators of their danger in the day of tryal , and to transfer their allegiance as soon as any prosperous conquerour can get into their thrones . but i think we have something more to offer on this subject , viz. that our principles are not prejudicial to princes , or dangerous to their crowns ; or at least , according to these principles , all good princes ( as for such as are arbitrary and tyrannical , they must shift for themselves ) may have great hopes of recovering their dominions , if by the misfortune of war , or any other accident , they be driven from their thrones ; which seems not to be enough provided for , by the hypothesis that our learned author has given us : for if as soon as any usurper has got quiet possession of the throne , submission be then peremptorily and absolutely requir'd , as a duty incumbent on all the members of that government , then the case of a good and a bad prince , when they are once dispossess'd , seem to be equally desperate , viz. neither of them can with any moral assurance , promise themselves any assistance at home , from such as were their subjects : whereas , i am concern'd to see princes , so unlike in themselves , to be set on the same foot in their quarrels ; and i am in pain , to say something , which may support the hopes of injur'd innocence ; i presume i shall do it : if i fail in the attempt , i hope the reader will impute it to an honest zeal , to protect vertue and innocence , that has blinded my eyes . and in prosecution of this design , i shall prove , that there was no obligation to submit to the usurpers after the late civil war , and that though we should suppose them in the quiet possession of the government ; i hope that i shall be able to make all this appear reasonable , without denying the doctrine taught in bishop overal's convocation-book ; it may look somewhat like a contradiction , but i must desire my readers patience until i can come at it . to contract this discourse , as much as i can , i shall make this one supposition , that princes , who originally have no right to their thrones , when their government is throughly settl'd , are invested with god's authority , and must be obey'd by all the members of that government , in as full a manner , as any other , the most legal and rightful princes can challenge : this principle is plainly taught in bishop overal's convocation-book , and i think fully clear'd by the learned doctor sherlock ; and he is so able to maintain what he has advanc'd , that it would be great presumption in me , to endeavour to set it in a better light. taking it then for granted , that all such princes are to be reverenc'd and obey'd by their subjects ; our enquiry is , when a government may be said to be throughly settled ? this to me seems a very knotty question , and will require some thoughts to resolve it ; and i know not how to do it , but by looking back to the original of all soveraign power , where we have been much in the dark ; some saying , lo it is here , and , lo it is there ; some one thing and some another ; one raising all soveraignty from the natural paternal authority , another founding it in conquest , a third in election ; others again pretending , that the several soveraignties of the world have had several originals : but for my part , with submission to better judgments , i shall assert , that all soveraignty is founded in submission ; and this shall be the thread to my following discourse , which if i can maintain , i doubt not but to prove all that i have promis'd on this point : for if it appears , that no man is a subject but upon his own submission , and that conquest without this can give no man authority to govern , and command me as his subject ; then it plainly follows , that dominion is not founded in power ; and that power , and a quiet possession , is no certain sign to us , that god has given the soveraign authority with it . i assert then , that all civil government , whether it be elective , or hereditary , aristocracy , democracy , or any other form of civil government , it is all founded in submission ; and i think there needs no other proof of this doctrine , but to say , that a free man can never be made another's subject , but by his own consent , or submission , either in his own person , or by his representative : by the fortune of war , i may become another mans prisoner , but he must have my own consent to make me his subject ; by the fortune of war , a foreign prince or a rebellious subject may get possession of our whole kingdom , usurp the crown , and have the full and quiet administration of the government , and as it is usually done , claim our obedience as his subjects : but in truth , he has no true title to it ; indeed , if the war was just , all the whole property is his until we enter into conditions ; but the obedience of subjects is not due from us , until we have declar'd , and acknowledg'd him to be our soveraign ; and this i may call a reciprocal obligation , which either may refuse : nor will it argue much bounty in the conqueror to return us our liberty and property , in lieu of our obedience ; because without obliging our consciences , he can hope to reap but little fruit from all his conquests ; he can never be secure in his throne , nor settl'd in his government , until he has some tye upon our consciences ; as we are his prisoners , he may torment and punish us ; but all this while he has no hold upon our consciences , all things are lawful against him as against a publick enemy , and we are free to draw our swords against him , as soon as we can escape out of his hands ; so that on these occasions , a conqueror is forc't to stand arm'd , or to bind our hands until he can bind our consciences . and this seems to be the key to understand those passages , quoted out of bishop overal's convocation-book : the new government is then throughly settl'd , when the new prince has the full administration of the government , and is own'd as soveraign by the representatives of the people freely chosen ; we must then submit not only for wrath , but conscience sake , because it is the ordinance of god. here therefore , i must presume to assert , that the right of government is not deriv'd from god , without the consent or submission of the people ; i do not say it is not deriv'd from god , but the consent of the people , together with the full enjoyment of the regal power , is our visible evidence , that such a prince has receiv'd his authority from god ; for till this be done , we cannot with any propriety of speech , say that the government is settl'd , nor is it call'd the ordinance of god until it be settl'd . i say , submission only makes a through settlement , because , notwithstanding a quiet possession , it is probable whole multitudes may wait an opportunity to overturn it , unless the nation has declar'd its willingness to acquiesce by representatives , who are the mouth of the people , and impower'd to speak their minds . i would not have it thought , as if by this , i deny'd the power of god , to set an usurping tyrant over us against our wills ; for god can do it if he please , and make us the instruments of it ; when he means thus to afflict any nation , or people , he can so incline their hearts , as to make them receive him to be their king , who shall be their scourge ; or the usurping tyrant having them in his power , may make them willing to be his subjects , on such conditions as they can get : and thus god can set a bad king over us in some sense against our wills , and yet it is our own act : for we owe him no obedience , and are not oblig'd to reverence , and obey him on the score of conscience , until his government be settl'd by our receiving him to be our soveraign , either in our own persons , or by our representatives . i presume it will be sufficient to clear this point , if i first prove , that our present civil governments could have no other original ; and further , shew in what sense the men of succeeding ages , and our present times , are not said to be subjects , without their own consent or submission . for the reasons already given , i do suppose all civil governments must have their original , either from submission , or from the paternal authority : now none of our present princes can claim their right from paternal authority , because it cannot be thought that any prince now living , should be able to make good his claim , as the direct heir from noah ; tho' they want no flatterers , yet none of them are so vain as to give out , that they are the heirs of this great family ; so that i shall take it for granted , that all pretences to soveraign authority from paternal power , are absolutely out of doors : and at present i can foresee nothing material , that may be objected against this hypothesis , unless it be what our learned author seems to object , viz. that as natural authority is the most sacred , so no man had authority to give it away ; that is , if i mistake not his meaning , a father having soveraign authority over his children , and childrens children , &c. may not transfer this authority to any other person . now to clear this doubt , perhaps it would be no difficult task . first , to shew the necessity of transfering this authority as families multiplied ; for every thing that is absolutely necessary is lawful , just as we say it was lawful for cain to marry his own sister . secondly , if it were unlawful in the original , a long succession wipes off the stain , as our author plainly grants . thirdly , it being impossible to govern the whole world by the care and inspection of one man , and it being impossible to point out the direct heir in each country , and again impossible to settle the limits of his government : i conclude it was lawful for every parent to transfer , so much of his authority to some single person , as was necessary to preserve peace in the neighbourhood , reserving still so much to themselves as might preserve a filial obedience ; and this might be done , as we see it is at this day amongst us , tho' a stranger to their blood , were invested with a soveraign authority over them . but lastly , tho' no authority , be so sacred as what is natural , yet i conclude it lawful , not only on necessary , but prudential accounts to transfer it : if any denys it is gratis dictum , when they publish their reasons , it will be time enough to put in our answer . so that in short , i suppose it lawful for any body of free men , to invest any one of themselves , or a stranger , with a soveraign authority over them : and that all our present governments did begin in this manner , is more than probable , because none of them could have such authority by any other means ; the pretences from paternal authority are out of doors , conquest will lay no obligation to obedience on a mans conscience , and therefore nothing but consent or submission can do it . it matters not whether this submission was procur'd in gratitude for former obligations , or by flattery , or for fear of rough treatment ; it may be sometimes a willing submission , and sometimes an hard choice , but ones own submission only binds his conscience ; if he would brave his adversary , and not yield to become his subject , or vassal , he would , as we say , be his own man , as soon as he escap'd his adversaries hands ; whereas having once receiv'd him for his soveraign , his conscience is for ever bound ; and if i may so say , he carries his chains with him to the remotest corners of the world : all nations as far as i know being agreed , that no subject can shake off his obedience at his pleasure ; and agreeable to this pinciple they all act , on occasion , calling any of them home , and proceeding against such as refuse to obey their summons , which you must confess ought never to be done by a bare conquerour ; i mean , who is not yet own'd by the estates : or if such a prince should pretend to recall such as are fled from his usurped government , tho' he has the sword , and the whole power in his hands , yet i suppose you will not say that such refugies are oblig'd to return , and act the part of good subjects . this therefore is a plain indication , that all our present civil governments were founded , and settl'd in the consent , or submission of our ancestors ; it remains now , to shew that their posterity , and we of this present age , are not properly said to be subjects without our own submission : and it is necessary to prove this , as well in elective as hereditary governments ; because the government is not there dissolv'd upon the death of the prince , nor would any member of it be loose from his obedience , though he should deny to concur with them in the election of a new king , and claim his liberty at or before the election . i say then , as our ancestors voluntarily submitted to be subjects of this hereditary monarchy , so it is presum'd to be our own choice , they were as properly our representatives , as those that we now chuse in our own persons , and our consent is as well presum'd to the enacting of their laws , as to those that are now made ; and they transmitted no more liberty to me , than they reserved to themselves : nor is it any great strain to presume our consent in this case ; for , to give this argument all the force i can , i will suppose my self born in a very unhappy government ; but as a bad government is better than none at all , so i should think it no foolish choice , to answer for my off-spring , that they should be subject to the same government , and might rationally suppose , that if they could now appear , they would ratify it in their own persons ; because , all civil societies must soon be dissolv'd , if the child be not born in the same condition with his parents ; i mean , subject to the same laws , and the same government : therefore , as my ancestors did presume to consent for me , that i should be subject to all the laws which they enacted , ( for as yet i know no other reason of my being subject to them ) ; so amongst other things , they did consent for me , that i should be subject to such a government , to such and such a prince : the reason holds in both , by vertue of their act. i did as much consent to be a subject to the king of england , as i did consent to any other law which they establish't : they thought it no presumption to consent for us , and we yet tread in their steps ; for whatever laws are now enacted , will oblige our posterity , as if it were their own act ; we represent those that are yet unborn , and choose for them ; and as you find by what has been said , may rationally presume to do so . obj. if it be demanded , on what account our ancestors , three or four hundred years ago , should choose a king for us ? ans. the answer is very obvious , viz. they well understood the conveniencies of government , and therefore might well presume our consent , to be members of it , upon as good terms as they could get ; because , as i said before , a bad government is better than none , since therefore they were to choose for themselves , as well as their posterity , and had an equal interest in this great affair , they might presume to consent for us , seeing they consulted our happiness and security in the world ; or if they acted foolishly and unfaithfully , yet since the thing must be done , or the world would become an aceldama , they might on good grounds presume our consent , and choose for us , as we yet do for our posterity in other cases ; or indeed in the same case , whenever we transfer any part of our liberty , by enlarging the prerogative of the crown . we may act wisely or foolishly , as it happens , but we act not for our selves alone , it affects our whole posterity , whom we represent , and who are supposed to consent with us , for otherwise , i cannot see how it should oblige their consciences . obj. but it may further be objected against this hypothesis , that the major vote cannot include my consent , unless i please . ans. i grant it , if a new government were now to be erected , it could not ; but where we could not act in our own persons , our ancestors being our true representatives , it was rational to presume on our consent in what they did for us ; and since we could not choose for our selves , our consent is most rationally presum'd to the major vote , as it is at this day , when any new law is establish'd ; and since we cannot all act in our own persons , i suppose , every wise man would rather stand oblig'd by the major vote , than entrust his whole property in the breast of those more peculiar representatives , whom he elects himself , since it gives them so large a power , and therefore is a trust too great to be put into the hands of any one man ; and on this account our ancestors might well presume to consent for us , that in these cases we should be oblig'd by the major vote . indeed , at first sight it may seem somewhat hard , that our ancestors should not reserve a liberty to every particular man to choose for himself . we are naturally very fond of this liberty , but in the main , it cannot be done , because no considerable body of men can be thus govern'd ; and as it appears by the event , they who have reserv'd most of this liberty , have acted the most imprudently . thus i suppose we are in some measure sensible of the great inconveniencies incident to an elective government in poland , where , at their dyets , nothing is enacted by a major vote , but only by a general consent ; the wheel of government moves so heavily , that that great people , who in their persons are valiant , in their councils not inferiour to their neighbours , and in their numbers , as considerable as any nation in europe , are become the sport of fortune , being miserably harrass'd by every puny invader ; and for want of giving away a little more liberty , many of them frequently lose it all ; multitudes being daily carryed into a miserable captivity by their enemies , by reason of those dilatory proceedings : so that our ancestors might well presume to consent for us , in passing away this liberty ; and indeed , with us there is such a true temper observ'd , betwixt liberty and prerogative , that the whole frame of our laws , seem to be of our own inditing , being such as every wise man would consent to , tho' we were to begin afresh . but this is more than needs be said ; for if our ancestors had acted very foolishly , and made our condition much worse than it is , their laws would have still oblig'd us , they would have been lookt upon as our own act , because they were our representatives . and now i hope it appears , i had some reason to say , that no man is a subject without his own consent , or submission ; but before i proceed to build upon this principle , it may be necessary to remove the scruples of one sort of men ( for they are no arguments ) against what is advanc'd . object . they may say , if subjects give their prince his authority , they may take it away again , if they please . ans. but we say , they give him not his authority , tho' he has it not without their consent , or submission ; they are only the pipes , or the channels , whereby god almighty conveys his authority to him : for as i said before , to shorten my discourse , i take it for granted , that all government is the ordinance of god , and therefore tho' the subjects may elect the person , it is god that gives him his authority . it is a womans own consent , that makes her subject to the law of her husband ; but yet marriage being gods ordinance , as well as government , when it is done she cannot recall , or re-assume her liberty . but only for argument's sake , we will suppose all authority deriv'd from the people ; yet then i say , it cannot be recall'd , but by the consent of all parties concern'd . and tho' our representatives , may presume the consent of the people , yet the king having a negative voice , nothing of this nature , according to our constitution , can be done without him , whilst he is able and willing to protect us : but if he abandons his people , and cannot , or will not come to protect us ; and our representatives , to prevent the utter ruin of the common-wealth , do then agree , and declare the soveraignty to be in the next heir , that can protect us ; and thus settle him in the full administration of the government , we must then submit , not upon mr. hobbs his base principle , because dominion is founded in power ; but by virtue of the determination of our representatives , which is lookt upon as the act of the whole people , and includes the consent of every particular person , which , as it appears by this discourse , is the only visible means of conveighing a soveraign authority to any person . and if this quiet possession , together with the free consent of our representatives , will not be thought a through settlement , i can think of nothing that can strengthen it , unless it be the resignation of the late king , which i presume , ought never to be expected , and would as much be wanted , upon the most evident conquest , as it is in this case here before us . and therefore , i hope i may conclude , that our government is now throughly settl'd , and that we who submit to it cannot be charg'd with hobbism ; since we do not say that any prince , who has quiet possession of the throne , can claim our obedience , but only such as are confirm'd , and settl'd in it by the determination of our representatives : this i think is a very natural explication of those passages in bishop overal's convocation-book , which require our obedience to a government throughly settl'd ; for that government must needs be very slippery and tottering , which our representatives , who are suppos'd to have the hearts , and to be the mouth of the people , will not confirm . and for as much as i was satisfied , that my own submission was both just and rational , without bordering upon mr. hobbs his base principle , which i always detested : on this occasion , i thought it necessary to recollect my thoughts on this subject , and commit them to writing , that i might the more closely examine , how well my reasons hung together . but i could not set them in a true light , without spinning them out to this length , before i came to the matter in hand , which i chiefly design'd , viz. to shew what a vast difference there is betwixt mr. hobbs , his opinion of government , and our own . his comes from the father of lyes ; ours i hope from the god of truth ; his is the dictate of self-interest , ours the resolves of reason and conscience : he says all soveraignty , or all dominion is founded in power , we say no such thing : the greatest conqueror cannot compel us to be his subjects without our own submission ; tho' he has power over our country , and our persons , yet he can lay no obligation upon our consciences to become his subjects . this must be our own act , either in person , or by our representatives : and if this notion will bear the light , there is no pretence to say as mr. hobbs does , that his having the power of the sword , makes us become his subjects . and as this hypothesis does entirely wipe off the stain of hobbism , so likewise is it a great support , or at least not dangerous to the thrones of good princes ; for one would suspect that his thoughts were ill grounded , if they oblig'd him to maintain such principles ; and indeed , it is a melancholy thing to think , that we should be oblig'd as good subjects to pay obedience to the first conqueror , that shall get quiet possession of the throne , as mr. hobbs has taught us . but according to this hypothesis , the government of the new prince is never throughly settl'd , until he has acquir'd the consent of the people ; there is no obedience due to him , until they confirm his authority . and this i call a great security to all good princes ; for supposing it necessary to have their consent to confirm a government , that began perhaps in usurpation , and settle it , i know nothing more , that a good , but dispossess'd prince , can desire to maintain his hopes of an happy turn of affairs , to re-instate him in his dominions : for men may say what they will , and suggest , that every body is ready to adore the rising sun ; and that the worst title , provided it be prosperous , never wants hands to support and strengthen it ; but for my part , i could never be tempted , nor do i think we ever had reason to make such odious general censures : and as i hope we now want not many honest patriots , who would have supported the late king iames , to the last drop of blood , had his government been so legal , as to have merited such a sacrifice ; so even in this age , to the honour of our holy religion , we want not many generous instances of mens integrity to this rational principle : for though cromwel had as quiet possession of the three kingdoms , as any conqueror could hope for , though he had all our persons naked and helpless , in his power , and at one time , no armed force against him , either at home or abroad ; yet he could never compass the consent of the people in a free convention or parliament , as i shall shew you by and by . this therefore may extreamly exalt the hopes of all good dispossess'd princes , who being just and innocent , may rationally expect , that the free representatives of the people , will not own the usurped power ; and so long as this is not done , they may as rationally hope for succour from their subjects , on the first fair occasion . obj. but some may say , how can this be ? is it probable that an usurper , in the quiet possession of the throne , should not , though with some difficulty , procure an acknowledgment of his authority from our free chosen representatives . ans. i say it is probable , and this late instance of a lasting usurpation , where it could not be done , is a convincing proof , that it may be so again , if we should ever see the like unhappy occasion . i will grant that we live in a wicked generation , and that the worst tyrant will have many followers , if it be but for spoil and plunder . he may be able to influence some by his favours , others by his threats ; others again may go along with him out of pure zeal , to reform such grievances , as he shall please to object against . but what is this towards influencing the whole , or the major part of the nation ? the power of our representatives is deriv'd from so many persons , that the usurpers bounty can reach but few of them ; his menaces , when they are so general , lose much of their force , and as soon as he pretends to the soveraignty , many of his most zealous followers prove his worst enemies : if he should pretend to corrupt the representatives themselves , it is too considerable a body to be aw'd by menaces , too numerous for his favours , generally of too great integrity to accept his bribes , and of better fortunes than to need them ; so that on this score , a dispossess'd good prince might well promise himself an after-game . obj. but again it may be objected , that if it be not lawful to pay allegiance to those usurpers , whose authority is not confirm'd by our representatives , then our condition at such times , must needs be extreamly hazardous and desperate , being naked and destitute , and expos'd to the fury of those , who have all the power in their hands . ans. i cannot but say these are most unhappy circumstances ; but in a general calamity , every good man should be willing to bear his share , and venture his security , and even sacrifice his private interest , to preserve the ancient government , and royal family . besides , in such cases the danger is not so great , as we generally presume it is : indeed , it can hardly be thought , but the usurpers will sacrifice some worthy patriots to their ambition , as those did in the late times ; but when they find a good title , cannot be attain'd without a sea of blood , and much present danger to themselves , they generally sit down as contented as they can , only with a quiet possession : and as for those leading men , whose zeal may have exasperated the usurpers fury , they may live conceal'd , or generously follow their unhappy master into exile , and there patiently wait the happy hour : nor as the world goes with them , will they look upon this honourable banishment , as an hard choice , since if it were just to submit to the usurpers , they could not but expect to be look't upon with an evil eye , and perhaps to be crush'd at the first opportunity . and this , i hope , is sufficient to convince any reasonable man , that these principles are not dangerous to the thrones of princes ; for we do not assert , with mr. hobbs , that as soon as any prince or rebel has got possession of the throne , we immediately thereby become his subjects : nay , though they should get , and keep quiet possession of it , we yet say there is no obedience due from us , until their usurped power be settled , and confirm'd by our representatives , whom we stile the fathers of our country , who are the most knowing in these affairs , and being at the helm , can best judge , whether things be come to that extremity , or not : but , morally speaking , this recognition cannot be procur'd from them , but in the utmost extremity ; and in short , then only when they are entirely in the power of a conquerour , and sufficiently weary of their dispossess'd prince , by reason of his arbitrary and illegal proceedings . thus it literally happen'd after the late civil war ; for notwithstanding all the endeavours that were us'd by the usurpers , they could never procure an acknowledgment of their authority from our free chosen representatives , as i shall now shew you by representing the true matter of fact , from mr. whitlock's memoirs , who must be allow'd to speak as favourably to this point , as the case would bear . and here , i suppose , it will not be necessary i should say any thing of that part of the parliament , commonly called the rump ; they indeed usurp'd the government , but there was not so much as the face of a general consent in the nation . much less need i mention those 120 persons , whom oliver , as general of the army , call'd together ; who at last devolv'd , what authority they had on him : it was never pretended they had any other parliaments or representative body of the people to confirm their power . so that we are already come to cromwel's government , as protector , in which alone , if any where this settlement is to be found . now cromwel had but two conventions or parliaments , as he call'd them , both which we will consider , as also what they did towards settling his authority , by a free parliamentary submission , which we here presume to be necessary to make a through settlement . his first parliament was summon'd iune 9th . 1654. and there is very good reason to suspect there could be no free election , because there were such restrictions and limitations , which the sheriff was to lay upon the people , e're they could be admitted to give their votes . another circumstance , which must necessarily prejudice the freedom of this parliament , was a strange innovation made by the protector , in admitting thirty scotch , and thirty irish members into it : for , could we suppose all the english members freely chosen , so great an accession of strangers must needs be a great clog to the english. for if we may suppose these sixty strangers at the protector 's devotion , they , with the help of some friends they were sure to find here , might probably do things in favour of the protector , against the sense of the people of england , whose opinions are best known by our own members : and that these sixty strangers , were the protectors creatures , is no improbable supposition ; because , he would not otherwise have made this innovation , or have fetch'd them so far for nothing . besides , five sheriffdoms in scotland return'd , that not one fit to be a representative , was to be found within their liberty ; which shews , that the protector , and his states-men , were very nice in their choice . i might also object against this parliament , ( and let it be observ'd , that the former , and this objection , lyes also against his last parliament ) that it was not free , because the protector took upon him , to call only so many persons as he pleas'd , augmenting the number of representatives in some places , and diminishing in others , according to his own humour , without any colour of law ; and having taken this liberty , you may imagine he was careful to call most of the representatives from those places , where he had most creatures , as i might easily make it appear , if it were worth my time. but let us consider what this parliament did , when once they were come together . after some few preliminaries , we find them entring on the grand debate , concerning the articles of the protectors instrument of government , and that in such a manner as made him jealous of their proceedings ; and then he thought it high time , to impose a recognition upon them , which they were to sign , before they were suffer'd to sit again in the house : this recognition ( which may be seen in the memoirs ) can in no sense be call'd a publick act , since it was not first voted in the house : and effectually , upon this , many of them left that pretended parliament , and they who did sign it , presently voted , that it should not be constru'd to comprehend the whole instrument , consisting of forty-two articles ; which was , as much as to say , they reserv'd still to themselves a power to break with him , in case they could not agree afterwards upon the said articles . and if we still trace on their proceedings , we find them always very busy in their debates , about the government , and never able to come to any conclusion about it , ( unless i think upon two articles in forty-two ) till the protector , being jealous of them , in great heat dissolv'd them . his second parliament met september 17. 1656. and it must be confest , that this parliament , did as far as they were able , confirm his usurp'd authority : but nothing is more evident , than that , this was a packt number of his own creatures ; and as the business was then manag'd , it is ridiculous to think , they could speak the peoples sense in this matter . for they were not only crampt , as the former parliament had been ; but as our author observes , none of them were suffer'd to enter the house , without a certificate , that they were approv'd by the protectors council : and when almost an hundred of the members , who were secluded upon that account , demanded entrance , it was slavishly voted by the rest , that they should make their application to the council , for their approbation : this produc'd a most sharp remonstrance , sign'd with their own hands , as may be seen at large in the memoirs , page 640 and if there were nothing more , this is enough to void and null all their proceedings ; this is sufficient to shew , that this was possibly , the most packt assembly , that ever pretended to the name of a parliament ; and that there is not the least colour of reason , to say , that what they did , could any ways be the act of the people ; tho' this was the best title the protector had to his government , as he himself thought , not being solemnly inaugurated before this pretended submission , of the people in parliament , as he call'd it . i should now proceed to consider the case of richard , but there need not many words to blow off his title ; since the only parliament he had , as its freedom was questionable on the former accounts , and because of the exclusion of some members , who it seems were unworthy , because they had been in arms against the rump parliament ; so they never came to any conclusion , about the recognition of his authority . and after all , if those pretended parliaments had own'd both oliver , and his son after him , yet we could not call it the consent of the nation , because of the violent exclusion of the true house of peers . as for what follow'd , richard , until the return of king charles , every body knows it was perfect anarchy , and confusion . it is certain however , there never was any parliament to confirm the authorities then in being : and since that is the only legal way , to testify the consent of a people , we may safely conclude the usurpation was never settl'd . i might proceed in this argument , and at least make it probable , that if cromwels government had been confirm'd , as far as the free consent of our representatives could have settl'd it , yet it would not have been the duty of all private men , to own his authority ; which , tho' it be not at all necessary to maintain my opinion , i shall by way of digression insist a little upon . now this may seem a contradiction to what i have already asserted , or at least inconsistent with the doctrine taught in bishop overal's convocation-book , but i presume it is neither ; and i only urge it , that the true state of the controversy betwixt us , and some of our brethren , may the better be conceiv'd , who insinuate , as if it were one and the same thing to pay obedience to the present government , or to that of the late protector , or any other in his circumstances : what has been said already , does sufficiently shew the vanity of these men ; and therefore it must be observ'd , that if i fail in this attempt , it will not prejudice those principles i undertook to maintain ; therefore , what i say on this head , must stand or fall alone , and i only propose it to the consideration of wiser men. what i have to say , runs upon this supposition , that an usurp't authority is not to be obey'd , nor judg'd to be the ordinance of god , until it be throughly settl'd ? it may be ask'd then , if there be quiet possession , and it be confirm'd by our representatives , what distinction can excuse us from paying obedience to such powers ? i answer , our representatives had no authority to destroy the monarchy : and therefore if they had thus transgrest the limits of their power , it would not have oblig'd those whom they represented . if it be urg'd , that they have an unlimited power : i answer , it is true , but not unless , when they act in their own sphere , and in conjunction with the king. obj. but it may further be objected , that at this rate our representatives could not transfer our allegiance to their majesties , since they could not make any binding act without a king. ans. i deny it . this they can do , as i shall shew you by and by ; but it is an exception from this rule : they alone , can do no other act , that can oblige us : for instance , they cannot impose taxes , or make laws that shall oblige us . in these , and in all other cases , ( except this instance now before us , of confirming the authority of a new king ) it is our interest and security , that nothing should be enacted , but by the consent of the king , and our representatives ; and therefore , since we commission them to act only with the king , they can never act without him . thus for instance , if a conqueror has got the whole power into his hand , they may transfer our allegiance to him ; or if the royal family should be extinct , they may proceed to a new election . but if they pretend to govern us themselves , without a king , this is more power , than we have given them ; for we never trusted the whole legislative authority in their hands ; and i know not how they should come by it otherwise . obj. but some will say , in such a case it is devolv'd to them . ans. i deny it , they may have power to dispose of the crown as they please , but not to assume the whole soveraignty to themselves . by this means they will lessen our security ; for whereas now we are oblig'd only by laws made by the king , and our representatives , we should then be obliged by laws , made only by themselves ; which i may say , is contrary to our fundamental law , viz. to be govern'd by a king and our representatives . the chain of my discourse , hath led me into these untrodden paths , i will disentangle my self , as soon as i can , but all this was necessary to prove the thing i am aiming at . but to proceed , obj. against this it may be objected , that if the royal family were extinct , the whole power would be lodg'd in the hands of our representatives , and who may resist them ? ans. to prevent the dissolving of the government , it is necessary , they should take the sword into their hands ; but if they will not declare a new king , according to custom , i cannot see why they may not be compell'd to it , since they have their power only in trust , not in their own right : thus in poland , upon the death of the king , if the representatives of the people , who on that occasion are entrusted with the whole power , should pretend to be lords paramount , and would not proceed to a new election ; i know not why the people should not demand their right , which is to be govern'd by a king. now this would have been our case , if our representatives , in the late times , had patcht up a government without a king : tho' this had been done by our representatives , it could not properly be call'd the act of the people , because we never gave them such authority . this you cannot but grant , unless you will presume , that we commission them to destroy the monarchy ; which as you find can hardly be suppos'd in an elective kingdom , upon the death of their king ; but it is perfect nonsense to suppose it , in an hereditary government , whilst the royal family is yet in being . it may be suppos'd , that we commission them to elect a king , in case the royal line should fail , or finding two pretenders , to declare who has the best title , or to appoint a protector , in case of infancy , or lunacy ; or to receive a conqueror into the throne , in case our natural prince , be fled out of his kingdom , and incapacitated to protect us , and they in no condition to make opposition ; or to invest the next heir , with royal authority in case of desertion , especially if the deserting prince , dare not , or cannot come to protect us ; their enquiry not being , how he came into that condition , but whether he be in a capacity to protect us ; and if he be not , they are then free to invest the next heir with the royal authority : in all these cases our representatives may well presume on our consent , tho' they act without the king , because it is almost absolutely necessary , these things should be done ; and intolerable inconveniencies would ensue , perhaps to the utter ruin of the common-wealth , if they were not done : but to presume , that we give them authority to take , and keep the whole legislative power in their own hands , or to destroy the monarchy , this is a strain beyond my comprehension , at least it is not properly the act of the people ; and therefore they , whom they represent , must ratify it in their own persons , ere they can pretend a through settlement . but then , if the people all the while shew great uneasiness under this usurpation , if their crys be loud and clamorous , and many of them absolutely refuse to own the authority ; this has not the face of a settlement : here is nothing , that looks like a general consent ; and that tho' we should suppose our representatives to have own'd the usurpt authority ; ( for as by the fundamental laws of the nation , we only authorise them to act with the king ; ) so whatever they shall do without a king , is not valid , unless it be in the cases before mention'd , which both necessity and reason will allow ; whereas , neither necessity nor reason can be pleaded in the former instance . but i do not pretend , that what i have said on this point , will amount to any thing like a demonstration ; a short-sighted man may chance to find greater flaws in it , than i am now aware of : perhaps , my zeal for monarchy , has too much heated my imagination ; and i can only say , in my excuse , that i have no pleasing idea's of a common-wealth ; and therefore , would willingly shut the door against it . but if this will not stand the test of a judicious reader , let this long parenthesis pass for nothing , we need no such precarious principles ; our case is good without it , as you may find in the other parts of this discourse . and now i have nothing more to trouble my reader with , but only to answer two or three objections which could not so conveniently be consider'd in the body of this discourse ; and then draw some conclusions from it . obj. first then it may be objected , that according to these principles , we are now settled upon a legal and rightful government . ans. first , if this be well prov'd , so much the better ; it is then no argument against me . secondly , i can see no good reason , why we should not own it to be a legal and rightful government , unless it be , that our heads are perplex'd with the nice distinction of a king de iure , and a king de facto : by a king , de iure , we commonly mean a prince who has the crown by right of inheritance ; and it is thought , that any other person can be , at best , but a king , de facto : upon this , many suppose , that his present majesty cannot be king , de iure , at least , during the life of king iames ; but yet may be obey'd , because the law , made in the 11 th . of henry 7 th . determines our obedience to a king , de facto . it is true , that law indemnifies those who shall obey the king in the time being , as the words of the act run ; that is , the king in possession , whether he claims the crown by right of inheritance , or otherwise . but if interpreters shall say , that he only is a king , de iure , who claims his crown by right of inheritance , it is a visible mistake ; for all mankind , as far as i know , are agreed , that a conquerour , who makes a just war , upon the submission of the conquered nation , becomes a king , de iure : and if in this present case , his majesty is justly invested with the royal authority , he is so likewise , as i think i have prov'd : so that , you find this common interpretation is imperfect ; a king , de iure , should not so peremptorily be restrained to a king by inheritance ; but we run away with the mistake ; and without considering , seem to yield the point , as if his present majesty were only a king , de facto . i cannot say , whether such as are skill'd in the laws , will allow of this interpretation ; but with submission , i presume it is agreeable to reason , and does not defeat the design of the law. to say , that a king , without a title , is a king , de iure , is a contradiction ; but to suppose , that he that originally wants a title , does by an act of recognition , receive a title ; this we may suppose , without straining or forcing our reason : i am sure it does not sound so harsh , as to require obedience to an illegal government , for conscience sake . on other occasions we make no scruple to say , that a sentence in a court of judicature , gives a man a title to an estate ; and upon this , the tenants and vassals , though it were procur'd corruptly , are to look upon him , and pay him homage , as the legal possessor ; and the like may be said in the case before us , if our representatives , without any good reason , had plac'd his majesty on the throne , he had then been a king , de facto , a legal possessor in the eye of the law ; but if they acted according to reason and conscience , as i presume they did , he is then king , de iure . and if this were allow'd for sence , we should not be driven to say , that god almighty requires our obedience to illegal governments ; which i cannot yet assent to , notwithstanding all the authorities , which are brought to support this doctrine . i acknowledge once for all , that god removeth kings , and setteth up kings , as he pleases ; he is not bound by humane laws , as we are ; and when he has set up a new king , he must be obey'd ; but an usurp't soveraignty must not be ascrib'd to god , or it does not appear to be his act , until the new king gets quiet possession , together with an act of recognition ; it is then soon enough to ascribe the revolution to the hand of god : when god means to carry things to this length , he does by one means or other , dispose the peoples hearts , to receive such a prince , and then he hath god's authority . obj. but it may be urg'd , that this explication defeats the design of the law ; which , as they say , was enacted , to indemnify such as assisted henry the seventh , in case of a new revolution ; because , originally he had no good title to the crown ; for if quiet possession , and the recognition of our representatives , gives a title , it may be said , there was no need of this law. ans. first , abundans cautela non nocet ; they could never make themselves too secure ; and therefore , lest their enemies , as it was in the fable , should say , that their ears were horns , they did wisely provide against it , fencing themselves with an act of parliament , tho' really there was little occasion for it ; but lest their enemies might afterwards pretend , that henry the 7th . was not king , de iure , they declar'd it lawful to obey a king , de facto ; though at the same time , there was no great reason to enact it barely on his account . and i presume , the rather , to make this construction of it , because it is scarce credible , that henry the 7th . ( who had so many claims to the crown , viz. blood , conquest , marriage , and all strengthen'd by an act of recognition ) should suffer his people to say , that he had no rightful title to the crown ; whereas it is said , he was the most suspicious prince then living ; and therefore , it is very improbable , he should own such a blot in his title , which must be , if he made himself thus a king , de facto , only . secondly , if this be an empty , groundless surmise , his majesty is yet a legal king , because this law supposes we may have such a king : and i may say , king iames was no more ; for though he had his authority from god , the law only was our evidence of his authority ; just as we say , marriage is the ordinance of god ; yet if a man be not marryed by the form , which the law prescribes , we presume to call it no marriage . but after all , we are very unfortunate , if this law , which was made to govern and direct us in our obedience , should prove the main foundation of all our scruples ; for perhaps , if our fore-fathers had not troubled us with this nice distinction of a king de jure , and a king , de facto , we should not have coin'd it on this occasion , but have generally submitted to their majesties , as lawful and rightful king and queen . obj. but secondly , against this hypothesis may be urg'd our vulgar maxim , that conquest gives right ; for if there be any truth in this saying , there is no need of our consent . ans. this i have in part answer'd before , and if the maxim be ill grounded , it must shift for it self . secondly , i allow there is some truth in it , conquest may give a prince right to the conquered dominions . when we are conquer'd , we lose our property . but i cannot conceive , that he should have right to our obedience , and our persons , as so many cattle , and stock upon the ground ; and in short , if you would make this the sense of it , the condition of a conquer'd people , would be most intolerable , since we thus bind their consciences without reserving them any property ; it being agreed by all , that a conqueror has the whole property in the conquer'd country ; and we only plead to have their consciences free , until they can make terms for themselves , which i think ought not to be included in this maxim ; or if it be , i had rather quit the maxim , than lose my liberty . i should now have done , only it may be convenient to draw some conclusions from this hypothesis , which may not be disagreeable to men of our principles . as first , if this be true , then it was not his majesties sword , nor his armies , that gave him his authority over us , but our representatives ; in the condition we were in , did justly transfer our allegiance to him , as i have already demonstrated . this therefore must be great satisfaction to us all , that notwithstanding this great revolution , things have run in the right channel , and that he did not get into the throne , by illegal means , which being suppos'd , we may the better hope for prosperity under his government . secondly , if these principles be true , then his majesty was not elected as some affirm ; for in as much , as the late king was not able , or willing to protect us , the crown naturally devolv'd on his majesty , ( for if her majesty , and her royal highness the princess of denmark be pleas'd to postpone their right , what is that to us ) and if his majesty upon the late kings leaving the kingdom , did not presently take it , but left the doubt to be decided by our representatives , it is no more than might be done upon a descent , if there were two pretenders to the royal dignity ; which being thus determin'd , i presume would not be deem'd an election ; their act does not so much give the crown , as determine , to whom it did belong . and i think this is much the same case to that which is now before us ; viz. the consent of the estates , to place his majesty on the throne , does no more derogate from his right , than the act of recognition , past by king iames the first , did suppose a flaw in his title . thirdly , upon these principles we may also silence those rash men , who for reasons best known to themselves , frequently tell us , that the government was dissolv'd , when the late king left us . but surely these men cannot see an inch before them , and i am almost asham'd to give them a serious answer . let them tell me , if the government did thereby crumble into pieces , by what right did our then representatives , erect another on the ruins of it ? if the fountain of honour fail'd , what right had the nobility to their peerage , and why might not the meanest peasant send his representative , as well as any landed man , or free burgher ? these questions are too difficult to be resolv'd , unless it be upon the supposition , that the old government was then in being . they were at a loss indeed , to know in whom the government should be vested , and they came together to determine this great question , which they soon wisely resolv'd ; and unless we quietly submit to what is done , by our representatives in these exigencies , we might as well say the government was dissolv'd , when the king left us , if the remaining powers might not determine , where we should pay our obedience : for i suppose those confusions , what by an unruly rabble , and a disbanded army , did sufficiently shew the necessity of fixing somewhere ; and i humbly suppose it is as evident to all mankind , that the late king would not , or could not come to act his part in the government . but lastly , upon these principles ( if it were necessary to refute such vile reproaches ) we might secure our last unhappy prince , from being accounted the grand rebel , as he is styl'd in a late scurrilous pamphlet : for if it is only our own consent , that makes us subjects , we may at least be so favourable to the ruins of majesty , as to excuse him from being a subject or a rebel ; since he cannot be the head , he has not consented to be any other member of the government , not being here in person , or any deputed from him ; though this cannot be said of any other person , since they are represented in our estates , whether they will or not : nor upon any other hypothesis can i conceive it rational , to exclude the late king himself from being a member of this present government ; but this way he is set at liberty , and consequently , as free to invade their majesties dominions , as any other prince . if he molest us with an unjust war , he must expect , at the great and dreadful day , to give account for all the desolations and blood-shed , that shall ensue upon it : if he is injur'd , he has a good god to fight his battles , and we a merciful creator , that i hope will compassionate our sins of ignorance : i hope i may well call them so ; for my part , my conscience bears me witness , that i think it my duty to submit to their present majesties government ; and that i see nothing , that moves a scruple in my heart , but the contrary example of some worthy men , who , i am perswaded , act with great sincerity : but since example is no argument , and if it were , is much stronger on our part ; i dare not but follow the dictates of my own conscience . finis . , some books lately printed for robert clavel . political arithmatick , or a discourse concerning the extent and value of lands , people , buildings , husbandry , manufacture , commerce , fishery , artizans , seamen , souldiers , publick revenues , interest , taxes , superlucration , registries , banks , valuation of men , increasing of seamen , of militia's , harbours , scituation , shipping , power at sea , &c. as the same relates to every country in general , but more particularly to the territories of his majesty ▪ of great britain , and his neighbours of holland , zealand , and france . by sir william petty , late fellow of the royal society . the frauds of the romish monks , and priests , set forth in eight letters , written lately by a gentlemen in his journey into italy , and published for the benefit of the publick . a late letter concerning the proceedings in scotland , and sufferings of the episcopal clergy in that kingdom , price 6 d. roman forgeries in the councils , during the first four centuries , together with an appendix concerning the forgeries , and errors in the annals of baronius . by thomas comber , d. d. praecentor of york . a scholastical history of the primitive and general use of liturgies in the christian church , together with an answer to mr. david clarksons late discourse concerning liturgies , in two parts in octavo . by thomas comber , d. d. seasonable reflections on a late pamphlet , entituled , a history of passive obedience since the reformation , wherein the true notion of passive obedience is settled , and secured from the malitious interpretations of ill designing men. the golden rule , or the royal law of equity explained . a sermon preached before the court of aldermen , and city of london , at guid-hall chappel , on sunday december , the 16th , 1688. both by i. goodman , d. d. a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy, d.d. and late minister of st. lawrence jewry, london, jan. 7th, 1686 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 45 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59876 wing s3347 estc r21708 12568027 ocm 12568027 63396 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59876) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63396) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 703:16) a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy, d.d. and late minister of st. lawrence jewry, london, jan. 7th, 1686 by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [6], 34 p. printed for john amery ..., and william rogers ..., london : 1686. advertisement: p. 34. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng calamy, benjamin, 1642-1686 -death and burial. clergy -office. funeral sermons. sermons, english. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-11 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-11 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy d. d. and late minister of st. lawrence jewry , london , jan. 7 th . 1686. by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple , and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty . london : printed for john amery at the peacock , and william rogers at the sun ; both against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . 1686. imprimatur . jan. 11. 1685 / 6 ; . c. alston r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domestics . to his much esteemed friends the church-wardens and parishoners of st. laurence jewry , and st. mary magdalane milkstreet . gentlemen , though i had no intention to make this sermon publick , yet i could not with any modesty deny your request , when you had paid so great a regard to the counsel given you in it . i heartily congratulate your happy agreement in the choice of so excellent a person to succeed the not-to-be-forgotten dr. calamy , who , i doubt not , will deserve all that honour and kindness , which it is so natural to you , to show to your ministers . i here present you with the sermon , as it was preached , excepting some few things at the beginning , which were left out in speaking , to shorten it , as much as i could , without injuring the sense . i am sensible the character falls very short of what our deceased friend deserved , but it is every word true , and i thought , had been as inoffensive too as it is true ; and so i believe it will appear to wise and considering men , and others may judge as they please . if it will contribute any thing to make both ministers and people more faithful in the discharge of their several duties , i have what i aimed at , both in preaching and printing it , especially if you please to accept of it as a testimony of the sincere respects of gentlemen , your very humble servant , will. sherlock . 24 matth. 45 , 46. who then is a faithful and wise servant , whom his lord hath made ruler over his houshold , to give them meat in due season ? blessed is that servant , whom his lord when he cometh , shall finde so doing . in this and the fore-going chapter , our saviour acquaints his disciples with the signs and prognosticks of his coming ; which plainly have a double aspect , both upon his coming to destroy jerusalem , and upon his coming to judge the world : but the application he makes of it , is of universal use ; watch therefore , for ye know not what hour your lord doth come . v. 42. which is excellent advice , in what sense soever we understand the coming of our lord ; for the coming of our lord signifies his coming to take account of us , and whether we apply this to the hour of our death , or to the last day of judgment , still it concerns us to watch ; that is , to be always diligent and careful in doing our duty , and discharging that trust which is committed to us , that whenever our lord comes , we may give up our accounts with joy . the words , i have now read to you , concern the apostles of christ , and their successors , the bishops and pastors of the whurch , who are as much obliged to this watchfulness , as any other sort of persons , because as they have a greater trust , so they have a greater account to give . this we learn from 12 luke 42 , 43 , v. where our saviour having given that general advice to all his disciples , to watch for the coming of their lord , st. peter particularly enquires , how far he , and the rest of the apostles were concerned in it : lord , speakest thou this parable unto us , or even to all . v. 41. to which our saviour answers , who then is that faithful and wise steward , whom his lord shall make ruler of his houshold , to give them their portion of meat in due season ? blessed is that servant , whom his lord , when he cometh shall find so doing . wherein our saviour does particularly apply that general advice to his apostles and their successors , his servants , stewards , and ministers of the gospel : and indeed those particular expressions which are here used do sufficiently acquaint us , to whom this advice belongs . we need not question , who is here meant by the lord , which is the peculiar title of christ in the new testament , and it is as evident , what this houshold is , which is the church of christ , the house and temple of the living god , the houshold of faith , the houshold of god. and christ is said to be faithful as a son , or lord , over his own house , whose house are we , if we hold fast the confidence , and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end , in distinction from moses , who was faithful as a servant . the rulers of the houshold , or the stewards in st. luke , are the apostles , bishops , presbyters , who are the governours of the church , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the overseers , the ministers of christ , the stewards of the mysteries of god. the meat , which they are to give in season , is the word of life , which with respect to the different degrees and perfection of knowledge is compared to milk , and to strong meat : and therefore they are commanded to feed the flock , to preach the word , to be instant in season , out of season , to reprove , rebuke , exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine . this is sufficient to shew you , that my text does principally concern the bishops and ministers of the church , who are in an eminent manner the servants of christ in the instruction and government of his church , which is his house ; and in speaking to these words , i shall observe this following method . i. consider the duty of gospel-bishops and pastors , which is to feed , and to govern the houshold of christ. ii. the qualifications of gospel-ministers , which are faithfulness and prudence , a faithful and wise servant . iii. the great rewards of such men , blessed is that servant . i. the duty of gospel-ministers whether bishops or others , and that consists of two parts . 1. to feed . 2. to govern the houshold or church of christ. they are appointed rulers of his houshold , to give them meat in due season . i. to feed the flock of christ. this command christ gave to peter , and repeated it three times ; simon , son of jonas , lovest thou me more then these ? then feed my lambs , feed my sheep . now to feed , signifies to instruct men in the knowledge of christ , for knowledge is the proper food and nourishment of the soul , by which it grows in spiritual wisdom , and all vertue and goodness ; and is as necessary to our spiritual life , as natural food is to the life of our bodies . this is life eternal , saith our saviour , to know thee the onely true god , and jesus christ , whom thou hast sent . for this reason our saviour appointed stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of his kingdom , whose whole business it should be to study the divine will themselves , and to instruct others . for this is a knowledge which must be taught ; nature may instruct us in the being of a god , and the differences between good and evil , and the plain rules of morality ; but the mysteries of the kingdom , the whole oeconomy of mans salvation by jesus christ , is to be known onely by revelation . christ came down from heaven to reveal this to us , and he instructed his apostles , and his apostles by their preaching and writings instructed the church , and have left us a standing rule of faith and manners ; but yet it is necessary , that there should be some men peculiarly devoted to the service of religion , the study of the scriptures , and the work of the ministry , to instruct and teach those who have neither leisure nor opportunities for enquiry , nor capacity to learn without a guide , which is the case of the generality of christians ; especially since religion has been clogged with such infinite disputes , and there has been so much art used to make the plainest truths difficult , obscure , and uncertain , to corrupt the christian faith , and to make it comply with mens sensual lusts , or secular interests . a guide and instructor is absolutely necessary , when there are so many turnings and labyrinths , wherein men may lose themselves , and their way to heaven . but though there were no disputes in religion , no difficulty in understanding it , though all men were agreed about the way to heaven , though the meanest christian understood the mysteries of christianity , as well as the greatest divine , yet there would be constant need of a spiritual guide , while men are apt to be unmindful of their duty , and careless in the practice of it . the work of an evangelical pastor is not meerly to instruct the ignorant , but to exhort , to reprove , to admonish , to watch over the lives and manners of christians , to make seasonable applications to their consciences , to administer comfort to afflicted spirits , to excite and quicken the slothful , and to encourage the fearful and timerous , and to assist and direct men in their spiritual warfare , how to obtain a glorious victory over the world and the flesh. this is to feed the flock of christ , and to give them meat in due season , to instruct them in those things of which they are ignorant , and to put them in mind of those things which they already know , that their faith may be turned into a principle of life and action , and this heavenly food may be digested into bloud and spirits , to the edifying of the body of christ in all christian graces and vertues . 2. another part of the ministerial office consists in acts of discipline and government ; christ has made these ministers and servants , rulers over his houshold . no society can be preserved , without order and government , which is as absolutely necessary in the church , as in the state. christ is the head of the church , the husband , the shepherd , the lord , which are all names of authority and power ; and the church is his body , his spouse , his flock , his houshold , and family , which are names of subjection , and denote a regular and orderly society ; but christ has now left this world , and does not visibly appear among us , to direct and govern the affairs of his church ; he is ascended into heaven , where he sits at the right hand of god , and exerciseth an invisible power and providence for the defence and preservation of his church on earth : he governs us by his laws , and by his spirit , and by his ministers : for when he ascended on high , he led captivity captive , and gave gifts to men . and he gave some , apostles : and some , prophets : and some , evangelists : and some , pastors and teachers . for the perfecting of the saints , for the work of the ministry , for the edifying of the body of christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith , and of the knowledge of the son of god , to a perfect man , unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ. when our saviour was risen from the dead , he tells his disciples , all power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth . go ye therefore , and teach all nations , baptizing them in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you : and lo , i am with you alway , even unto the end of the world. this is their commission to preach the gospel , and to govern his church ; which was not meerly a personal commission to the apostles , but extends to all their successors , as appears from christ's promise to be with them in the discharge of his ministerial authority to the end of the world. thus st. john acquaints us , that christ after his resurrection appeared to his apostles , when they were met together , and said unto them , peace be unto you , as my father hath sent me , so send i you . and as he had said this , he breathed on them , and said unto them , receive ye the holy ghost . whose soever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain , they are retained . this invested them with authority , but then the actual communication of power , which , especially at that time , was necessary to the discharge of their office , was reserved for the descent of the holy ghost ; and therefore our saviour commanded them , not to depart from jerusalem , but to wait for the promise of the father , that is , the gift of the holy ghost . for says he , ye shall receive power after that the holy ghost is come upon you , and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in jerusalem , and in all judea , and in samaria , and unto the uttermost parts of the earth . and accordingly we find , that during the time of the apostles , the supreme authority of the church was in their hands , which they committed to their successors , and has ever since been exercised by christian bishops and presbyters , with regard to their different order and power . but what is this power which christ hath given to his ministers ? they have no rods , nor axes , as secular princes have , to compel men to the faith of christ , and to force their obedience . no , this is contrary to the genius and spirit of christianity . if men will be infidels , if they will be wicked , we cannot help it : for though we walk in the flesh , we do not war after the flesh : for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal , such as earthly princes use , but mighty through god , to the pulling down of strong holds , casting down imaginations , and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of god , and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of christ. our saviour in my text acquaints us what this power and authority is ; he makes them rulers over his houshold , to give them meat in due season . this is the authority christ hath given to his ministers , to instruct , to exhort , to advise , to admonish , to reprove , and that with sharpness too , when there is occasion for it , according to the power which the lord hath given to edification , and not to destruction ; as st. paul speaks . but what authority is this ? may not every christian do the same ? is it not the duty of us all , as we are able , to instruct , exhort , reprove one another ? yes , it is ; and i would to god it were more generally practised : but yet every private christian cannot do this with the authority of a bishop , or a gospel-minister : the instructions and exhortations of private christians , are acts of friendship and charity ; and the obligation to it , is that mutual concernment and sympathy which the members of the same body ought to have for each other : in gospel-ministers it is an act of authority , like the censures of a father , a magistrate , or a judge . we do not pretend indeed , as st. paul speaks , to have dominion over your faith , to exercise a kind of soveraign authority , to oblige you to believe any thing meerly because we say it ; but yet our authority is such , that if in the exercise of our office we explain the articles of faith and rules of life to you , it lays an indispensible obligation upon you , carefully to examine what we say , and not to reject it , without plain and manifest evidence , that what we teach you is not agreeable to the will of god revealed in the scriptures . for when we come in the name and authority of christ , that man who rejects our message , without being sure that we exceed our commission , rejects the authority by which we act ; and he that despiseth , despiseth not man , but god. it is our work and our commission to instruct you , and it is your duty to be instructed ; and whoever shall wantonly reject any doctrines which do not suit with his humour and interest , or oppose some popular mistakes and prejudices against the instructions of his guide , or turn away his ear from instruction , and heap to himself teachers , having itching ears , such a man must give a severe account of this neglect and contempt to the great bishop and shepherd of souls . while we are careful to discharge our office in pursuance of that trust our great master hath committed to us , what our saviour tells his apostles is true of the meanest of us all ; he that heareth you , heareth me : and he that despiseth you , despiseth me : and he that despiseth me , despiseth him that sent me . the like may be said of the exhortations , and counsels , and directions , and reproofs , of our spiritual guides , they carry great authority with them ; they are not like the private admonitions of our friends , who exhort and reprove out of kindness , and their particular concernment for us : to reject such counsels as these , does mightily aggravate our sin and our condemnation , as every thing does , which makes our sin more wilful and obstinate ; but to reject the counsels and reproofs of our guide , is a new act of disobedience to that authority which christ has set in his church . whether you will hear , or whether you will obey , we must exhort , reprove , advise ; and wo be to us , if we do not , and wo be to those who will not hear , who will not obey . our great master looks upon this as a contempt of his own authority , and this is all the authority we have . we cannot force you to obey our counsels or reproofs , but ours and your master will severely punish you , if you do not . in a word , the instructions , reproofs , and censures of christ's ministers , carry such authority with them , that they can receive into , or shut out of the communion of the church , which is the onely visible state of salvation . remission of sins , and eternal life , is ordinarily to be had onely in the visible communion of the church , and therefore the power of receiving into the church by baptism , and of casting out of the church by excommunication , which is the onely authority christ hath given to these rulers of his houshold , to receive in and cast out of his family , is called a power of remitting or retaining sins , because the forgiveness of sins is to be had onely in the communion of the church , and no man belongs to the invisible church , who does not live in communion with the visible church , when it may he had . the authority of christs ministers is to feed those , who are of his houshold , to give them their meat in due season , and to judge who shall belong to this houshold , who shall be received in , or cast out of christs family : this is the highest act of church authority on earth , and the onely sanction of all our instructions , counsels , and reproofs ; and therefore this authority is not intrusted with every gospel-minister , but is committed to the chief governours of the church , the bishops who succeed into the ordinary apostolical power . ii. let us now consider the due qualifications which are required in gospel-ministers , and they are two : faithfulness and prudence , who is that faithful and wise servant ? first , faithfulness : now faithfulness in a servant consists in being true to his trust ; and when this is applied to preaching the gospel , it signifies , that he is extreamly careful to publish the whole mind and will of god ; which as it concerns us in this age , includes these following rules : 1. to be careful to acquaint our selves with the will of god , that we may be scribes which are instructed unto the kingdom of heaven , who are like unto a man that is an housholder , which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old . the priests lips must preserve knowledge , but we must first have it , before we can teach it others ; and since none of us now pretend to immediate inspirations , this is a work of difficulty and labour , and requires as much faithfulness in our studies , as in the pulpit . it is no argument of faithfulness , whatever it may be of diligence , to run like ahimaaz without tidings , to vent some crude and indigested thoughts for the oracles of god. 2. faithfulness requires us to preach nothing for the will of god , but what we are sure to be so ; to deliver no message , but what we have received in commission ; not to indulge our own private conjectures and fancies , nor think to mend and sublimate religion by philosophical speculations , but to content our selves with the simplicity of the gospel , to preach christ jesus , and him crucified . nothing has done greater mischief to religion , than when the very teachers of it have been ambitious to be wise above what is written . all the articles of the christian faith , as distinguisht from the principles of natural religion , can be known onely by revelation ; and therefore there is no reasoning about them any farther , than to know what is revealed , and what is not revealed , is so uncertain , and so useless , that it is not worth the knowing . since we preach in the name , and by the authority of christ , we ought not to instruct our people in any thing but what we have his authority for , for this is to exceed our commission . other nice speculations may entertain us in private conversation ; but when we preach in the name of christ , let us onely preach his gospel , and teach them to observe and do whatsoever he hath commanded us . 3. faithfulness requires , that we preach the whole will of god ; that we instruct men in all the articles of the christian faith , especially where there is any apparent and present danger of a mistake ; and that we teach them every part of their duty to god and men , especially such duties as they are most unwilling to learn , and most averse to practice . this is an essential part of faithfulness , & requires no small courage too . there are no times so bad , no hearers so captious , but they will very well bear some general commendations of religion , or some common topicks about vertue or vice ; which are of great use too , especially in such a sceptical and unbelieving age , as this . but a faithful discharge of our ministry requires somewhat more ; a particular application to the consciences of men , according to their wants and necessities , not so much to consult what will please them , as what will do them good . it mightily concerns a gospel-minister , as far as he can , to maintain a fair reputation in the world , but a good name is nothing worth , when we can do no good by it , when we cannot get or maintain a good name without neglecting our duty , or betraying the souls of men . i had a thousand times rather , that men should reproach and revile me for instructing them in such duties , as they cannot with patience hear of , than that they should commend me for my silence . it is hard to live in any age , wherein there are not some popular errors , or some popular vices to be corrected ; and it is a very dangerous thing to meddle with any thing that is popular . but what is danger to that man , who is in a greater danger by the neglect of his duty ? shall any man call himself a minister of the gospel , and a servant of jesus christ , and in such an age , as we now live in , be ashamed or afraid to cenfure or consute the errors of popery or fanaticism , or to reprove schism and faction , because they are very popular vices . let a man so account of us , as the ministers of christ , and stewards of the mysteries of god. moreover , it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful . but with me it is a very small thing that i should be judged of you , or of mans judgment : as st. paul speaks . when we leave our several flocks , it will be infinite satisfaction to us , to be able to say , as st. paul did to the asian bishops ; i take you to record this day , that i am pure from the blood of all men . for i have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of god. secondly , prudence is as necessary in a gospel-minister , as faithfulness is : by prudence i do not mean cunning and subtilty , artificial insinuations and addresses , which are more like the arts of seducers , than of gospel-ministers , who by good words , and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple . prudence will not allow us in the neglect of any part of our duty , whatever the event be ; but we must renounce the hidden things of dishonesty , not walking in craftiness , nor handling the word of god deceitfully , but by manifestation of the truth , commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of god. wisdom and prudence , as it is consistent with faithfulness and honesty in the discharge of our trust , can signifie no more but this ; to instruct , exhort , perswade , and perform all the parts and offices of a gospel-minister , in such a manner , as may render our instructions and perswasions most effectual ; to take the most convenient seasons , when men are most apt to be wrought on ; to teach them such things as are of most present use to them ; to use such arguments as are most likely to prevail ; to avoid all unnecessary provocations , when the duty it self , which we are to teach them is not the matter of the provocation ; for if men will be provoked with hearing of their duty , there is no help for that . prudence never dispences with any part of our duty , but directs to the best way of doing it : a faithful servant does what he is commanded , and a wise servant does it in the most effectual manner . iii. the last part of my text concerns the great rewards of such faithful and wise servants ; blessed is that servant . what this reward is , we are not here particularly told . all good men , we know , shall be very blessed and happy in the other world , and we may reasonably presume , that christ , who is the great judge of the world , has reserved some peculiar marks of honour for his immediate servants : this he plainly intimates to us , in that distinction he makes between the reward of a prophet , and of a righteous man : he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet , shall receive a prophets reward : and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man , shall receive a righteous mans reward . our reward in heaven will bare some proportion to the nature of our work , and to that service we do for god in this world. now we cannot do any more acceptable service , than to serve god in the gospel of his son : to use our utmost endeavours to propagate religion in the world , and to make other men wise , and good , and happy . our saviour himself came into the world on this very design , and was advanc't to the right hand of glory and power , as a reward of it ; and those who are workers together with him , as st. paul speaks , will receive some proportionable reward also . the faithful discharge of this duty is a work of infinite care and difficulty , that it made an apostle himself cry out , who is sufficient for these things . it requires the exercise of great care , and great prudence , and great patience ; it is abundantly enough to employ our whole time and thoughts either in studying the will of god , or in attending the publick ministries of religion , or in private addresses and applications to men who want our advice and counsel ; we must contentedly bear all the affronts and insolencies of bad men , the frowardness and peevishness of many profest christians , the gain-sayings and contradictions of sinners . we must go on and persevere in our work , though our persons and our ministry be despised : when we are reviled , we must bless : when persecuted , we must suffer : when defamed , we must entreat : yea though we are made as the filth of the world , and the off-scouring of all things . this is not very pleasing to flesh and bloud , but the harder the work is , the greater will our reward be , if we be found faithful and wise servants . nay , there is no work does so ennoble the mind as this , and qualifie us for an excellent reward . no man can faithfully discharge this work , but it must purge and refine his mind , and set him vastly above this world , and the little concernments of it : it gives us a more clear distinct comprehensive knowledge of god and divine things , which is an angelical perfection of the mind and understanding ; and he must be a strange man , who can be so constantly employed in the contemplation of god , and the things which relate to another and a better life , and not find his soul ravisht with those unseen and unspeakable glories ; who is so constantly employed in taking care of other mens souls , and takes no care of his own ; who is so frequent in his devotions , as the very nature of our work exacts from us , and not live a most divine and heavenly life : there are indeed some , who in the most divine employment are no great examples of such a divine conversation ; but i fear they will not be found in the number of these faithful and wise servants . whoever heartily applies himself to the care of souls , will in the first place take care of his own ; and the faithful discharge of this duty , will raise us so much above the ordinary level and attainments of christians , as will prepare us for a greater reward , and advance us to a more perfect state of glory . nay , that immediate relation we stand in to christ , who is the soveraign lord and judge of the world , if we approve our selves faithful and wise servants , will secure us of a more excellent reward . the church on earth and the church in heaven , is but one church , one houshold and family ; and those whom he has made rulers of his houshold here , to whom he has committed the greatest places of trust and dignity , need not fear being degraded in the other world , if they adorn their office , and faithfully discharge their trust here : and therefore our saviour tells his apostles , verily i say unto you , that ye which have followed me in the regeneration , when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory , ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of israel : that is , that their reward and glory in the other world , should answer to that place of trust , and power , and dignity , which they had in the church on earth ; and this promise is no more peculiar to the apostles , than their office was . in a word , if we consider what the state of the other world is , and who is king there , that it is the blessed jesus , our great high priest , king of salem , or the new jerusalem , and priest of the most high god , how mean and contemptible soever our office is thought here , we need not doubt but the scene will be mightily chang'd , when we come into that kingdom where the king is a high priest. let this then , beloved brethren of the clergy , be a mighty encouragement to us to be very diligent and faithful in the discharge of this great trust ; whatever difficulties we meet with , whatever scorns , reproaches , or sufferings , it is but expecting a while , and our lord will come , and his reward is with him : and blessed , for ever blessed , is that servant , whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing . yea blessed , for ever blessed , as my text gives us reason to hope , is this our dear brother , whose remains lie here before us , who , when his lord came , was found thus doing . we may lament the loss of so kind a relation , so true a friend , so faithful a pastor , and fellow-labourer , according to the several interests we had in him ; but he , blessed soul , has fought a good fight , and finished his course , and kept the faith , and is now gone to receive a crown of righteousness , a crown of immortality and glory . he is now gone to that great bishop and shepherd of souls , whose flock he has so carefully and diligently fed , and whose wandring and stragling sheep he has reduced into the fold . to that kind shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep , and therefore will not fail to reward those who have spent their lives , and were ready to have sacrificed them too , for the service of souls . when we speak of so great a man , it is below his character to mention such things as would be thought considerable attainments in meaner persons ; though indeed a truly great man does nothing meanly . a great mind gives a peculiar grace and decency to common actions , as it was easie to observe in his very mirth and freest humours , that he never gave the reins out of his hands , but governed himself by the strictest rules of prudence and religion . but i shall confine my self to the subject of my text , and consider him onely as a faithful and wise steward , and therefore have very little to adde ; for i doubt not , but you who knew him , especially you who have enjoyed the benefit of his ministry , and have lived under his care and conduct , have already applied what i have discoursed on this argument , to your deceased pastor ; and would i have chosen any particular man to have drawn the character by , of a wise and faithful steward , there are not many men i should sooner have thought on , than dr. calamy to have been the pattern . that he did take care to give you meat in due season , i need not tell you , because you all know it . if preaching in season and out of season , if publick instructions and private applications , where they were needful or desired , be to feed the flock of christ , & to give meat to his houshold and family , this he did , and that very faithfully and wisely too . in the first place , he took care to inform himself , and to furnish his own mind with all useful knowledge ; and his constant preaching , though without any vain affectation of learning , which serves onely to amuse , not to instruct , did sufficiently discover both his natural and acquired abilities . he had a clear and distinct apprehension of things , an easie and manly rhetorick , strong sense conveyed to the mind in familiar words , good reasons inspired with a decent passion , which did not onely teach , but move and transport the hearers , and at the same time gave both light and heat : for indeed he was a good man , which is necessary to make a good preacher ; he had an inward vital sense of religion , and that animated his discourses with the same divine passions which he felt in himself . he did not entertain his hearers with school-subtilties , or a coniectural divinity , with such thin and airy speculations , as can neither be seen , nor felt , nor understood , but his chief care was to explain the great articles of faith , and rules of life , what we must believe , and how we must live , that we may be eternally happy . and he did ; as a faithful servant ought to do , as he declared a little before his death , that he never preached any thing , but what he himself firmly believed to be true . i need not tell you what a troublesome world we have lived in for some years past , such critical times as would try the principles & spirits of men ; when a prevailing faction threatned both church and state , and the fears of popery were thought a sufficient justification of the most illegal & irreligious methods to keep it out ; when it was scandalous to speak a word either for the king or the church , when cunning men were silent , and those who affected popularity swam with the stream ; then this great & good man durst reprove schism and faction , durst teach men to conform to the church , and to obey & honor the king ; durst vindicate the despised church of england , and the hated doctrine of passive obedience , though the one was thought to favour popery , and the other to introduce slavery ; but he was above the powerful charms of names , and liked truth never the worse , because it was miscalled . his publick sermons preached in those days , and printed by publick authority , are lasting proofs of this , and yet he was no papist neither , but durst reprove the errours of popery , when some others , who made the greatest noise and out-cry about it , grew wise and cautious . this was like a truly honest and faithful servant , to oppose the growing distempers of the age , without any regard either to unjust censures , or apparent danger . and yet he did not needlesly provoke any man ; he gave no hard words , but thought it severe enough to confute mens errors without upbraiding or reproaching their persons . his conversation was courteous and affable to all men , soft and easie , as his principles were stubborn ; he could yield any thing but the truth , and bear with any thing but the vices of men . he would indeed have been the wonder of his age , had he not lived in such an age , as ; thanks be to god , can shew many such wonders , and yet in such an age as this he made an illustrious figure ; though he had his equals , he had not many superiours . thus he lived , and thus this good man died , for thus he was found doing when his lord came . the first symptoms of his distemper seized him just before his last sermon at white-hall , but gave him so much respite as to take his leave of the world in an excellent discourse of immortality , which he speaks of with such a sensible gust and relish , as if his soul had been then upon the wing , and had some fore-tast of those joys it was just a going to possess . and indeed he encountered the apprehensions of death , like one who believed and hoped for immortality ; he was neither over-fond of living , nor afraid to die . he received the supper of our lord , professed his communion with the church of england , in which he had lived , and in which he now died , and having recommended his soul to god , he quietly expected how he would dispose of him . but i must not forget to tell you , that he died like a true and faithful pastor , with a tender care and affection for his flock . when he imposed this unwelcome office upon me , he told me , he did not desire any praises of himself , but that i would give some good advice to his people , who , said he , are indeed a very kind and loving people . and this was not the first nor the onely time i have heard him own not onely your kind reception of him at first , but the repeated and renewed expressions of your affection , which did signally manifest it self in his late sickness , and now accompanies him to the grave . a character , which to your honour i speak it , you have now made good for several successions , and which , i hope , you will never forfeit . but what that good counsel is , he would have me give you , he told me not ; and therefore i can onely guess at his intentions in this . were he now present to speak to you , i believe he could not give you better counsel than he has already done : and therefore my advice to you is , 1. to remember those counsels and exhortations , which you have heard from your deceased pastor . though the sower be removed , yet let that immortal seed , that word of life which he has sown , live and fructifie in your hearts , and bring forth the blessed fruits of righteousness . he has shewed you the plain way to heaven , have a care you do not forget it , have a care you do not wander out of it . he has recommended the communion of the church of england to you . he has taught you to be loyal to your prince , and to be true to your religion ; take care then , that neither your religion destroy your loyalty , nor your loyalty corrupt your religion : remember that beloved person , whose memory is dear and sacred to you , was neither a rebel , a papist , nor a fanatick . 2. since you have lost your guide , a faithful and a prudent guide , and the choice of a successour is in your selves , be very careful , as the concernment of your souls requires you should be , of your choice . consider what an age we live in , which requires an experienced and skilful pilot to steer a secure and steady course . have a care of dividing into factions and parties ; let not meer private interests or friendships govern you ; if it be possible , admit of no competitions , much less of pulpit-combats , which do oftner occasion lasting and fatal divisions , than end in a wise choice . remember what a succession you have had of great and good men in this place , and let it be your ambition still to equal and out-do it , if you can . and now i shall conclude with one word to you my brethren of the clergy . we have lost a faithful and diligent labourer in gods vineyard , in a time when we could ill have spared him ; let us then , who still survive , double our diligence , and express a greater zeal and concernment in the defence of religion , and in the care of souls . let us remember that we are all mortal , and how little time we have to work in , we know not ; but let us so improve the remainder of our days , that when our lord comes , he may own us for faithful and wise servants , and bestow on us a crown of righteousness and immortality . which god of his infinite mercy grant , through our lord jesus christ ; to whom , with the father and the holy spirit , be honour , and glory , and power , now and for ever . amen . finis . advertisements . ☞ a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons , by w. sherlock d. d. price 6 d. a vindication of that sermon from a popish remonstrance , 4 o. price 6 d. both sold by john amery at the peacock in fleetstreet . a discourse against transubstantiation . price 6 d. doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented , in answer to a papist mis-represented and represented . both printed for w. rogers . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59876-e390 1 cor. 3. 16. 2 cor. 6. 16. 6 gal. 10. 3 heb. 5 , 6. 20 acts 28. 1 cor. 4. 1. 1 cor. 3. 2. 5. heb. 12 1 pet. 2. 2. 2 tim. 4. 2. 20. acts 28. 21. john 15 , 16 , 17. 1 pet. 2. 2. 17. john 3. 5 eph. 23. 10 john. 14. 4 eph. 8 , 11 , 12 , 13. 28 mat. 18 , 19 , 20. 20 joh. 21 , 22 , 23. 1 act. 4. 8 , 9. 2 cor. 10. 3 , 4 , 5. 2 cor. 13. 10. 2 cor. 1. 24. 10 luk. 16. 13. mat. 52. 2 sam. 18. 22. 1 cor. 4 , 1 , 2 , 3. 20. acts 26 , 27. 16 rom. 18. 2 cor. 4. 2. 10. mat. 41. 2 cor. 6. 1. 2 cor. 2. 16. 1 cor. 4. 12 , 13. 19 mat. 28. a second letter to a friend, concerning the french invasion in which the declaration lately dispersed under the title of his majesty's most gracious declaration to all his loving subjects, commanding their assistance against the p. of orange and his adherents, is entirely and exactly published, according to the dispersed copies : with some short observations upon it. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 61 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59869 wing s3339 estc r8008 11902861 ocm 11902861 50606 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59869) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50606) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:8) a second letter to a friend, concerning the french invasion in which the declaration lately dispersed under the title of his majesty's most gracious declaration to all his loving subjects, commanding their assistance against the p. of orange and his adherents, is entirely and exactly published, according to the dispersed copies : with some short observations upon it. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. james ii, king of england, 1633-1701. his majesty's most gracious declaration, to all his loving subjects. [3], 32 p. printed, and are to be sold by randal taylor ..., london : 1692. attributed by wing to william sherlock. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng 2003-12 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-02 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-03 olivia bottum sampled and proofread 2004-03 olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion iune 2d . 1692. let this be printed , nottingham . a second letter to a friend , concerning the french invasion . in which the declaration lately dispersed under the title of his majesty's most gracious declaration , to all his loving subjects , commanding their assistance against the p. of orange and his adherents , is entirely and exactly published , according to the dispersed copies ; with some short observations upon it . london : printed , and are to be sold by randal taylor , near amen-corner , mdcxcii . a second letter , concerning the late king iames's declaration . sir , having in the conclusion of my letter promised you , if you desired it , to give you an account of the late king iames's declaration , i will make no excuses , but like a sincere protestant , will keep my word with you . this declaration has been industriously scattered about both in french and english , by the enemies of the present government . now to save them any farther trouble of this kind , and that the world may see , we dare venture it , with all the charms that are by some thought to be in it , among the people of england , i have thought it the fairest way to print the whole , verbatim , paragraph by paragraph , with some short observations upon it ; and only desire you to remember , that my principal design in it , is only to strengthen the arguments of my former letter , and to make it appear from this very declaration , how little reason english protestants have to promise themselves , that the late king will be kinder to them , than he was before , should he now return with a french power . declaration . whereas the most christian king , in pursuance of the many obliging promises he has made us , of giving us his effectual assistance for the recovering of our kingdoms , as soon as the condition of his affairs would permit , has put us in a way of endeavouring it at this time ; and in order to it , has lent us so many of his troops , as may be abundantly sufficient to unty the hands of our subjects , and make it safe for them to return to their duty , and repair to our standard ; and has notwithstanding for the present , according to our desire , ( unless there should appear further necessity for it ) purposely declind sending over forces so numerous , as might raise any jealousie in the minds of our good subjects , of his intending to take the work wholly out of their hands , or deprive any true englishman of the part he may hope to have in so glorious an action , as is that of restoring his lawful king , and his ancient government ; ( all which foreign troops , as soon as we shall be fully setled in the quiet and peaceable possession of our kingdoms , we do hereby promise to send back , and in the mean time to keep them in such exact order and discipline , that none of our subjects shall receive the least injury in their persons or possessions , by any soldier or officer whatsoever . ) tho an affair of this nature speaks for it self , nor do we think our selves at all obliged to say any thing more upon this occasion , than , that we come to assert our iust rights , and to deliver our people from the oppression they lye under ; yet when we consider how miserably many of our subjects were cheated into the late revolution by the art of ill men , and particularly by the prince of orange's declaration , which was taken upon trust , and easily believed then , but since appears notoriously false in all the parts of it , consisting no less of assertions that have been evidently disproved , than of promises that were never intended to be performed . to prevent the like delusions for the time to come , and to do as much as lies in our power ▪ to open the eyes of all our subjects , we are willing to lay the whole matter before them in as plain and short a manner as is possible , that they may not again pretend mistakes , or have ignorance to plead for any false steps they shall hereafter make towards the ruin of their own , and their countrey 's happiness . — observations . it begins with a thing very surprizing and memorable , that the french king hath once in his life made good his word , and kept his faith ▪ for so the late king iames tells us ▪ he hath done with him , in pursuance of the many obliging promises he had made him , of giving him effectual assistance for the recovery of his kingdoms , &c effectual assistance is a big word , and more than the greatest and most puissant king is able always to make good . however i am glad to see they begin to endeavour to perform their promises to one another ▪ it is a good quality , and it is to be hoped they may in time extend it further . but this satisfies me , that the french king thinks it his interest to restore the late king iames ; for he was never known to keep his promise against his interest ; and it is somewhat surprizing , that the french king , and english protestants , should have the same interest . he seems sensible , that french troops would not be very welcome in england ; and therefore to qualifie this matter , he says , that the french king at his desire , has purposely declin'd sending over forces so numerous , as might raise any jealousie of a french conquest ; for that is the plain english of it ; that they shall be kept under exact discipline while they are here , and that he will send them home again , when he is fully setled in the quiet and peaceable possession of his kingdoms . but i thank god with all my heart , that there is no danger now of these french troops coming into england ; which is a much greater security to us , than both these kings promises for their good behaviour here , or for their return home again : it is certain , that one of them could not keep his word , if he would ; and it is as certain , that the other would not , as it is , that it would not be his interest to do it ; for there is not the same reason for the french king to keep his promise of sending troops into england , and to keep his promise of sending no more than the late king iames wants , or of calling them home again when he wants them no longer . but before i proceed to more particular observations , it will not be amiss ( and the conclusion of this paragraph requires it ) briefly to consider what is not in the declaration , which the people of england had all the reason in the world to have expected in it . now i can find but very little in it , i might with great truth say , nothing , which a reasonable man who remembers the late reign , especially the conclusion of it , would have expected in such a declaration . if the design of such a declaration be to give satisfaction to the minds of his subjects , it ought at least to have contained as good words , and fair promises , as a prince could give : he knew very well , what it was that had alienated his subjects from him ; that they apprehended their laws , their religion , and their liberties , to be in great danger ; and could not but know , that he had given them too just occasion for such jealousies and fears ; and it is wonderful , that he should think of publishing a declaration , and not think fit to give the least satisfaction about these matters ; not to say one word about popery and arbitrary power , nor to give any express promise , that he would remove these fears . the only thing he appeals to , is the justice of his cause ; and does not think himself obliged to say any thing more upon this occasion , than that he comes to assert his own just rights , &c but this was not the controversy between him and his people ; they did not dispute then his right to the crown , ( tho they have some reason to do it now ) and yet were willing to part with him , when he thought fit to leave them ; and if he knew what made them so , and hoped to return again by their assistance , and with their good-liking , any one but those of his own council would have thought him obliged to say something of it . the prince of orange's declaration put him in mind of this , which he says cheated his subjects into the late revolution ; and it had been much more to the purpose to have discovered the cheat of that declaration , or to have said nothing of it , than to affirm without any proof , that now it appears to be notoriously false in all the parts of it ; for english protestants know nothing to this day , but that it is all true still . were there not in the late reign open and bold attempts made against the laws , the liberties , and the religion of these kingdoms ? was not the dispensing power set on foot for those purposes ? were not the iudges tamper'd with , to obtain a sentence in favour of the dispensing power , and placed and displaced , till they could find fit tools for that work ; men who would sacrifice the laws and religion of their countrey to the will of their prince , or to their own covetousness and ambition ? were not the oaths of allegiance and supremacy , and the test , dispensed with upon this pretence , and men unqualified by law , put into ecclesiastical , civil , and military preferments , to the apparent danger both of church and state ? was there no ecclesiastical commission set up , no popish chappels , monasterys and convents erected and endowed contrary to law ? were not the nobility and gentry closeted and examined about the repeal of the test , and those disgraced and turned out of all offices and employments , who would not comply ? were not the bishops sent to the tower , and tried in westminster-hall , for their humble petition to him against reading the declaration ? was not the administration of justice , and the greatest military trusts put into the hands of papists ? were not the charters of cities , towns , and corporations seized into the king's hands , and so new-modelled , that the king might chuse what burgesses he pleased , and have a house of commons of his own creatures ? were there not visible grounds of suspition concerning the birth of the pretended prince of wales ? and has there been sufficient satisfaction given the nation about it to this day ? these are the grievances complain'd of in the prince's declaration , which were believed then , not upon the authority of the declaration , but because they were seen and felt ; and are believed still , because they are still remembred by those who saw and felt them ; and how they have since been evidently disprov'd , i cannot guess . but if such things as these are not thought fit to be owned as mistakes in government ; if it was not thought fit to promise the redress of any one of them , no not in his declaration , whereby he commands and invites his subjects to assist him in recovering his kingdoms ; i can easily guess , that they will not be thought faults , much less be redress'd if he should return : they must be his very loving subjects indeed , that can be thus imposed upon declaration . and therefore , to take the matter from the beginning , it cannot be forgotten , that as soon as we had certain notice of the prince of orange's unnatural design of invading our kingdoms , with the whole power of the united provinces , we first took the best care we could to provide for our defence ; which we seem'd effectually to have done , when we had put our fleet and army into such a condition , that tho his most christian majesty , who well saw the bottom of the design against us , against himself , and indeed , against the peace of europe , offered us considerable succours both by land and sea ; we did not think it at all necessary to accept them , at that time , as resolving to cast ▪ our selves wholly ( next to the divine protection ) upon the courage and fidelity of our english army , which had been with so much care and tenderness form'd and obliged by us. and having thus prepared to oppose force to force ; we did , in the next place , apply our selves to give all reasonable satisfaction to the minds of our good subjects , by endeavouring to undeceive them , and to let them see be times , and whilst the mischief might easily have been prevented , how fatal a ruin they must bring upon their countrey ; if they suffered themselves to be seduc'd by the vain pretences of the prince of orange's invasion . however , so great was the infatuation of that time , that we were not believ'd till it was too late . but when he was oblig'd to throw off the mask by degrees , and that it began to appear plainly that it was not the reformation of the government ( which yet was a matter that did not at all belong to him to meddle with ) but the subversion of it , that he aim'd at , that so he might build his own ambitions designs upon the ruins of the english nation : and when the poyson had insinuated it self into the vital parts of the kingdom ; when it had spread over our whole army , and so far got into our court and family , as not only to corrupt some of our servants that were nearest our person , and had been most highly obliged by us , but not even to leave our own children at that time uninfected : when our army daily deserted on the one hand , and on the other hand tumults and disorders increased in all parts of the kingdom ; and especially , when shortly after the revolution came on so fast , that we found our selves wholly in our enemies power , being at first confin'd by them in our own palace , and afterwards rudely forced out of it under a guard of foreigners ; we could not then but be admonished , by the fate of some of our predecessors in the like circumstances , of the danger we were in , and that it was high time to provide for the security of our person ( which was happily effected by our getting from the guard that was set upon us at rochester , and our arrival in france , the only part in europe to which we could retire with safety ) that so we might preserve our selves for better times , and for a more happy opportunity ; such as is that , which , by the blessing of god , is at present put into our hands . observations : to begin with the certain notice of the p. of orange ' s design , is not to take the matter from the beginning . had he intended to give any satisfaction to english subjects , he should have begun , where their complaints and grievances , occasioned by his arbitrary and illegal government , began ; that is , where the prince's design , and his own abdication began . that he took the best care he could for his own defence , no man questions ; and had he taken less ; it would not have been taken ill by the nation . that his christian majesty saw this design was against himself , long before the late king was sensible of it , appears from the memorial printed at the hague , 9. septemb. 1688. by monsieur de conte d'avaux , the french king's ambassadour : but when he says 't was against the peace of europe , i confess , i know not how to understand it , unless by the peace of europe , his most christian majesty mean an universal desolation , which he was making as fast as he could . for this cannot be denied to be a most certain and effectual way of setling a country in peace , to lay it waste , and to destroy , and drive out the inhabitants . to prevent which indeed , was the bottom of this design ; and the most effectual way to do it , was to divide england from the interest of france . that the french king , to prevent this , did offer king iames the assistance of his forces , is very probable from the same memorial , which threatens the dutch with it ; and how this assistance came to be refused , we learn from my lord sunderland's letter , printed in the history of the desertion , which , and some other counsels ( that thwarted the popish designs ) cost him his religion , and soon after the favour of his prince , and his preferments at court. that he had no such great confidence in the fidelity of his english army , was too evident in the daily reformations he made in it ; exchanging protestants for papists , and english-men for irish ; which occasioned that memorable accident at portsmouth , which gave such a general disgust to the army , in a very lucky season , as greatly disposed them either to go over to the prince , or at least not to fight against him . that he did many things in the time of his distress to sweeten his subjects , is true ; but he was much mistaken if he thought this sufficient to give reasonable satisfaction . he undid many things , which he had illegally done ; but he did this so late , and it was so apparently a matter of force , owing to the change of his fortune , not of his inclinations , and then too , done with so ill a grace , that i could observe no body that was then satisfied with it . he restored the charter of london , and of other cities and corporations ; he dissolved the ecclesiastical commission , restored magdalen colledge , but never own'd the illegality of these proceedings ; would never renounce his dispensing power ; would never be persuaded by the most humble petitions , and earnest importunities of his lords and bishops , to call a free parliament , and to refer the redress of all grievances to them ; till he seems to have formed a design of leaving england , and then his issuing out of writs , which he resolved should never be executed , could do him no hurt , and would have a good appearance , as if he had been willing to have referr'd all to a parliament , had not the growing power of his enemies made it more necessary for him to consult the safety of his own person . the case of magdalen colledge convinced all men , that these were extorted favours , and would last no longer , than it was safe to recall them . king iames had given his orders to the bishop of winchester , the visitor of that colledge , to recall dr. hough , and the former fellows of that society , and he accordingly went down to reinstate them ; but upon the news that the dutch fleet had suffered much in a storm , and probably could not sail till the next spring , his lordship had new orders sent to call him back ; but that news proving false , he was permitted to return , and to pursue his first orders : this , it seems , was all the reasonable satisfaction that could be given , what his graces and favours to protestants were , and how long they would last . as for what concerns the prince of orange , now our gracious king , i know of no mask he had on , nor that ever he threw off , or that he afterwards appeared to be any other than his declaration had represented him. he came not for the crown , but to reform abuses , and to secure the succession , which the right of his princess , and his own right and interest , the preservation of the protestant religion , and of the liberties of europe , gave him right and authority to meddle with ; but besides his expectation , and original intention , he has the crown which he came not for : he has deceived no body in it ; but if any one be deceived , king iames , and the people of england have deceived him ; the one in leaving his crown , the other in placing it on his head ; where indeed it ought to be , both in right of his princess , and for his own merits ; for he who saves a nation , had he no other claim or title , may very well deserve to wear the crown ▪ especially when it was with the free consent of the princess , our most gracious queen , and upon the desire of the estates of the realm , and still necessary to save the nation . in the next place , he justifieth his leaving england , for the security of his person , being wholly in the enemies power , at first confined by them in his own palace , and afterwards rudely forced out of it under a guard of foreigners . but if he have forgot it , others have not , that before this happened , he had privately withdrawn his person , disbanded his army , dissolved his government , flung his broad seal into the thames , and had never had this pretence for his escape , had he not been stopped by a mistake , for no body intended to stay him , and all this while he was in treaty with the prince , and that upon such equal terms , that he could be under no just apprehension of ill usage . he excuses his going to france , because it was the only part in europe , to which he could retire with safety ; which is a confession that he alone was in the french interest against all europe besides ; and that he durst not trust his cause with any other princes in christendom ; which argues either a great jealousie of his own cause , or of their justice and honour , even to distressed princes . but i am sure france was the only place in europe he ought to have avoided ; and if he had no other place to go to , he ought to have ventured himself at home , or to have gone to rome , which had been a kind of second home , unless he intended to resign his crown . he knew what opinion english subjects had of his most christian majesty , and might have known , that they would never fetch him from france again , nor willingly receive him with a french power . what a happy opportunity he now has to recover his kingdoms again by french troops , i suppose by this time he begins to discern ; and i hope it may prove a very happy opportunity for his dear ally to lose his : he has shewed him by his own example what to do in such cases ; and the english parliament has taught the french what name to give it . declaration . upon what foundation of iustice , or common sense , the prince of orange's faction in england , were pleased to treat this escape of ours out of the hands of our enemies , in the stile of an abdication ; a word when apply'd to sovereign princes , that was never before used to signify any thing but a free and voluntary resignation of a crown , as in the cases of the emperor charles the fifth , and the late queen of sweden ; and what a strange super structure they raised upon this weak foundation , that a company of men illegally met together , who had not power , even by their own confession at that time ( for it was before they had voted themselves a parliament ) to charge the interest of the meanest subject ; should yet take upon them to destroy the whole constitution of the government , to make an ancient hereditary monarchy become elective ; and then assuming to themselves the right of election , should proceed to settle the succession in so odd and extravagant a manner , are transactions that need not be repeated : they are too well known to the world , to the great reproach of the english nation ; and the grounds upon which they are built , are too vain and frivolous to deserve a consutation ▪ every freeholder of england is , in this case , able to make his own observations ; and will , no doubt , examine a little better than hit her to he has done , what assurance any private man can have of keeping his estate , if the king himself shall hold his crown by no better a litle . observations . his leaving the kingdom for the safety of his person , and to preserve himself for better times , and for a more happy opportunity , he says , was no abdication , as that signifies a voluntary resignation of his crown ; nor do i say it was : but his withdrawing his person and authority , was an actual quitting of the government : whatever it is in law , i 'm sure in common sense , the throne is actually empty , when no body is in it ; and no body is in it , when there is no authority in the nation to administer the government . and when the throne is empty , the estates of the realm , ( who are the only supream authority , when there is no monarch ) must fill it again , unless the government must dissolve ; and then there is an end of all rights and claims : and this they have done , not by turning an ancient hereditary monarchy into an elective , but by placing the next undoubted heir on the throne : and tho' he never intended to give up his right and future claim , yet he has done what he never intended to do : when the throne is empty , it must be fill'd ; and when it is declared vacant , and fill'd by the supream authority of the nation , there is no room for him there . as for the convention of estates ; when there was no king on the throne , we do not pretend that they were a formal parliament , for that must have a king at the head of it ; and therefore , as is observed in the declaration , they could impose no legal taxes on subjects , nor did they attempt it ; but yet they were not a company of men illegally met together , without authority to do any thing ; but they met at the request , and under the protection of the then prince of orange , upon the fundamental reasons of the constitution it self , as the sole judges of all disputes relating to the crown . such disputes will sometimes happen , and if there be no legal judges of it , the sword must decide it , and that is a state of war , not of civil government , which all governments are supposed to provide against ; and yet if the convention of the estates are not the proper judges in such cases , it is certain there are none ; and then the civil government is dissolved ; we are in a state of war , and must submit to the longest sword. but this is so fully and plainly stated in the late ingenious reflections on the case of allegiance to a king in possession , from p. 26. to p. 34. that to shorten this letter as much as i can , i shall refer you to that author for further satisfaction . so that free-holders are not at all concern'd in this matter ; a convention of estates without a king , cannot meddle with their properties without a dissolution of the government ; but when there is no king , or it is a question whether there be or not , or who is king by the fundamental constitution of the government , the convention of the estates are the sole and proper judges of it ; in whose determination , all private subjects are bound in conscience to acquiesce . and the late king need not complain of this , as if it made the titles of princes to their crowns very uncertain and arbitrary : for he had an unquestionable title to his crown , and might have held it to this day , if he himself had not undermin'd it , by breaking in upon the laws , and even upon the constitution it self ; upon which his right was founded : this occasion'd such a revolution , as forced him to abdicate , and to leave it to a convention , to declare his throne vacant , and to fill it . declaration . but since some men , who could not say one word in defence of the iustice of these proceedings , would yet take great pains to shew the necessity of them , and set forth the extraordinary good effects that were to be expected from so very bad a cause ; we do not doubt but the nation has by this time cast up the account , and when they shall have well consider'd , what wonders might have been perform'd with less expence of english blood , than that which has been unnecessarily trifled away in this quarrel ; that such a number of ships of war have been lost and destroy'd in the three years last past , as might alone have been sufficient to have made a considerable fleet : that more money has been drain'd out of the purses of our subjects in compass of that time , than during the whole reigns of many of our predecessors put together ; and that not as formerly , spent again , and circulating among them , but transported , in specie , into foreign parts , and for ever lost to the nation : when these and many other particulars of this nature are cast up , it must certainly appear at the foot of the account , how much worse the remedy is than the fancied disease , and that , at least hitherto , the kingdom is no great gainer by the change. observations . i doubt his late majesty is misinformed ; for there are not only some , but a great many , who have more than one word to say , both for the iustice , and the necessity of these proceedings , and the whole nation already feels the extraordinary good effects of them , notwithstanding the expence of blood and treasure , of which he complains ; for we know whom we are to thank for that . and the best way to prevent the effusion of more blood , and the expence of more money , is to keep out his french troops , and to know when we are well . revolutions are and will be bloody , and chargeable , and therefore one revolution is enough for one age : the dutch are already pay'd , and we don't desire to pay the french too ; which is a much longer account , and we shall get less by it . we have hitherto had something for our money , and something that is very valuable ; our laws , and liberties , and religion ; but i believe the nation will think it a hard bargain , to pay ten times the price for french popery and slavery . the nation , as he says , has cast up the account , and i believe above nineteen parts in twenty , have consider'd the matter so well , that they are come to a fixt resolution to oppose the intended invasion , to the utmost of their power . as for the loss of the ships of war , it now appears ( god for ever be praised for it ) that their majesties have a fleet still left , considerable enough , and faithful too ( notwithstanding all the arts and endeavours of our enemies to debauch them from their allegiance ) to deal with , and even to destroy the naval power of france . declaration . the next consideration is , what may reasonable be expected for the time to come : and as to that , no better judgment can be made of any future events than by reflecting upon what is past : and doubtless from the observation of the temper and complexion , the methods and maxims of the present usurper , from the steps he has already taken , when it was most necessary for him to give no distaste to the people , as well as from the nature of all usurpation , which can never be supported but by the same ways of fraud and violence by which it was first set up , there is all the reason in the world to believe , that the beginning of this tyranny , like the five first years of nero , is like to prove the mildest part of it ; and all they have yet suffer'd , is but the beginning of the miseries which those very men , who were the great promoters of the revolution , may yet live to see and feel , as the effect of that illegal and tyrannical government , which they themselves first impos'd upon the kingdoms . observations . there is no answer needs be given to this , which may always be said of the best beginnings of the best government : we for our part find no fault with his majesty's government yet , and see no reason to suspect it for the future : taxes are the only cause of complaint now , and yet few complain of them but iacobites , who out of their great zeal for the late king , pay double taxes to the present government to keep him out , which does him more mischief than iacobite oaths could do ; and yet thanks be to god , we have a hopeful prospect of the end of these taxes , and have been so well repaid of late , that we shall not grudge to clear the account , that we may have something to call our own . but of all men in the world ( excepting always his most christian majesty ) the late king should not attempt to frighten us with the dangers of misgovernment , for a good reason in which himself is too nearly concern'd , and which all english protestant subjects very well know . as to what relates to the first five years of nero ▪ this certainly is a piece of the secretary's own pedantry , to shew his great reading , and to impart to us one of the choicest secrets in the roman history . all comparisons of princes with nero are very odious , but i know not how he could have made one more to the advantage of king william , than to compare his reign hitherto with the five first years of nero , which the roman historians tells us may compare with that of the best of their emperors . but however , this i am sure of , that it is better to begin a reign as nero did , than to begin where he ended , as two other kings have done , and to go on to improve and perfect that ill pattern ; to which , if god had not mercifully prevented it , they were , not above a month ago , just ready to have given their last hand , and the finishing strokes . declaration . and yet the consideration must not rest here neither : for all wise men ought , and all good men will take care of their posterity ; and therefore it is to be remembred , that if it should please almighty god , as one of his severest iudgments upon these kingdoms , for the many rebellions and perjuries they have been guilty of , so far to permit the continuation of the present usurpation , that we should not be restor'd during our life-time , yet an indisputable title to the crown will survive in the person of our dearest son the prince of wales , our present heir apparent , and his issue , and , for default of that , in the issue of such other sons as we have great reason to hope ( the queen being now with child ) we may yet leave behind us : and what the consequences of that is like to be , may easily be understood by all that are not strangers to the long and bloody contentions between the two houses of york and lancaster ; and whoever shall read the histories of those times , and there shall have presented to him as in one view a scene of all the miseries of an intestine war , the perpetual harrassing of the poor commons by plunder and free-quarter , the ruine of many noble families by frequent executions and attainders , the weakning of the whole kingdom in general at home , and the losing those advantages they might in the mean time have procur'd for themselves abroad , cannot but conclude that these are the natural effects of those strugglings and convulsions that must necessarily happen in every state , where there is a dispute entail'd between an injured right and an unjust possession . obsertations . this will need but a very short answer . for as to the civil wars he threatens our posterity with from the pretences of the prince of wales , i must needs say , i had rather , if it must come to fighting , that they should fight for the crown twenty or thirty years hence , then now . give peace in our days , o lord. i had rather our posterity should enslave themselves , if they shall have a mind to be enslaved , then that we should enslave our selves and our posterity with us . there is no such haste of bringing in popery and slavery , and it is to be hoped , if we be true to our religion and liberties , our posterity may grow wise by our example . but i must observe , that whereas the prince of wales in this english declaration is called the heir apparent , in the french declaration he is called only the presumptive heir . perhaps presumptive heir in the french law may be the same with heir apparent in ours : if it be not , what did sir e. h. or whoever was the penman of this declaration , mean by it ? will they set aside the pretences of the prince of wales , if the late queen mary ( who is said to be with child ) in good truth bring forth a son ? this looks very suspiciously , as if they did not believe , they had given sufficient satisfaction , about the birth of this pretended prince of wales ; but however we must presume him prince of wales , till they have another whom they can by better proof make out to be the unquestionable son of the late queen mary . declaration . there is another consideration that ought to be of weight with all christians ; and that is the calamitous condition of europe , now almost universally engaged in a war among themselves at a time when there was the greatest hopes of success against the common enemy , and the fairest prospect of enlarging the bounds of the christian empire , that ever was in any age since the declining of the roman : and so far from the hopes of a general peace before our restoration , that no rational project of a treaty can be form'd in order to it : but that once done , the thing will be easie , and we shall be ready to offer our mediation , and interpose all the good offices we can with his most christian majesty for the obtaining of it . observations . this whole period is a sharp and perpetual satyr against the french king : for who has been the great disturber of the peace of europe , but his most christian majesty ? with whom are all the princes of europe at war but with him ? who else has hindered the success against the common enemy , and the enlarging the bounds of the christian empire ? who invited the turk into europe ? who encourages him to continue the war , after so many fatal defeats , which may probably prove the ruin of his whole empire ? in a word , what other christian prince is the great turk's ally and confederate in this war ? and is not this war continued and encouraged by all the power and interest of the french king , on purpose to disturb the peace of europe , that while the imperial forces are otherwise employ'd , he may make a prey of his weaker neighbours ? it is decent to spare crowned heads , and such as have been crowned ; but the penman of this declaration deserves his reward for putting in so many notorious falshoods , as may justly call the truth and sincerity of the whole in question . i know but one excuse for him , that he has made it almost all of a piece , and though he has had little regard to truth , yet he has so ordered the matter , that he can deceive no body but those who have a great mind to be deceived ; and it is not amiss that such should be gratified . who but the late king could hope to perswade the world , that to restore him to his kingdoms is absolutely necessary to the peace of europe , that before his restoration no rational projects of a treaty can be formed in order to a peace . he may be mistaken in this , for the french king may quickly be glad to make peace , and leave him and his restoration out of the treaty : for things are come to that extremity now , that it is in vain to think of peace , till lewis the great be reduced to such a state , as to accept it , and unable to break it : and then this argument returns upon him ; for the peace of europe is a necessary reason why he should not be restored , as i observed in my former letter . but he , who could fancy himself to be a proper and effectual mediator for a peace , if he were restored , must have liberty to fancy any thing ; and it is happy for him that he has so comfortable an imagination : i do really pity him too much to endeavour to dispossess him of it ; because that would be to undo him more than he is already undone . declaration . since therefore we come with so good purposes , and so good a cause , the iustice of which is founded upon the laws both of god and man , since the peace of europe as well as of our own kingdoms , the prosperity of present and future ages is concerned in the success of it , we hope we shall meet with little opposition , but that all our loving subjects , according to the duty and the oath of their allegiance , and as we hereby command and require them to do , will joyn with us , and assist us to the utmost of their power . observations . i can say little to this ; the event will best shew , whether the people of england will think his cause so good , and the reasons for his restauration so pressing , as to assist him in it . declaration . and we do hereby strictly forewarn and prohibit any of our subjects whatsoever , either by collecting or paying any of the illegal taxes lately imposed upon the nation , or any part of our revenue , or by any other ways to abet or support the present usurpation . and that we may do all that can be thought of to win over all our subjects to our service , that so , if it be possible , we may have none but the usurper and his foreign troops to deal with ; and that none may be forced to continue in their rebellion by despair of our mercy for what they have already done , we do hereby declare and promise , by the word of a king , that all persons whatsoever , how guilty soever they may have been ( except the persons following , viz. the duke of ormond , , marquess of winchester , earl of sunderland , earl of bath , earl of danby , earl of nottingham , lord newport , bishop of london , bishop of st. asaph , lord delamere , lord wiltshire , lord colchester ▪ lord cornbury , lord dunblane , john lord churchil , sir robert howard , sir john worden , sir samuel grimstone , sir stephen fox , sir george treby , sir basil dixwel , sir james oxendon , dr. tillotson ▪ dean of canterbury , dr. gilbert burnet , francis russel , richard levison , john trenchard , esquires ; charles duncomb , citizen of london , edwards , napleton , hunt , fisherman , and all others who offer'd personal indignities to us at feversham ; except also all persons who as iudges or iury-men , or otherwise had a hand in the barbarous murther of mr. john ashton , and of mr ▪ cross , or of any others who have been illegally condemned and executed for their loyalty to us ; and all spies , and such as have betrayed our counsels during our late absence from england ) that by an early return to their duties , and by any signal mark of it , as by seizing to our use , or delivering into our hands any of our forts , or by bringing over to us any ships of war , or troops in the usurper's army , or any new raised and armed by themselves , or by any other eminent good service , according to their several opportunities and capacities , shall manifest the sincerity of their repentance , shall not only have their respective pardons immediately passed under the great seal of england , but shall otherwise be considered and rewarded by us , as the merit of their case shall require . and for all others who after the time of our landing shall not appear in arms against us , nor do any act ▪ or thing in opposition to our restauration , the persons before mentioned only excepted , we shall provide in our first parliament ( which we intend to call with all convenient speed ) by a general act of indemnity , that so the minds of all our subjects may be as quiet , and as much at ease , as their persons and properties will be secure and inviolable under our government . provided always , that all magistrates who expect any benefit of our gracious pardon , shall immediately after notice of our landing make some publick manifestation of their allegiance to us , and of their submission to our authority ▪ and also publish and cause to be proclaimed that our declaration as soon as it shall come to their hands ; and likewise that all keepers of prisons immediately set at liberty all persons committed to their custody upon the account of their allegiance and affection to us , or be excluded from any benefit of our pardon . and we do hereby further declare , that all officers or soldiers by sea or land , now engaged in the usurper's service , who shall after notice of our landing , at any time before they engage in any fight or battel against our forces , quit the said illegal service , and return to their duty , shall not only have their respective pardons , but shall likewise be fully satisfied and paid all the arrears due to them from the usurper : and that even the foreigners themselves , who have been as well in troops as single persons drawn into this kingdom , in order to list them as there should be occasion for the opposing our return , and continuing our people in the oppression they lie under ; may not be altogether driven to despair , we do promise , that all such of them as shall , as aforesaid , before they engage against any of our forces , lay down their arms , and claim the benefit of our present declaration , shall have their arrears satisfied ▪ and care shall be taken for their transportation to their respective countries , or elsewhere as they shall reasonably desire ▪ observations . let us now consider the grace and favour promised in this declaration . for grace and pardon , &c. are very good things when we need them , but yet no man would chuse to need them , if he could help it ▪ if the late king's restoration were desirable upon other accounts , and nothing hindred subjects from returning to their duty and allegiance but fear of punishment for what is past , the promise of pardon would be a very good argument to encourage subjects to assist him in his return ; but merely that we shall be pardoned , is no argument to bring him back , because we shall need no pardon if we don't ; and that is always the surest side , to need no pardon , much surer than any promise of pardon the late king can make . and yet he has used that great caution in his promise of pardon , as if he were afraid we should expect more than he intends to give , and should charge him with a new breach of promise , when we come to tower-hill or tyburn . we see whom he has excepted , but 't is not easie to know who is pardoned ; the truth is , he has put all the subjects of england under a necessity of forfeiting their pardon , when he recovers his throne , or of being hang'd or mobb'd , at least of venturing both , before he can be in a condition to pardon . all are excepted from this pardon , who shall either appear in arms against him , or do any act or thing in opposition to his restoration . now , to collect or pay any of the illegal taxes , or any part of the revenue of the crown , are expresly forbid , as abetting or supporting the present usurpation ; and therefore to pay taxes is one of the acts or things which excludes from pardon , and this excepts the whole nation at once . and for the comfort of the clergy , to pray for king william and queen mary , and for the success of their arms , especially after the late king is landed , will certainly be doing an act or thing in opposition to his restoration . and all magistrates are in a very hopeful condition , who are excluded from pardon , unless they shall immediately after notice of his landing , make some publick manifestation of their allegiance to him , and of their submission to his authority , and cause his declaration to be proclaim'd as soon as it shall come to their hands . this is a very gracious pardon , which men must purchase at the price of their necks , and yet how far this pardon will extend , we know not ; it may be only to life , for here is no mention of fortunes or honours : and yet it is but a meer pardon ▪ here is not one kind word given to the protestant nobility , gentry , or clergy ; no promise to employ them in his councils , or any civil or military trusts ; and when we know how he has hitherto kept his promises , we have little reason to expect that he will now do more than he has promised . but besides the exceptions from pardon in general words , which upon one account or other do involve the whole nation , there are some things very remarkable as to the persons by name excepted . most of them i believe are not sorry for it , because they know their case would have been the same , had they not been excepted ; and possibly others may hope , their case may be the better for being excepted . but why sir st. f. and sir. s. gr. they are both of them very worthy and honest gentlemen , and i dare almost be their compurgatour , as to having had any hand in revolutions : but i must confess both of them have estates very worthy to be excepted . and some such reason probably there may be for excepting sir i. o. and sir b. d. of kent , for it cannot but come into every body's mind , how conveniently their estates lye to make a compensation to sir e. h. for his great merits and sufferings . but why descend so low as to except poor hunt the fisherman ? this i take to be a true stroke of secretary melfort's popish bigotry , and put in on purpose to let us know that effectual care will be taken , that the late king , whenever he returns , shall have so exact a memory , that the merits of the meanest man in england shall not be forgotten ▪ you see what the pardon is , and those who like it may merit it ▪ if they please . declaration . and we do hereby further declare and promise , that we will protect and maintain the church of england , as it is now by law established , in all their rights , priviledges , and possessions ▪ and that upon all vacancies of bishopricks , and other dignities and benefices within our disposal , care shall be taken to have them filled with the most worthy of their own communion . observations . here he promises to protect and defend the church of england , which will be a great favour indeed from him , if he should return with a french power . but the church of england is protected already by princes , who think it their duty to do it : and we think our selves much safer in the inclinations of a protestant king and quen than we can be in all the promises of a zealous papist . and therefore this can be no argument in our case , because it offers us a worse security for our protection than what we already have ; for it is always great odds on nature's side . and yet this promise to the church of england seems fainter and cooler , than some he has formerly made , which is all the reason we have to expect it will be better kept ; especially there being not the least intimation of the breach of his former promises , nor any excuse made for it . and it is fit to be observed , that whereas he promises , that upon all vacancies of bishopricks , and other dignities and benifites within our disposal , care shall be taken to have them filled with the most worthy of their own communion ; there is not one word said of universities and colledges ; though the case of magdalen colledge is so very notorious , and so fresh in every man's memory , that there is hardly a roman or artificer in the nation , that has not a lively remembrance of it . church of england ▪ men then shall at present have the churches , and papists the colledges to breed up a roman catholick succession of honest obediah's . declaration . and whereas more tumults and rebellions have been rais'd in all nations upon the account of religion , then on all other pretences put together ; and more in england then in all the rest of the world besides ; that therefore men of all opinions in matters of religion may be reconciled to the government , that they may no longer look upon it as their enemy , but may therefore think themselves equally concern'd in the preservation of it with the rest of their fellow subjects , because they are equally well treated by it , and being convinc'd in our iudgment , that liberty of conscience is most agreeable to the laws and the spirit of the christian religion , and most conducing to the wealth and prosperity of our kingdoms , by encouraging men of all countries and perswasions to come and trade with us , and settle amongst us : for these reasons we are resolved most earnestly to recommend to our parliament the settling liberty of conscience in so beneficial a manner , that it may remain a lasting blessing to this kingdom . observations . in this paragraph , for the peace of the nation , and for the advancement of trade , he promises earnestly to recommend to the parliament the settling liberty of conscience : but this is no argument to the dissenters , to help forward another revolution , because they have it already in as full and ample a manner as it can be given them . all that he can add to this , is liberty of conscience for papists , and the repeal of the test , which cost him so much closetting to no purpose , and now is promis'd as a favour : what protestant dissenters will think of it , i leave them to consider . but when he says , we are convinc'd in our iudgment that liberty of conscience is most agreeable to the laws , and to the spirit of the christian religion , me-thinks these two kings treat one another with great freedom . for what handsomer complement could have been made to the most christian king , then to intimate that his persecution of his protestant subjects is not at all agreeable to the laws , or to the spirit of the christian religion ? this is plain-dealing if the french king can bear it : but , i suppose they are agreed , that k. i. shall declare as is most fit for his purpose ; and the french king do what is most convenient for his own . declaration . lastly , it shall be our great care by the advice and assistance of our parliament , to repair the breaches and heal the wounds of the late distractions , to restore trade by putting the act of navigation in effectual execution , which has been so much violated of late in favour of strangers , to put our navy and stores into as good a condition as we left them , to find the best ways of bringing back wealth and bullion to the kingdom , which of late has been so much exhausted , and generally we shall delight to spend the remainder of our reign , ( as we have always design'd since our coming to the crown ) in studying to do every thing that may contribute to the re-establishment of the greatness of the english monarchy upon its old and true foundation the united interest and affection of the people . observations . what these breaches and wounds of the late distractions are , he does not tell us , and therefore we must suppose they are such as are here mentioned . as for restoring trade , it has not been lost yet ; the custom house does not complain of it , which is commonly the first that feels it . the navy is in a much better condition than he left it , if we may guess at that by its late exploits : but if he be so well skilled in restoring navies , he ought both in charity and gratitude now to stay a little longer in france . as for his bringing back wealth and bullion into the nation , i believe the nation would have been better pleased , if he would have promised to send none out . and as for his concluding promise in these words , and generally we shall delight to spend the remainder of our reign ( as we have always design'd since our coming to the crown ) in studying to do every thing that may contribute to the re-establishment of the greatness of the english monarchy upon its old and true foundations , the united interest and affection of the people . this is plain-dealing , and surest to be made good of any thing in the declaration . and if he does this now , as he always designed to do it ( for he could not then do all that he designed to do ) here is a renewed promise of popery and arbitrary power : and those are unpardonable infidels , who will not take his word for it . declaration . thus having endeavored to answer all objections , and give all the satisfaction we can think of to all parties and degrees of men : we cannot want our selves the satisfaction of having done all that can be done on our part whatever the event shall be , the disposal of which we commit with great resignation and dependance to that god who judges right : and on the other side , if any of our subjects after all this shall remain so obstinate as to appear in arms against us , as they must needs fall unpitied under the severity of our iustice , after having refused such gracious offers of mercy , so they must be answerable to almighty god for all the blood that shall be spilt , and all the miseries and confusions in which these kingdoms may happen to be involved by their desperate and unreasonable opposition . given at our court at st. germains , this present 20th . of april , 1692. in the eighth year of our reign . per ipsum regem manu propriâ . an account of mr. ferguson, his common-place-book in two letters. glanvill, joseph, 1636-1680. 1675 approx. 65 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a70177 wing g798 estc r23394 12068308 ocm 12068308 53428 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a70177) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 53428) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 70:2 or 1669:29) an account of mr. ferguson, his common-place-book in two letters. glanvill, joseph, 1636-1680. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 35 p. printed by andrew clark for walter kettilby ..., london : 1675. illustrated t.p. attributed to joseph glanvill. cf. bm. item at reel 1669:29 identified as wing f729 (number cancelled). reproduction of original in cambridge university library and bodleian library. mr. glanvill his letter to mr. sherlock -mr. sherlock his answer to mr. glanvill his letter. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng ferguson, robert, d. 1714. -interest of reason in religion. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 amanda watson sampled and proofread 2004-04 amanda watson text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an account of mr. ferguson his common-place-book , in two letters . london : printed by andrew clark , for walter kettilby at the bishops-head in st. paul's church-yard . 1675. mr. glanvill his letter to mr. sherlock . sir , i lately met with mr. ferguson's book , and was a little surprized to find my self by name concern'd in it , as one of those that had been the occasion of his writing about the interest of reason in religion . i had in my discourse of reason accus'd the dissenters of decrying the sober use of our faculties under the misapplied names of vain philosophy , carnal reason , and the wisdom of this world ; and some others whom he mentions , had spoke to the like purpose : he therefore thought it necessary that they should vindicate themselves from those aspersions , and endeavour to give a stop to those groundless , and unjust clamours , page 9. now whether those accusations are just or not , i appeal to any one that can remember but twenty years past , and hath been in the least acquainted with the preaching , writings , and discourses of those men in their times : how far they are reformed since , i do not know ; but i have never heard of their recantations , nor have they taken any care to convince the world that their private desks are more sober then their publick pulpits were . on this occasion , sir , i cannot but take notice , how hard it is to deal with the people of this sort , when we speak or write against their opinions , practices , and declarations , and those that have been most publick and notorious : if there happen to be two , or three , or some very few unknown persons , of a little different temper , they will be ready to flie upon us as false accusers , and such as traduce the whole party for the extravagancies of a few . thus you know it hath hapned to some excellent late books , that have given the most just , and lively descriptions of the humour of non-conformists , which have been vilified and rayl'd at as slanderous invectives and abuses ; because some few that go with them , are somewhat less foolish , and extravagant then the rest : according to which rule , it will be untrue to say , that lions and bears are wild and dangerous creatures , because some of them have been tam'd and made gentle : and a man may not affirm the crow is black , because some are greyish : and now and then a bird of that species by extraordinary accident may be white . if among the dissenters there are so many sober assertors of the necessity , and usefulness of reason in the affairs of religion , 't is very much that they have not all this while stood up , and reprov'd the dangerous follies , and extravagancies of their brethren that have opened the door to atheism , and enthusiasm by their ignorant railings against it . and since they have thought fit to be silent in this matter , how should we know that there are men of such sober principles among them . the declamations and violent out-cries against reason we have heard till our ears have tingled : but the justifications of the judgments of reason in religion have been such private whispers , that hitherto we have heard little , or nothing of them from these men : and i might ask mr. f. how it comes about , that persons so zealous against error , who were still pelting each other both from press and pulpit upon every petty difference in opinion , should let pass so many rude defamations of our faculties , as they needs must frequently hear , without the least reproof , or opposition of them , if so many have been so very orthodox in this point , as he would have us to believe ? but i say no more of that . the author hath a double justification of his party against our charge . we have the first , page 7. they are a people , so far as i know , innocent of all undue reflections upon reason . the other is , i robert ferguson do acknowledge the use of reason in religion in 274 pages ; ergo , our late pretended rational divines do traduce the non-conformists in suggesting that they are defamers of reason , page 62. this is the sum and strength of the whole discourse , to which a short answer will suffice . for my part , though i have been drawn into some philosophical controversies , yet i never begun any ; and though i have received some publick provocations to ingage in the disputes of religion , yet hitherto my disinclination to them hath kept me unconcern'd : but notwithstanding this indisposition , mr. ferguson's title , and the mention he made of me , as one of the occasions of his book , inclined me to look into his discourse with design of further vindication of our faculties , if that essay had given me any reason for it : but i soon perceived that this supposed adversary was a friend , and one that liked my book so well , as to borrow the main things of his from it ; though as he is pleased to say of des cartes , he was not so ingenious to confess at whose breasts he had suckt , nor out of whose garden he had gathered his best flowers : and 't was a little unkindly done of him to mention my name where he supposed i had erred ; and to take no notice of it , when he thought i had done so well as to deserve to be transcribed . indeed he hath enlarged in the proof of some principles of religion by reason , in which he hath been more beholden to other men : but in the notions that strictly appertain to the main state of the matter , he hath been pleased to credit and enforce my observations by the addition of his suffrage and authority . when i saw how affairs went , i left the close perusal of his book , and only cursorily skim'd over his pages , casting my eye here and there , as it hapned ; and in that running reading i observ'd these following things and expressions , in which the gentleman very kindly , and to my great honour hath concur'd with me . m. ferguson . knowledge then ( viz. in the state of innocence ) inhabited our minds in no less plenty than light doth in the universal luminary . p. 18. jos. glanvill . knowledge dwelt in our undepraved natures as light in the sun , in as great plenty as purity . vanity of dogmatizing . p. 13. m. f. it was wonderfully advantaged by a delicate and apt disposure of bodily organs . ibid. j. g. depending on the delicacy and apt disposure of the organs . van. dogm . p. 5. m. f. there was no jarring in our humors till the fall caused them . p. 19. j. g. there was no jarring or disharmony in the faculties till sin untuned them . van. dogm . p. 4. m. f. hindred by the distemperature of indisposed organs . ibid. j. g. hindred in its actings by the distemperature of indisposed organs . van. dogm . ibid. m. f. takes the whole substance of his discourse about the understanding in the state of innocence , and after , under the fall. p. 18 , 19. out of ▪ i. g. in his vanity of dogmatizing . p. 4 , 5 , &c. m. f. the vast volumes of the school-men are stuft with peripatetical depravations . p. 246. j. g. the volumes of the schoolmen are deplorable evidence of peripatetical depravations . van. dogm . p. 166. m. f. their scholastick controversies are resolved into the subtilties of his ( aristotle's ) philosophy . ibid. j. g. these scholastick controversies are ultimately resolved into the subtilties of his ( aristotle's ) philosophy . v. d p. 167 m. f. speaking of the union of the soul and body saith , — how this can be is a knot too hard for human reason to untie . p. 490. j. g. saith of the same , — it is a knot too hard for our degraded intellects to untie . van. dog. ed. 2. p. 15. m. f. how a pure spirit should be cemented to an earthly clod , — is a riddle that no hypothesis of philosophy can resolve us about . p. 490. j. g. how the purer spirit is united to this clod , — is a riddle that must be left to the coming of elias . van. dog. ed. 2. ibid. m. f. to affirm it , viz. the uniter of soul and body to be of a middle nature partaking of the affections and adjuncts of both , is that which our reasonable faculties will never allow us to subscribe to . ibid. j. g. to suppose an uniter of middle constitution that should partake of some of the qualities of both is unwarranted by any of our faculties . van. dogm . p. 21. m. f. how that which penetrates a body without giving a jog to , or receiving any from it , should either impress a motion upon , or receive an impression from it , is unconceivable . p. 496. j. g. how that which penetrates all bodies without the least jog or obstruction , should impress a motion on any is by his own confession alike unconceivable . van. dogm . ed. 2. p. 17. m. f. treats of the incomprehensibility of the union of the parts of matter . p. 483 , 484 , &c. the substance of all which is taken out of i. g. in his scepsis scientifica , p. 37 , 38 , 39. and his answer to white , p. 41 , 42 , &c. m. f. endeavours to shew the unconceivableness of the union of the soul and body , p. 489 , 490 , 491 , &c. and again p. 495 , 496. all out of i. g. in his scepsis scientifica . p. 15 , 16. m. f. the reproach which iulian slanderously fastned upon the primitive christians , that they had no ground for their faith , but that their wisdom was only to believe , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 62. j. g. the charge of julian the apostate against the primitive christians , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that their wisdom was to believe ; as if they had no ground for their faith. of reason , p. 218. m. f. he is worse than an enthusiast , who affirms , that the way to be a christian is first to be a brute . p. 20. j. g. saith , that in the enthusiastick divinity , — the way to be a christian is first to be a brute . of reason , p. 223. m. f. men being misled by their senses , affections , interests and imaginations do many times mingle errors and false conceits with the genuine dictates of their minds , and then appeal to them as the principles of truth and reason , when they are indeed nothing else but the vain images of our fansies , and the conclusions of ignorance and mistake . p. 241. j. g. liable to be mis-led by our senses , and affections , and interests , and imaginations , so that we many times mingle errors and false conceits with the genuine dictates of our minds , and appeal to them as the principles of truth and reason , when they are but the vain images of our fansies , or the false conclusions of ignorance and mistake . of reason , p. 196 , 197. m. f. whatsoever is proved by reason we are firmly to believe it , though there be many things in the theory of it , that are wholly unconceivable . p. 198. j. g. what is — clearly proved by reason ought to be believed , though there are many things in the theory and manner of it unconceivable . philosoph . pia , p. 82. thus , sir , i have given you some instances among many , of the faithfulness of m. ferguson's memory , or of his phrase-book : there is no doubt but they have furnished him as well out of other writers , but i have neither the humor nor the leisure to make further search after stoln goods : only i cannot but take notice to you that this is the man that divers of his party glory in , as their elegant and rational writer , and urge him as a great proof of the partiality and injustice of those who will not allow non-conformists to write either good sense or good language ; if either of these be in his book , you may ghess by this specimen how little honour is reflected upon them from it : and if others would claim their feathers , as i have called for some of mine , i believe , he would have scarce enough left to cover theirs or his own nakedness . i remember such discoveries were once made upon another champion of the cause , m. hickman ; who had also furnished his pack with lace and ribband borrowed from his neighbours shops . 't is pity but these men had judgments to choose , for then they would put better books into the hands of their admirers . but when they take this liberty , i would advise them not to fall foul upon the owners , while they have their goods in their hands ; nor to pick their pockets then when they are confidently pleading their own truth and honesty against them : if this gentleman had let me alone , i had likely never known this quality of his ; but unluckily he hath detected himself , as he did that warned his chapman , to whom he had sold a stoln horse , not to let him drink of such a water , which was in a ground out of which he had taken him . upon the whole matter , sir , i desire you to deal gently with this adversary , lest unawares you should smite some of your friends , and among the rest , your affectionate friend and servant , ios. glanvill . mr. sherlock his answer to mr. glanvill his letter . sir , i have received your letter , and thank you very heartily for it . i was much puzzled before to give an account of the inequality of m. ferguson's style and reasoning : for his words are sometimes proper and elegant , his arguments strong and weighty , at other times his phrase is barbarous and pedantick , and his reasonings childish : and i always observed that he writ best upon some trite and beaten argument , where he had no adversary ; but take him out of the road of common places and phrase-books , and he could neither write consistently with himself , nor any thing to the purpose . this gave me a great suspicion of the man , that he was a mere collector , and that his book was made just as the epicuraeans fansie the world was , by the accidental concourse of atoms , and may serve for a confutation of that wild hypothesis ; it being a plain demonstration , how impossible it is to make a good book out of the best common-places and collections , unless a wise man have the composing of it . upon the receipt of your letter , which made so pleasant a discovery of the man , i had the curiosity to enquire a little further , and in requital of your kindness , i have here sent you some of his gleanings from other authors , though so changed and transformed , and found in such ill company , that i fear those worthy persons will be ashamed to own them . and because m. ferg . with the usual confidence of a bold scot , pretends a very particular friendship with that excellent person , sir charles wolseley , i shall first take notice how bold he has made with him ; which i suppose he did upon the authority of that old saying , all things are common among friends ; and therefore he might challenge as good a right to sir charles his writings , as himself . m. ferg . among other things shews the use and serviceableness of reason in proving the divinity of the scripture , p. 56 , &c. sir charles had done this before him , and had managed that argument like a scholar and a gentleman , in his book entituled , the reasonableness of scripture-belief ; from whence our author has borrowed most of his best arguments , and many times his words and phrases . m. ferguson premises , that the testimony of the holy ghost in the souls and consciences of men is the most convincing evidence , that such men can have of its ( the scriptures ) divinity , but yet rejects it from being a proof of the scriptures divinity to others . interest of reason , p. 57 sir charles likewise tells us , the testimony of the holy ghost in the minds and consciences of men to the truth of the scriptures ( though it be the most convincing evidence that can be given to them , &c. ) 't is not to be urged in proof of the scriptures against its professed adversaries . scripture belief , p. 79 sir charles assigns two reasons for this ; mr. ferguson has divided the second reason into two , and set the first reason in the third place . m. f. 1. the holy ghost convinceth no man as to the belief of the scripture , without enlightning his mind in the grounds and reasons upon which its proceeding from god is evidenced and established . there is no conviction begot by the holy ghost in the hearts of men , otherwise than by rational evidence , satisfying our understanding , through discovering the motives and inducements that ascertain the truth of what he would convince us of , ibid. p. 57 sir ch. wols . second argument the latter part ▪ the illuminations of the holy ghost in the minds of men are no other way to be conceived of , than that he is pleased to propose the right grounds and reasons upon which things are to be believed , and to convince and satisfie the understanding , that they are so , and to bring men to acquiesce in conclusions by ascertaining them of the truth of the premises . m. f. 2. no mans particular assurance obtained thus in way of illumination by the holy ghost , is otherwise urged as an argument of conviction to another , than by proposing the reasons , which our faith is erected on . the way of such mens evidence is communicable to none , unless they could kindle the same rays in the breasts of others , which have irradiated their own , and therefore they must deal with others by producing the grounds of their conviction , not pleading the manner of it , ibid. sir ch. wols . the beginning of the second argument . whatever evidence the holy ghost gives to any man to assure him of the truth of any proposition , that evidence , as such , can never go beyond his own breast , nor can i ever prove any thing by it , as it is a divine and infallible evidence , because such evidence is no way communicable to another but in an ordinary way : nothing is visible to another in such cases , but the reasons i can produce , the divine illumination i have within my self to convince me , that such reasons are cogent and prevailing can never be so demonstrated , as to convince another that has no such illumination , ibid. p. 81 i am now sir perfectly satisfied of what great use that trick is of varying phrases , which we learned at school ; for this has made mr. ferguson a famous author , who by the little arts of transplacing words , of turning nouns into verbs , or verbs into participles , or converting a single word , such as illumination , into the phrase of kindling rayes , can make other mens writings his own . but to proceed , m. f. 3. the holy ghost , as a distinct person in the deity is not a principle demonstrable by reason , &c. to prove the divine authority of the scripture by the testimony of the holy ghost , when we cannot otherwise prove a holy ghost , but by the testimony of the scripture , is to argue circularly and absurdly , ibid. sir ch. wols . 1 argument , because the blessed spirit it self is not a common demonstrable principle amongst mankind , &c. to go about to prove the scriptures by any evidence arising from the holy ghost must needs be visibly absurd , because there is no other way to prove that there is any such being as the holy ghost , but by the scriptures themselves , ibid. master ferguson having premised this , proceeds to prove the divine authority of the scriptures ; and first , to justifie the necessity of some supernatural revelation in order to the conducting us in religion , ibid. p. 62 sir ch. wols . first , i will endeavour to render it a thing reasonable to be believed that there should be some supernatural law revealed from god , and given to mankind , &c. ibid. p. 86 m. f. his first argument is taken from the imperfection of natural light , p. 64 this is largely managed by sir charles , p. 87 , &c. his second argument , that the religion of men at present towards god is the religion of sinners , &c. but natural light cannot instruct the world how god will be atoned , ibid. sir ch. mankind in every age have applied to god in a sense of sin , and of guilt contracted by it , and upon that account have adjudged it necessary to make some further offering to god for their sins , &c. now the reason of the world does not issue it self into any positive certainly about such things , &c. ibid. p. 133 , and p. 145 , &c. argument 3. all mankind hath universally consented in this , that besides the light of reason , there ought to be some supernatural revelation from god , &c. sir ch. discourses this at large , p. 123. &c. to which m. ferguson indeed refers his reader : as also to camero de verbo dei : for which he is beholden to sir charles's citation of him in the same place . master ferguson's next undertaking is to make it appear , that it is expedient , that this revelation should be some where or other consigned to writing , ibid. p. 68. this is but just mentioned by sir charles wolseley , and therefore he is forced to have recourse to some other ; and he has made a very good choice , no less person than the reverend dean of canterbury , dr. tillotson , in his rule of faith : where you may find the sum of all master ferguson's arguments upon this head , which are of any force ; only sometimes to avoid those particular instances , which the dean gives , he chuseth others with so little judgment , that it would puzzle a very wise man to defend them : and it is pretty to observe how sometimes he varies phrases , and sometimes retains the very same expressions ; as to give an instance of each . m. f. p. 69. i readily acknowledge , that the articles and precepts of religion , may in some cases and circumstances be safely preserved and securely conveyed down from age to age by oral tradition ; namely when the things themselves to be preserved and reported are few , the number of the persons to be instructed in them small ; the age of those to whom the successive communication is given , lengthened out to several hundreds of years , &c. dr. tillotson , rule of faith , p. 33. we grant that oral tradition in some circumstances may be a sufficient way of conveying a doctrine , &c. in the first ages of the world , when the credenda or articles of religion , and the agenda or precepts of it were but few , and such as had the evidence of natural light ; when the world was contracted into a few families in comparison , and the age of man was ordinarily extended to six or seven hundred years , &c. m. f. p. 71. i shall only add , that the tradition of the one true god , though most easie to have been preserved , being not only short and plain , but having foundation and evidence in the light of nature , was nevertheless soon corrupted and defaced by the worlds lapsing into polytheism . dr. t. ibid. p. 187. the tradition of the one true god , which was the easiest to be preserved of any doctrine in the world , being short and plain ; planted in every mans nature , and perfectly suited to the reason of mankind ; and yet this tradition not having past through many hands , &c. was so defaced and corrupted , that the world did lapse into polytheism and idolatry . where it is pleasant to observe , how master ferguson by altering the expression a little , unawares falls into non-sense ; that the tradition of the one true god was corrupted and defaced by the worlds lapsing into polytheism : as if men first lapsed into polytheism , and this corrupted the tradition of one god : which is as much as to say , that men worshipped a great many gods , while they believed there was but one ; and by this means in time forgot that there was but one god. and indeed our author is oftentimes very unhappy at varying phrases , and makes either wretched english , or wretched sense of them . master ferguson's next undertaking is , thirdly to prove , that no written records besides the bible can lay claim to the priviledge of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of divine inspiration : and here he considers the ethnick legislators , poets , and philosophers ; and especially the alcoran , page 76 , &c. all which is done at large by sir charles worsely , page 164 , &c. of which master ferguson has only given us a short and imperfect abstract . the same may be truly affirmed of those positive media ( as he calls them ) by which the divine authority of the scripture may be rationally demonstrated , which indeed he has cast into a different method ; but as far as i observe , has nothing but what is particularly discours'd by sir charles from page 179. to the end of the book . in one thing indeed master ferguson takes the confidence to differ from sir charles , whether miracles be always a certain demonstration of the truth of any doctrine ? or whether god may ▪ not sometimes permit impostors to work miracles for the tryal of our faith ? this latter sir charles affirms , mr. ferguson denies ; which is not civilly done to dispute such a nice point with his friend , which he confesses is not very material , when he had borrowed from him all his substantial and material notions . but the best of it is , sir charles has no need to stand to his courtesie in this matter , and it is well for him he has not . and upon this occasion i cannot but take notice , how master ferguson deals with des cartes ; he charges him with affirming , deum posse fallere , si velit , that god can deceive , if he please . now sir you know very well upon what occasion des cartes said this ; it was when in order to free his mind from the prejudices of sense and education , and popular opinions , he set himself to doubt , as far as possibly he could , as long as there was the least imaginable pretence for doubting ; and therefore doubts whether there be a god , or any thing else : and whether this god be not a deceiver , &c. and master ferguson might as well challenge des cartes with denying that he himself had any body , or that there were any external objects , such as the sun , moon , and stars ; as with affirming , that god might deceive , if he pleased ; for he says the one as much as the other , while he was in this doubting humour , and only upon a design to come to some first principle , which he could not doubt of ; and to lay the foundations of a more certain knowledge : and therefore he immediately adds ▪ et certe cum nullam occasionem habeam existimandi aliquem deum esse deceptorent , neo quidem adhuc satis sciam , utrum sit aliquis deus , valde tenuis , & , ut ita loquar , metaphysica dubitandi ratio est , quae tantum ex ea opinione dependet ; ut autem etiam illa tolletur , quamprimum occurret occasio , examinare debeo , an sit deus , & si sit , an possit esse deceptor , hac enim re ignorata , non videor de ulla alia plane certus esse unquam posse , medit. tertia . i. e. since i have no occasion at all to think , that god is a deceiver ; nor as yet am certain , whether there be a god , or not , this opinion ( of gods power to deceive ) is but a very slender and metaphysical reason of doubting : however that we may remove this too , as soon as things are ripe for that inquiry , we must examine whether there be a god ? and if there be one , whether he can be a deceiver ? for while we are ignorant of this , i cannot see how we can be throughly certain of an thing . and accordingly , when in his method he had proved the being of god , he proves too , that he cannot deceive us , and founds the truth and certainty of our faculties upon it . and in the second objections he is charged with asserting deum non posse mentiri aut decipere , that god cannot lye or deceive ; which they say is contrary to the opinion of many schoolmen . and in his answer to these objections , to which master ferguson refers us , he owns the charge , and defends himself from their exceptions . by this we may see , how well skilled mr. ferguson is in des cartes his philosophy , or what a brow he has , to charge that upon des cartes as his professed opinion ; the contrary of which he makes the ground of all certainty . such another wise discourse he has , page 123. of infallibility ; the result of which is , that our faith is infallible , though we are not infallibly assured : but this is beyond my first design , only i could not but take this occasion to show you , what a man of reason this is , when he argues at his own natural rate , and dares forsake his masters : and it were very easie to make it appear , that he has not one good argument , but what he has borrowed from some late modern authors , who are far enough from being fanaticks ; which is an excellent way of proving , that fanaticks are great friends to reason . but to give you some few instances more of mr. ferguson's transcribing from modern authors . m. f. p. 48. if all things be the result of matter , how comes a principle of reason to be conveyed into us , by that which had it not inherent in it self . sir c. w. the unreasonableness of atheism , page 92. the casual conjunction of these atoms could not make the world , because it is made with a principle of reason ; and they could not have induced such a principle by chance , unless some way or other they had it inherent in themselves before . m. f. this hypothesis supposeth , that to have been the effect of chance which carries in it the characters of a wise contrivance . ibid. dr. til. serm. 1. p. 40. nothing can be more unreasonable than obstinately to impute an effect to chance , which carries in the very face of it all the arguments and characters of a wise design and contrivance . m. f. if the fabrick of the world be nothing but the result of the casual meeting , and concatenation of atoms , how comes it to pass , that by their daily motion and justling one another , they do not dance themselves into more worlds . ibid. sir ch. ibid. p. 91. if the dancing motion of these atoms in this fancied space did by chance first dance the world into this form , &c. what is the reason these atoms never danced themselves into any thing else . you may see sir , what a youthful fancy mr. ferguson has to be so pleased with this metaphor of dancing , which much better becomes a gentleman than a divine ; but yet i perceive mr. ferguson has so little skill in the thing , that he spoils all these metaphors , if he attempts to vary the least word ; for i remember i have heard some say , that justling is no very gentile way of dancing . m. f. p. 50. to the fortuitous jumbles of blind matter . dr. more 's antidote , p. 42. from a blind fortuitous jumbling of the parts of matter . and in the next words some body or other has put a trick on him : for thus he proceeds . the consideration of the fabrick of things made plato say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which i may english in the words of the holy ghost , that all things are made in number , weight , and measure , which are not the words of the holy ghost , unless he will acknowledge the book of wisdom to be canonical scripture : for there it is , 2 wisdom 20. m. f. p. 51. what convictions are we furnished with of the being of god , from the innate harmony that is in the several parts of the creation , and the convenient disposure of all the creatures to a subserviency to one another in mutual offices ; chance cannot have linkt one thing to another , nor can contraries combine into a mutual coalition without the influence of a supreme being , who overrules them . sir charles ibid. p. 42. the natural rectitude and innate harmony of the world , and the due subordination of things one to another , and to the whole of the world . direct contraries are over-ruled to a perfect harmony and coalition in the propagation of the world , p. 87. here mr. ferg . has a little altered the phrase , but much for the worse ; for to combine into a coalition , i doubt is not good sense . m. f. p. 52. men have rather chosen to worship any thing for a god , than wholly to be without one . dr. till . serm. p. 55. men will rather have any god than none ; and rather than want a deity will worship any thing . m. f. p. 53. for not onely cicero tells us , that there is nothing so absurd , which some of the philosophers have not maintained : but aristotle informs us , that there have been some who have held , that a thing might at the same time be , and not be . sir charles ibid. p. 74. aristotle tells us , that there were some that affirmed , a thing might be , and might not be at the same time ; and cicero has long since told us , that nothing could be so absurd , that had not some philosopher for its patron . now though these are very familiar sayings , yet i have reason to think that mr. ferg . transcribed them out of sir charles , because he has not given us the latine and greek of these sayings , as sir charles has not ; which mr. ferg . never fails to do , when he can come easily by it , of which we have an instance or two in the same page . ferg . ibid. reason becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , infected with those evil opinions that proceed from lust ; when men are once sunk into the greatest sensualities , their reason becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , compliant with their sensual appetites . mr. smith's select discourses , p. 15. that reason that is within us , as plotinus hath well expressed it , becomes more and more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it will be infected with those evil opinions that arise from our corporeal life . their highest reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , complying with their senses . m. f. ibid. besides men living as if there were no god , can make no apology to the world , but by espousing such notions , as may justifie them in their courses . dr. till . serm. p. 104. for when men live as if there were no god , it becomes expedient for them , that there should be none . — besides , that men think it some kind of apology for their vices , that they do not act contrary to any principle they profess . m. f. p. 63. there hath been no nation so savage , nor people so barbarous , who have not acknowledged some kind of external performances necessary for the expressing of the inward sentiments of devotion and honour , which they bear to the deity . amyrald of religion , p. 2. there is no nation so savage — no people who do not essay by some kind of performances to express the sentiments of devotion and honour they bear towards him . m. f. p. 132. words that are intelligible , when they are spoken , are as intelligible when they are written . — now as god can speak as plainly as any of his creatures can ; and as words are at least as easie to be understood when they are written , as when they are spoken ; so we have no reason to think , that god affects obscurity , or envies , that men should understand him . dr. till . rule of faith , p. 66. first , whatever can be spoken in plain and intelligible words , and such as have a certain sense may be written in the same words . secondly , that the same words are as intelligible , when they are written , as when they are spoken . thirdly , that god if he please can indite a book in as plain words as any of his creatures . fourthly , that we have no reason to think that god affects obscurity , and envies , that men should understand him , &c. m. f. p. 140. nor is it any argument , that these texts of scripture are not easie to be understood , because some out of prejudice or perverseness have wrested them to a corrupt sense ; seeing god did not endite the bible for the froward or captious , but for such who will read it with a free and unprejudiced mind , and are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth . dr. till . ibid. p. 87. and what if some out of prejudice do mistake , or out of perverseness do wrest the plainest texts of scripture , &c. is this any argument that those texts are not sufficiently plain ? can any thing be spoken or written in words so clear , which a perverse or prejudiced mind shall not be able to vex and force to another meaning ? god did not write the scriptures for the froward and the captious , but for those who will read them with a free and unprejudiced mind , and are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth . m. f. p. 148. we have the attestation of reason , which tells us , that nothing is well known , but by that , which hath a just analogy to it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , every thing is best understood by that which bears a resemblance of it ; things of sense and life are onely known by vital and sentient faculties . as the eye cannot behold the sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unless it have some resemblance of the sun in it self ; no more can any man understand the things of god in a due manner , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unless he be made to partake of the divine image . mr. smith's select discourses , p. 2. all things of sense and life are best known by sentient and vital faculties , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , every thing is best known by that which bears a just resemblance and analogy with it . and as the eye cannot behold the sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unless it be sun-like , and hath the form and resemblance of the sun drawn in it ; so neither can the soul of man behold god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unless it be god-like , hath god formed in it , and be made partaker of the divine nature . where by the change of one little word he has spoiled all ; for it is true as mr. smith says , that things of life and sense are best known by sentient and vital faculties ; but it is false to say as mr. ferguson does , that they are onely known this way : for there is a philosophical knowledge of sounds and colours , as well as a sensitive knowledge of them : and mr. ferguson acknowledges , that a bad man may have a true knowledge of the meaning of scripture , though he have not a vital sense of religion . so easily may an ignorant scribler spoil the best sayings of wise men . thus , sir , it is pleasant to observe how mr. ferguson has borrowed all his arguments , that are worth any thing , against des-cartes his philosophy , from dr. more , with a little variation , that i have reason to think , that he never read ten lines in des-cartes . m. f. the anonymous author of philosophia scripturae interpres after all his operose and impertinent wrangling — only instead of reason , we have philosophy advanced to a dictatorship over the word of god , and des-cartes made master of the chair . 158. dr. more 's divine dialogues 1 part , in the preface . the learned author of philosophia scripturae interpres after an operose , subtile and copious endeavour of evincing , that philosophy is the best interpreter of scripture , as if all that pains had been intended in the behalf of des-cartes , to set him in the infallible chair . — m. f. p. 249. nor will i press his ( des-cartes ) discharging all spirits from place , though that seems consequentially to discharge them from being . see dr. more 's first dialogue , p. 136. &c. m. f. nor will i dwell upon his disbanding all final causes out of the precincts of natural philosophy . dr. more ibid. preface . a third property of his philosophy is a seeming modesty in declining all search into the final causes of the phaenomena of the world. — m. f. ibid. p. 250. his attempting to prove , that all the phaenomena of the universe might arise out of matter by meer mechanical motion , and that matter alone , supposing such a degree of motion communicated to it — could have produced the sun , moon , stars , planets , animals , and the bodies of men in such organization , order , beauty and harmony , as now they are . dr. more ibid. it is a confessed principle with him , that matter alone with such a degree of motion , as is supposed now in the universe , will produce all the phaenomena of the world , sun , moon , and stars , air , water , earth , planets , animals , and the bodies of men , in such order and orginazation , as they are found . m. f. ibid neither will i dwell upon his notion of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit , which the scripture so emphatically mentions ; namely , that it is nothing but the repugnancy of those motions , which the body by its spirits , and the soul by her will endeavour to excite at the same time in the glandula pinealis , or little kernel , where he supposeth the soul to be harboured and seated : as if the whole conflict which the holy ghost so solemnly describes under the notion of a war betwixt the law of our members , &c. were nothing else , but that the kernel in the midst of the brain being driven on one side by the soul , and on the other by the animal spirits — when the corporeal spirits by their rude joggings of the glandulous button , endeavour to excite in the soul a desire of any thing , and the soul repels it by the will she hath to avoid the same thing , this constitutes the war , &c. dr. more ibid. the combat betwixt the superiour and inferiour part of the soul , the flesh and the spirit , as they are termed in scripture and divinity , is at last resolved into the ridiculous noddings and joggings of a small glandulous button in the midst of the brain , encountred by the animal spirits rudely flurting against it . this little sprunt champion called the conarion , within which the soul is entirely cooped up , acts the part of the spirit , and the animal spirits of the flesh ; and thus by the soul thus ingarrisoned in this pine-kernel , and bearing her self against the arietations and jurrings of the spirits in the ventricles of the brain , must that solemn combat be performed which the holy ghost calls the war , &c. sometimes , sir , our author pretends to ancient learning , and to give an account of the original of heresies from the pagan philosophy ; and for this he is beholden to mr. gale , in his preface to the court of the gentiles , part 2. which i shall give you a short view of . m. f. p. 242. and not to insist on the ill influence that the phoenician and chaldaick philosophy had on the iudaick theology , though it be of easie proof , that their planetary deities and teraphims sprung from thence ; not to do any more but mention , that the chief errours of the pharisees , sadducees , and esseans took their rise from the graecian philosophy , their dogms being a mixture of pythagorean , platonick , stoick , and epicurean notions . mr. gale pref. we shall begin with the malignant contagion , which the judaick church received from vain philosophy : so long as the judaick theology continuod under its own native habit — it retained its primitive purity — but whence sprung this ( declension ) but from the phaenician and chaldaick philosophy , touching planetary deities , and daemons , called by the phaenicians baalim . we no way doubt but to demonstrate , that the main errours of the pharisees , sadducees , and other judaick hereticks received their first formation , &c. from graecian philosophy , especially the pythagorean . m. f. ibid. both irenaeus and tertullian affirm the errours of the gnosticks to have sprung from the platonick idea's , though i think it not improbable , that both their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took their birth from pythagoreanism . gale. from whence borrowed they ( the gnosticks ) their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — but from the mythologick and symbolick philosophy of the pythagoreans . m. f. 243. hierom assureth us , that pelagius suckt all his doctrines from the philosophy of pythagoras and zeno , and iansenius fully proves it . gale. had not the pelagian heresie the same pestiferous root : this is incomparably well demonstrated by jansenius , &c. m. f. ibid. nor did samosatenus and arrius derive their blasphemous opinions concerning the deity of christ , save from the platonick philosophy . gale. where had paulus samosatenus his blasphemous infusions but from plotinus ? and did not arrius in like manner derive his blasphemous perswasions touching christ , from the same poisoned fountain ? m. f. it was not therefore without cause , that tertullian stiled the philosophers the patriarks of hereticks . gale. this tertullian was greatly sensible of , and therefore stiles the philosophers the patriarks of hereticks . m. f. 245. the platonick school at alexandria was the seminary of the chiefest and most pestilent errours vented in the church during the four first centuries . gale. vain philosophy was the chief seminary of errours broached in the four first centuries after christ. — samosatenus learnt his blasphemies from plotinus , successor to ammonius in his school of alexandria , — origen scholar to ammonius in his school of alexandria . m. f. p. 243. holstenius hath shown us , how the manichean principles were framed from the pythagorean . dr. parker plat. theology , p. 89. holstenius hath made a parallel between the pythagorean and manichean principles . m. f. 245. ioannes baptista crispus hath wrote a discourse of plato's opinions , and hath at the end of every chapter shown , what heresies sprung from each . dr. parker ibid. johannes baptista crispus in his discussing of plato's opinions , has at the end of every chapter shewn , what heresies sprung from each opinion . m. f. p. 244. the popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or saint-worship , is nothing but an imitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or daemon-worship of the pagan philosophers . gale ibid. the whole papal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or saint-worship , is but an imitation of the pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or daemon-worship . m. f. p. 245. the purity and simplicity of the gospel was no less corrupted by blending the dogms of aristotle with the articles of faith , than it had been by mingling the philosophy of pythagoras and plato with the doctrines of christ. dr. parker ibid. they have in the same manner corrupted the simplicity and purity of christian religion by blending the placits of aristotle with the articles of faith , as manes and valentinus did by mingling with the christian faith the philosophy of plato and pythagoras . m. f. 247. corrupted into an artificial kind of wrangling , and degererated into contentions and unprofitable altercations . gale ibid. corrupted into an artificial kind of contentious disputation — and wrangling dispute . i doubt , sir , you already censure me for a very idle person , who can spend my time in such an unprofitable pursuit of this author ; and therefore though i can scarce open an english author of any account , without making some new discoveries of mr. ferguson's pilfering humour , i shall now for a conclusion principally confine my self to his discourse of metaphors , chap 2. which he has almost intirely stole from vossius and glassius , not excepting his greek and latine citations , with which he makes such a flourish and boast of learning . m. f. p. 283. origen especially seems to have made it his business to find out mystical and cabbalistical senses in the plainest parts of scripture , which made one of the ancients themselves say of him , ingenii lusus pro dei mysteriis venditat ; he obtrudes the sportings of his fancy for religious and sacred mysteries : and as another expresses it , ingenii sui acumina putat esse ecclesiae . sacramenta . this practice of some primitive writers in and about the scripture influenced porphyrius to deride the gospel , as containing nothing ▪ certain in it . glass . philologia sacra , p. 298. intolerabilis est origenis — audacia , qui omnia omnino quantumlibet simplicitèr dicta in allegorias mutavit , unde hieronimus justisfimé de eo conqueritur , ingenium suum facit ecclesiae sacramentum ; & alius haud ignobilis pater , origines sui ingenii lusus pro dei mysteriis venditar . at que haec scripturas interpretandi , vel torquendi potius ratio ▪ porphyrium induxit olim , ut irrideret christianam doctrinam , & scriberet eam nihil habere certi . m. f. 298. this may serve as an apology for aristotle's confounding synechdoches and allegories with metaphors : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . which occasioned cicero to observe , that aristotle ▪ used the term metaphor in a larger acceptation than after-rhetoricians are wont to take it . which account of cicero and aristotle , together with the greek quotation , you have in vossius instir. orat. lib. 4. p. 84. m. f. ibid. terms thus applied are called by hermogenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 glass . lib. 5. p. 1045. unde hermogeni , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m. f. p. 301. in every metaphor three things are carefully to be attended to , the original and proper signification of the word , the signification to which it is transferred , and the similitude , analogy , and proportion , &c. voss. ibid. lib. 4. p. 85. in omni metaphorâ tria requiruntur , significatio propria , aliena , & similitudo aut proportio . m. f. ibid. christ is not onely metaphorically stiled a lion , but tyrants are likewise so denominated , whereas cruelty and salvageness are the reason of transferring the term to the latter , so fortitude and victoriousness are the grounds of applying it to the other . glass . ibid. p. 1113. leo ad christum significandum transfertur , & ad impios & tyrannos , christus leo dicitur ob fortitudinem & victoriam , tyranni ob atrocitatem & rapacitatem . his distinctions between a metaphor and other tropes and parables are all taken out of glassius and vossius . m. f. p. 305. by a parable i mean a symbolick form of speech , where by a well appropriated similitude from some feigned story , some moral truth is insinuated to the minds of men to make it the better apprehended and understood . gale court of the gentiles , part 2. p. 97. cited from diodate . this was a fashion of teaching used among the iews , followed by our lord , and very profitable to make the truth understood , and to insinuate the apprehension thereof into the minds of the auditors , by a well appropriated similitude , taken from a feigned story . his discourse of allegories , which immediately follows , is principally owing to glassius , p. 1395. and whether he has not taken not onely his notions , but his greek words and sayings concerning those descriptions of god which we call anthropopathies , from the same author , i will leave any man to judge who will compare them . m. f. p. 315. under metaphors are comprehended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in which humane parts , &c. are ascribed to god ; in such forms of speech god by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condescension , declares the infinite properties of his nature . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he decyphers what himself is , and doth by things that fall under our apprehension ; and what is thus said of god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , after the manner of men , must be understood of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in a way suitable to the divine nature . glassius p. 1116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est metaphora , qua quod creaturis & praesertim homini propriè competit , ad deum transfertur , vocatur & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condescensio — v — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae de deo dicuntur , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , h. est , convenienter deo intelligenda sunt . i confess , sir , i am very sick of this undertaking ; for it is so far from being pleasant , that it is grievous to me , to write one line meerly to expose any man : but i thought it necessary to take down the confidence of this author , who makes a great shew of ancient and modern learning , by transcribing out of some late writers , whose credit and reputation at the same time he endeavours to undermine . i am glad to find , that he reads so good books , which i doubt not , but would make him wiser in time , if he would consider , as well as read : it is no fault indeed to use those arguments , which have been used by other men , and it is possible sometimes to hit upon the very same expressions , or some very like ; but when a man shall run through a book , and take the whole series of arguments , without owning his masters ; when he shall take out whole sentences and paragraphs out of so many authors , of so vastly different styles , it plainly discovers an empty head , a barren fancy , and a vain-glorious mind ▪ it were easie to transcribe a great part of glassius and vossius , concerning the nature and use of metaphors and allegories , and the rules of expounding them , which mr. ferguson has onely translated , and from whence he has borrowed his greek and latine citations , out of ancient and modern authors , but i consider this would too much swell a letter , and you may do it your self if you have the curiosity : and therefore i shall onely farther observe , that whereas this author falls upon dr. parker at every turn , and challenges , and provokes and scorns him ; there is no person whom he does so much ape , as the doctor : he borrows divers of his expressions from him , gawdy metaphors , phantastick allegories ▪ thwacking contradictions , rampant and empty schemes of speech , and the like ; and many times transcribes whole sentences and paragraphs from him , of which i have given some instances above , and shall adde but two or three more here . m. f. p. 133. heraclitus grew famous by the onely obscurity of his writings . it is said of aristotle ▪ that being reproved by alexander for publishing his acroamaticks , he should make this reply , that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ made publick , yet they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not published . dr. parker plat. theol. p. 70. neither is heraclitus his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the obscurity of his writings , less famous ; and no less common is aristotle's epistle to alexander , that though he had made his books publick , yet he had not published them . where because he would not say the very same thing that the dr. did , he runs into a very ridiculous mistake . for though heraclitus ▪ his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was famous , because of the obscurity of his writings , yet it is a wild conceit , that the obscurity of his writings was the onely thing that made him famous . m. f. p. 321. when any thing is manifested by a metaphor , the thing it self is not fully expressed , but only some similitude between it and another . dr. parker ibid. p. 75. when any is expressed by a metaphor , the thing it self is not expressed , but onely some similitude observed or made by fancy . m. f. p. 323. for men to discourse in metaphorical terms of things , whose nature and properties they are wholly ignorant of , is plainly to trifle ; seeing while we know not the true idea's of things , we can onely imagine some resemblances . dr. parker ibid. to discourse of the nature of things in metaphorical terms , is to sport and trifle ; but 't is still more phantastick , to talk metaphorically of those things , of whose idea's we are utterly ignorant . nay , sir , it is still more pleasant to observe , that our author cannot complement his patron without imitating dr. parker : for whoever reads mr. ferguson's dedication to mr. papilion , and dr. parkers to dr. bathurst , will ▪ find that the manner of address , the composition , complement , and fancy is dr parkers , though mr. ferguson has a little varied the words . m. f. ep. dedic . sir , it cost me no long deliberation to whom i should direct these discourses , the obligations i am under to you , and your family , rendring them yours by the title of a just debt , the interest you have in me by an entail of peculiar kindnesses , gives you a right to my studies , and the fruits of them . dr. p. ded. of his plat. theol. reverend sir , i shall not need to argue the decency and fitness of this address — because your absolute and unalienable right to all the fruits of my studies , has made it due and necessary . m. f. the declining the imputation of ingratitude is my plea for prefixing your name to these papers . dr. parker . i cannot alienate any thing that is theirs from being yours , without being guilty at once of the greatest injustice and ingratitude m. f. though the concerning you in their behalf may seem an injury , yet not to have done it , would have been a crime . dr. parker . so that if to present you with so mean a trifle be unhandsome , yet not to have done it would have been unjust . m. f. you must be content to forgive such offences , as your self have made the result and effects of duty . dr. parker . though i do but injure your name by concerning its authority in behalf of so worthless a trifle , yet an injury , that is the result of duty and gratitude , may hope for not onely your pardon , but ( sir , such is your candour ) your acceptance too . m. f. were there any indecency in this address , yet the laws of gratitude supersede those of congruity . dr. parker . the obligations of duty cancel all the laws of indecency . this , sir , i hope is enough to satisfie the world of mr. ferguson's great learning , and how he came by it : it had been very easie to have given many more instances of this nature , but i took those which came first to hand : i need make no reflexions upon the whole ▪ since you have done it so well already ; and therefore have no more to do , but to subscribe my self your very affectionate friend and brother , vv. sherlock . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a70177-e2470 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . plut. in alex. a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's notes. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 39 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 13 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59792 wing s3266 estc r17733 13164117 ocm 13164117 98208 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59792) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 98208) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 751:25) a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's notes. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 24 p. printed for ric. chiswell ..., london : 1687. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc pre-1956. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bellarmino, roberto francesco romolo, -saint, 1542-1621. -de notis ecclesiae. catholic church -doctrines. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church . with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's notes . licensed , april 6. 1687. jo. battely . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church , &c. if cardinal bellarmin had not told us , that this is a most profitable controversie ; i should very much have wondered at that pains which he and so many other of their great divines have taken , to find out the notes of the church . for is not the catholick church visible ? and if we can see which is this church , what need we guess at it by marks and signs ? and that by such marks and signs too , as are matter of dispute themselves ? cannot we distinguish between the christian church , and a turkish mosque , or jewish synagogue , or pagan temple ? cannot we , without all this ado , distinguish a christian from a turk , or a jew , or a pagan ? and it will be as easie to find out a christian church , as it is to find out christians ; for a christian church is nothing else but a society of christians united under christian pastors , for the worship of christ ; and where ever we find such a society as this , there is a christian church , and all such particular or national churches all the world over , make up the whole christian church , or the universal church of christ. but this will not do the cardinal's business ; though the christian church is visible enough , yet not such a church as he wants . for since there are a great many christian churches in the world , as the greek , the armenian , the abyssine , the roman church , he would find out which of these churches is the catholick church ; which after all their shuffles they can never make any better sense of , than which of the parts is the whole . since there are many unhappy disputes among christians , the use of notes is to find out an infallible church , which must by an indisputable authority dictate to all other churches , what they must believe , and what they must practise ; and to bring all other churches into subjection , they must find out a church , out of whose communion there is no pardon of sin , no eternal life to be had . that is , in short , the use of notes is to prove the church of rome to be the only catholick church , the only infallible oracle of faith , and final judg of controversies ; and that the promises of pardon of sin , and eternal life , are made only to the church of rome , and to those other churches which are in subjection to her . thus bellarmine unriddles this matter , that the usefulness of this inquiry after the notes of the true church , is , because in the true church only there is the true faith , the true remission of sins , the true hope of eternal salvation ; which is certainly true , that all this is to be had only in the true church of christ. for there can be no true church without the true faith ; and no remission of sins , nor hope of salvation out of the true church . but then all the churches in the world , which profess the true faith of christ , are such true churches . but this will not do the business neither ; for it is not enough to know that every true church professes the true faith ; but we must find out such a church , as cannot err in the faith , and has authority to correct the faith of all other churches ; and we must allow the pardon of sin , and eternal life , to be had in no other church but this ; which is the only thing , which can make such a church the mistress of all other churches ; and this church must be the church of rome , or else the cardinal is undone with all his notes and marks of the church . the observing this , gives us the true state of this controversie ; which is not , what it is which makes a church a true church ; which is necessary for all christians to know , that they may take care , that nothing be wanting in their communion , which is essential to a true church ; which is the only use of notes that i know of : but the dispute is , how among all the divisions of christendom , we may find out that only true church , which is the mistress of all other churches , the only infallible guide in matters of faith , and to which alone the promises of pardon and salvation are made ; and by some notes and characters of such a church , to prove , that the church of rome is that church . the first of these is what the protestants intend in those notes they give of the true church ; to show what it is which is essential to the being and constitution of a christian church ; for that , and none else , is a true church , which has all things essential to a true church . the second is , what the papists intend by their notes of a church ; to prove , that the church of rome is the only true church : and some brief remarks upon both these ways , will abundantly serve for an introduction to a more particular examination of cardinal bellarmin's notes of the church , which is the only design of these papers . it is no wonder , that papists and protestants differ so much about the notes of the true church , since the questions , which each of them intend to answer by their several notes , so vastly differ . when you ask a protestant , what are the notes of a true church ? he answers to that question , what it is , which is essential to a true church ; or what it is , which makes a church a true church ; that is , what a true church is ? and examines the truth of his church by the essential marks and properties of a church . when you ask a papist for notes of a true church , he answers to that question , which is a true church ? and thinks to point you out to a true church by some external marks and signs , without ever inquiring what it is , which is essential to a church ; and this he must of necessity do , according to his principles ; for he can know nothing of religion till he has found the church , from which he must learn every thing else . let us consider then which of these is most reasonable . first , to begin with the protestant way of finding out the church by the essential properties of a true church ; such as the profession of the true christian faith , and the christian sacraments rightly and duly administred by persons rightly ordained , according to the institution of our saviour , and the apostolical practise . this is essential to a true church ; for there can be no true christian church without the true christian faith , and christian sacraments , which cannot be rightly administred but by church-officers rightly and duly ordained . the regular exercise of discipline is not necessary to the being of the church , but to the purity and good government of it . this is the sum of what the protestants alledg for the notes of the true church , and these are as infallible notes of a true church , as humane nature is of a man ; for they are the essential principles of it . by this every man may know whether he be a member of a true church or not ; for where this is , there is a true church ; where this is not , there is no true church , whatever other marks of a church there be . and i know no other use of notes , but to find out what we seek for . in answer to such notes as these , cardinal bellarmin objects three things . 1. that notes , whereby we will distinguish things , must not be common to other things , but proper and peculiar to that of which it is a note . as if you would describe a man to me , whom i never saw , so as that i may know him when i meet him ; it is not enough to say , that he has two hands , or two eyes , &c. because this is common to all men. and this he says is the fault of these notes : for as for the sincere preaching of the truth , or the profession of the true christian faith , this is common to all sects , at least , in their own opinion ; and the same may be said of the sacraments . all sects and professions of christians , either have the true faith and sacraments , or at least think that they have so ; and therefore these marks cannot visibly distinguish the true church from any other sect of christians . now i must confess , these notes , as he well observes , are common to all christian churches , and were intended to be so : and if this does not answer his design , we cannot help it . the protestant churches do not desire to confine the notes of the church to their own private communions ; but are very glad , if all the churches in the world be as true churches as themselves . the whole catholick church , which consists of a great many particular diocesan , or national churches , has the same nature ; and when the whole consists of univocal parts , every part must have the same nature with the whole : and therefore as he who would describe a man , must describe him by such characters as fit all mankind ; so he who gives the essential characters of a church , must give such notes as fit all true churches in the world. this indeed does not fit the church of rome , to make it the only catholick , and the only true church , nor do we intend it should ; but it fits all true churches , wherever they are , and that is much better . to answer then his argument , when we give notes , which belong to a whole species , as we must do , when we give the notes of a true christian church ; ( there being a great many true churches in the world , which make up the catholick , or universal church ) we must give such notes as belong to the whole kind ; that is , to all true christian churches . and though these notes are common indeed to all true christian churches , yet they are proper and peculiar to a true christian church ; as the essential properties of a man are common to all men , but proper to mankind : and this is necessary to make them true notes ; for such notes of a true church , as do not fit all true churches , cannot be true notes . as for what the cardinal urges , that all sects of christians think themselves to have the true faith , and true sacraments ; i am apt to think they do ; but what then ? if they have not the true faith , and true sacraments , they are not true churches , whatever they think of it ; and yet the true faith , and true sacraments , are certain notes of a true church . a purchase upon a bad title , which a man thinks a good one , is not a good estate ; but yet a purchase upon a title , which is not only thought to be , but is a good one , is a good estate . all that can be said in this case , is , that men can be no more certain , that they have a true church , than they are , that they have a true faith , and true sacraments ; and this i readily grant . but as mens mistakes in this matter , does not prove , that there is no true faith , nor true sacraments ; so neither does it prove , that a true faith , and true sacraments , are not notes of the true church . 2. the cardinal 's second objection is , that the notes of any thing must be more known than the thing it self ; which we readily grant . now says he , which is the true church , is more knowable than which is the true faith : and this we deny , and that for a very plain reason , because the true church cannot be known without knowing the true faith : for no church is a true church , which does not profess the true faith. we may as well say , that we can know a horse , without knowing what the shape and figure of a horse is , which distinguishes it from all other creatures , as that we can know a christian church , without knowing what the christian faith is , which distinguishes it from all other churches : or we may as well say , that we can know any thing without knowing what it is , since the very essence of a true church consists in the true faith , which therefore must be first known before we can know the true church . but the cardinal urges , that we cannot know what true scripture is , nor what is the true interpretation of scripture , but from the church ; and therefore we must know the church before we can koow the true faith. as for the first , i readily grant , that at this distance from the writing the books of the new testament , there is no way to assure us , that they were written by the apostles , or apostolical men , and owned for inspired writings , but the testimony of the church in all ages . but herein we do not consider them as a church , but as credible witnesses . whether there be any such thing as a church , or not , we can know only by the scriptures : but without knowing whether there be a church or not , if we know , that for so many hundred years , these books have been owned to be written by such men , and have been received from the apostles days till now , by all who call themselves christians ; this is as good an historical proof as we can have for any thing ; and it is the authority of an uninterrupted tradition , not the authority of the church , considered as a church , which moves us to believe them : for setting aside the authority of tradition , how can the authority of a company of men , who call themselves the church , before i know whether there be any church , move me to believe any thing which was done 1600. years a-go ? but there is a company of men in the world , and have been successively for 1600. years ( whether they be a church or not , is nothing to this question ) , who assure me , that these books , which we call the scriptures , were written by such inspired men , and contain a faithful account of what christ did , and taught , and suffered ; and therefore i believe such books : and from them i learn what that true faith is which makes a true christian church . as for the true interpretation of scripture , that we cannot understand what it is , without the church , this i also deny . the scriptures are very intelligible to honest and diligent readers , in all things necessary to salvation : and if they be not , i desire to know , how we shall find out the church : for certainly the church has no character but what is in the scripture : and then if we must believe the church before we can believe or understand the scriptures , we must believe the church , before we can possibly know whether there be a church or not . if we prove the church by the scripture , we must believe and understand the scripture , before we can know the church : if we believe and understand the scriptures upon the authority and interpretation of the church , considered as a church , then we must know the church before the scripture . the scripture cannot be known without the church , nor the church without the scripture , and yet one of them must be known first , and yet neither of them can be known first , according to these principles , which is such an absurdity , as all the , art of the world can never palliate . 3. the cardinal 's third objection is , that the true notes of the church must be inseparable from it ; whereas the churches of corinth and galatia did not always teach true doctrine , some of the church of corinth denying the resurrection , and the galatians warping towards judaism ; and the church of corinth being guilty of great miscarriages in receiving the lords-supper ; and yet were owned for true churches by the apostles . an argument which much became the cardinal to use , it being the best evidence i know of for the church of rome being a true church , that every corruption in faith and sacraments do not unchurch ; but how this proves that true faith and true sacraments are not an essential note and character of a true church , i cannot guess : i would desire any one to tell me for him , whether a corrupt faith and false sacraments be the notes of a true church ; or whether it be no matter as to the nature of a church , what our faith and sacraments are ? secondly , let us now consider the cardinal's way , by some certain marks and notes , to find out which is the true church , before we know what a true church is . to pick out of all the churches in the world , one church , which we must own for the only true church , and reject all other churches , which do not subject themselves to this one church . to find out such a church on whose authority we must rely for the whole christian faith ; and in whose communion only pardon of sin is to be had . that this is the use of notes in the church of rome , i have already shewn you ; and truly they are very pretty things to be proved by notes ; as to consider them particularly , 1. to find out which is the true church , before we know what a true church is . this methinks is not a natural way of inquiry , but is like seeking for we know not what . there are two inquiries in order of nature before which is the true church , viz. whether there be a true church or not , and what it is . the first of these the cardinal takes for granted , that there is a church ; but i wont take it for granted , but desire these note-makers to give me some notes to prove , that there is a church . there is indeed a great deal of talk and noise in the world about a church , but that is no proof , that there is a church ; and yet it is not a self-evident proposition , that there is a church ; and therefore it must be proved . now that there is a church , must be proved by notes , as well as which is this true church , or else the whole design of notes is lost ; and i would gladly see those notes , which prove that there is a church , before we know what a church is . to understand the mystery of this , we must briefly consider the reason and use of notes in the church of rome ; according to the popish resolution of faith into the authority of the church ; the first thing we must know , is , which is the true church ; for we must receive the scriptures , and the interpretation of them , and the whole christian faith and worship , from the church ; and therefore can know nothing of religion , till we have found the church . the use then of notes is to find out the church before , and without the scriptures ; for if they admit of a scripture-proof , they must allow that we can know and understand the scriptures without the authority or interpretation of the church , which undermines the very foundation of popery : now i first desire to know how they will prove , that there is a church without the scripture ? that you 'l say is visible it self , for we see a christian church in the world ; but what is it i see ? i see a company of men who call themselves a church , and this is all that i can see ; and is this seeing a church ? a church must have a divine original and institution ; and therefore , there is no seeing a church without seeing its character ; for there can be no other note or mark of the being of a church , but the institution of it . and this proves , that we cannot know , that there is a church , without knowing in some measure what this church is ; for the charter which founds the church , must declare the nature and constitution of it , what its faith and worship , and laws and priviledges are . but now these essential characters of a church must not be reckoned by the romanists among the notes of a church , for then we must find out the true church by the true faith , and the true worship ; not the true faith by the true church ; which destroys popery . hence it is , that these note-makers never attempt to give us any notes , whereby we shall know that there is a church , or what this church is ; for there are no notes of these , but such as they dare not give , viz. the authority of the scriptures , and every mans private judgment of the sense and interpretation of them ; for at least till we have found a church , we must judg for our selves , and then the authority of the church comes too late ; for we must first judg upon the whole of religion , if we must find out a true church by the true faith , before we can know the true church ; and we cannot rely on her authority , before we know her ; and therefore they take it for granted , that there is a church , which they can never prove in their way , and attempt to give some notes whereby to know which is the church ; and then learn , what the church is , from the church her self ; which is like giving marks whereby to know an unicorn , before i know whether there be an unicorn or not , or what it is . 2. another blunder in this dispute about notes is , that they give us notes whereby to find out the true catholick church , before we know what a particular church is . for all bellarmin's notes are intended only for the catholick church ; and therefore his first note is the name catholick ; whereas the catholick church is nothing else but all true christian churches in the world , united together by one common faith and worship , and such acts of communion as distinct churches are capable of , and obliged to . every particular church which professes the true faith and worship of christ , is a true christian church ; and the catholick church is all the true christian churches in the world ; which have all the same nature , and are in some sense of the same communion : so that it is impossible to know what the catholick church is , before we know what a particular church is , as it is to know what the sea is , before we know what water is : every true , single , particular church has the whole and intire nature of a church , and would be a true church , though there were no other church in the world ; as the christian church at jerusalem was , before any other christian churches were planted ; and therefore there can be no other notes of a true church , but what belong to every true particular church ; and that can be nothing but what is essential to a church , and what all true christian churches in the world agree in , viz. the true faith and worship of christ. now , so far as bellarmin's notes belong to every true particular church , so far we allow them , and let the church of rome make the best of them she can ; for we doubt not to make our claim to them , as good , and much better than hers ; but he has named very few such ; the 6th , the agreement and consent in doctrine with the ancient and apostolick church ; and the 8th the holiness of its doctrine , are the cheif , if not the only notes of this nature ; and these we will stand and fall by ; many of his other , are not properly the notes of a true church , any otherwise than as they are testimonies of the truth of common christianity , which is professed by all true churches ; and if they are notes of the church , so every true particular church has a share in them . such as his 9th , the efficacy of doctrine . the 10th , the holiness of the lives of the first authors and fathers of our religion ; and i suppose , the holiness of christ and his apostles give testimony to the truth of common christianity , and therefore to all churches who profess the common faith once delivered to the saints . the 11th , the glory of miracles , which also proves the truth of christian religion ; and i hope a little better than popish miracles do transubstantiation . the 12th , is the spirit of prophesy , which as far as it is a good note , belongs to the religion , not to the church . other notes he assigns , which i doubt will prove no notes at all , as 13 , 14 , 15. because they are not always true , and at best uncertain . his third and fourth notes are not notes of a church , but god's promises made to his church : as of a long duration , that it shall never fail , and amplitude or extent , and multitude of believers . these promises we believe god will fulfil to his church , but they can be no notes , which is the true church . for the first of these can never be a note till the day of judgment . that church which shall never be destroyed is the true church , but a bare long continuance is no mark of a true church ; for an apostatical church may continue by the patience and forbearance of god many hundred years , and be destroyed at last ; and then this argument of a long duration is confuted : and as for amplitude and extent , that is not to distinguish one christian church from another , that the most numerous church should be the truest ; but to distinguish the christian church from all other religions ; and then i doubt this prophecy has not received its just accomplishment yet ; for tho we take in all the christian churches in the world , and not exclude the greatest part of them , as the church of rome does , yet they bear but a small proportion to the rest of the world. and now there are but three of his fifteen notes of the church left . the first concerning the name catholick , which makes every church a catholick church , which will call it self so : tho catholick does not declare what a church is , but in what communion it is , and is no note of a true church , unless it be first proved , that they are true churches , which are in communion with each other : for if three parts in four of all the churches in the world were very corrupt and degenerate in faith and worship , and were in one communion , this would be the most catholick communion , as catholick signifies the most general and universal ; but yet the fourth part , which is sincere , would be the best and truest church , and the catholick church , as that signifies the communion of all orthodox and pure churches . his first note is , the succession of bishops in the church of rome from the apostles till now . this is a note of the roman church ; and the succession of bishops in the greek church , is as good a note of the greek church . and any churches which have been later planted , who have bishops in succession from any of the apostles or apostolical bishops , by this note are as good churches as they . so that this is a note common to all true churches , and therefore can do the church of rome no service . his seventh note indeed is home to his purpose : that that is the only true church , which is united to the bishop of rome , as to its head. if he could prove this , it must do his business without any other notes , but that will be examined hereafter . but it is like the confidence of a jesuit , to make that the note of the church , which is the chief subject of the dispute . the sum is this : there can be no notes of a true church , but what belong to all true churches : for tho there is but one catholick church , yet there are a great many true particular churches , which make up this catholick church , as homogeneal parts , which have all the same nature . but now very few of the cardinal's notes belong to all true churches ; and those which do so , signifie nothing to his purpose , because they are common to more churches than the church of rome . and as for the catholick church , that is known only by particular churches ; for it is nothing else , but the union of all true churches in faith and worship , and one communion , as far as distinct churches at a great distance from each other are capable of it : and therefore there is no other way to know which is the catholick church , but by knowing all the true churches in the world , which either are in actual communion with one another , or are in a disposition for it , whenever occasion is offered : for it is impossible that all true christian churches all the world over , should ever joyn in any visible and external acts of communion : and therefore tho we know and believe , that there is a catholick church , because we are assured that all true churches in the world are but one church , the one body and spouse of christ ; yet it is next to impossible to know all the parts of the catholick church ( without which we cannot know the whole catholick church ) because we cannot know all the particular true churches all the world over . nor indeed is there any need we should : for we may certainly know which is a truly catholick church , without knowing the whole catholick church . for every church , which professes the true catholick faith , and imposes only catholick terms of communion , and is ready , out of the principles of brotherly love and charity ( that cement of catholick communion ) to communicate with all churches , and to receive all churches to her communion upon these terms , is a truly catholick church , which shews how ridiculous it is to make the catholick church our first inquiry , and to pretend to give notes to find out the true catholick church by , before we know what a true particular church is . but the mystery of this will appear more in what follows . 3dly . for another mystery of finding the true church by notes , is to pick out of all the christian churches in the world one church , which we must own for the only catholick church ; and reject all other churches as heretical , or schismatical , or un-catholick churches , who refuse obedience and subjection to this one catholick church . for if this be not the intent of it , what will all the notes of the church signify to prove , that the church of rome is the only true catholick church ? and if they do not prove this , the cardinal has lost his labour . for tho the notes he assigns were the notes of a true church , yet they may and must belong to all other true churches , as well as to the church of rome ; unless he can prove , that there is but one true church , or but one church , which is the mistress of all other churches , and the only principle and center of catholick unity . and this ought to have been proved first , before he had thought of the notes of the church . so that there are many things to be proved here , before we are ready for the notes of the church ? they must first prove , that there is but one true church in the world : for tho we all grant , that there is but one catholick church , yet we say , there may be , and hope , nay more than so , know that there are many true churches , which make up the catholick church . yet before the notes of a true church can do any service to the church of rome , they must prove , that there is but one true church in the world ; and then it will signify something to prove the church of rome to be that true church . they must prove also , that the catholick church does not signify all the particular true churches that are in the world ; but some one church , which is the fountain of catholick unity ; which all other churches are bound to submit to , and communicate with , if they will be members of the catholick church . for tho all the churches in the world were in subjection to that church , yet they receive their catholicism from their communion with that church ; and therefore that only is the catholick church . it is not meerly the communion of all churches together , which makes the catholick church ; but it is the subjection of all churches to that one catholick church , which makes them catholick : so that they must prove , that there is one particular church , which is the catholick church ; that is , that a part is the whole ; that one particular church is all the churches of the world ; for so the catholick church signifies in ancient writers . this is so absurd , that some of our modern advocates for the catholick church of rome tell us , that they do not mean the particular diocess of rome by the catholick church , but all those churches , which are in communion with the church of rome : but suppose this , yet it is only the church of rome which makes all the other churches catholick , and therefore she only is the catholick church . and i will presently make them confess it to be so : for let us suppose , that no other churches should submit themselves to the church of rome ( by the church of rome understanding the particular diocess of rome ) would she be the catholick church or not ? if notwithstanding this she would be the catholick church ; then it is evident , that they make the particular church of rome the catholick church ; if she would not , then i cannot see how communion with the church of rome is essential to the catholick church . these things , i say , ought to have been proved , before the cardinal had given us the notes of the church ; for it is a hard thing to prove by notes , that the particular church of rome is the only catholick church , till it be proved , that a particular church may be the catholick church , or that there is one particular church , which is the catholick church . this he knew we all deny ; and it is a ridiculous thing to think to convince us by notes , that the church of rome is the particular catholick church ; when we deny that there is any such church ; and affirm , that it is a contradiction to own it ; as great a contradiction , as it is to say , that a particular church is the universal church . 4thly . but when i consider the farther design of these note-makers , to find out such a church on whose authority we must rely for the whole christian faith , even for the holy scriptures themselves , it makes me now admire , that they should think this could be done by some notes of a church ; especially by such notes as the cardinal gives us . for suppose he had given us the notes of a true church , which is the utmost he can pretend to ; before we can hence conclude that this church is the infallible guide , and uncontroulable judg of controversies , we must be satisfied , that the true church is infallible . this indeed bellarmin attempts to prove in his third book of the church ; and it is not my concern at present to inquire how he proves it . but i am sure this can never be proved but by scripture ; for unless christ have bestowed infallibility on the church , i know not how we can prove she has it ; and whether christ have done it or not , can never be known but by the scriptures : so that a man must believe the scriptures , and use his own judgment to understand them , before it can be proved to him , that there is an infallible church ; and therefore those who resolve the belief of the scriptures into the authority of the church , cannot , without great impudence , urge the authority of the scriptures to prove the church's infallibility ; and yet thus they all do ; nay prove their very notes of the church from scripture , as the cardinal does : and think this is no circle neither , because we hereticks believe the scriptures without the authority of their church , and therefore are willing to dispute with them out of the scriptures . but this is a fault on our side , and when we dispute with them , whatever we do at other times , we should not believe the scriptures , till they had proved them to us their way , by the authority of their church ; and then we should quickly see what blessed work they would make of it . how they would prove their church's infallibility , and what fine notes we should have of a church , when we had rejected all their scripture-proofs , as we ought to do , till they have first satisfied us , that theirs is the only true infallible church , upon whose authority we must believe the scriptures , and every thing else . i confess , i would gladly hear what notes they would give a pagan to find out the true infallible church by . it is certainly a most sensless thing to resolve all our faith into the authority of the church , as if the church were the first object of our faith in religion ; whereas ●t is demonstrable , that we must know and believe most of the articles of the christian faith before we can know whether there be any church or not . the order observed in the apostles creed is a plain evidence of this , for all those articles which are before the holy catholick church must in order of nature be known before it . that there is a god who made the world ; that jesus christ is the only begotten son of god , who was conceived by the holy ghost , born of the virgin mary , suffered under pontius pilate , was crucified , dead , and buried , and descended into hell , that he rose again the third day from the dead , and ascended into heaven , and sitteth on the right-hand of god the father almighty , and from thence shall come to judg the quick and the dead ; i believe in the holy ghost ; and then we may add the holy catholick church , and not till then . for the church is a society of men for the worship of god , through the faith of jesus christ , by the sanctification of the holy spirit , which unites them into one mystical body : so that we must know father , son , and holy ghost , before we can know what the catholick church means . and is it not strange then , that our faith must be founded on the authority of the church , when we must first know all the great articles of our faith , before we can know any thing about a church . this inverts the order of our creed , which according to the principles of the church of rome should begin thus . i believe in the holy catholick church , and upon the authority of that church , i believe in god the father almighty , and in jesus chrst , and in the holy ghost : and no doubt but the apostles , or those apostolical men , who framed the creed , would have put it so , had they thought the whole christian faith must be resolved into the authority of the church . this short discourse , i think , is enough in general concerning the notes of the church ; and i shall leave the particular examination of cardinal bellarmin's notes to other hands , which the reader may expect to follow in their order . the end. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59792-e210 controv. t2 . l. 4. de notic ecclesiae . omnes enim confitentur in solâ verâ ecclesia esse veram fidem , veram peccatorum remissioonem , veram spem salutis aternâ . bell. de notis eccl. cap. 1. considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the trinity by dr. wallis, dr. sherlock, dr. s-th, dr. cudworth, and mr. hooker as also on the account given by those that say the trinity is an unconceivable and inexplicable mystery / written to a person of quality. nye, stephen, 1648?-1719. 1693 approx. 147 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a52608 wing n1505b estc r32239 12567380 ocm 12567380 63367 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a52608) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 63367) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1022:7) considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the trinity by dr. wallis, dr. sherlock, dr. s-th, dr. cudworth, and mr. hooker as also on the account given by those that say the trinity is an unconceivable and inexplicable mystery / written to a person of quality. nye, stephen, 1648?-1719. wallis, john, 1616-1703. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 35 p. s.n.], [london : mdcxciii [1693] attributed to nye by wing and nuc pre-1956 imprints. place of publication suggested by nuc pre-1956 imprints. incorrectly listed in reel guide as wing n1505a. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng trinity -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-01 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-01 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the trinity , by dr. wallis , dr. sherlock , dr. s — th , dr. cudworth , and mr. hooker ; as also on the account given by those that say , the trinity is an unconceivable and inexplicable mystery . written to a person of quality . printed in the year mdcxciii . considerations on the explication of the doctrine of the trinity , &c. sir , 't is the principal design of both testaments , by confession of all parties , to estabish the worship and belief of one only god ; 't was for this that all the books of the old testament were written , and delivered to the jews ; and for this the new was bestowed on the gentiles . of jews and gentiles , as the apostle observes , there were none that understood , none that sought after ( the true ) god : they were all gone out of the way ; they became vain in their imaginations , and their foolish heart was darkened : professing to be wise , they became fools ; and changed the truth of god into a lie , by worshipping the creature , and doing service to them who were not by nature gods. this was the condition of both jews and gentiles , when first the law , and then the light of the glorious gospel of christ , who is the image of god , shone out upon them . in the law , the jews were charged , ye shall have no other gods but me : and again , thou shalt know no other god but me. in the gospel the gentiles are taught , there is one god , and there is none other but he : there is no other god but one ; god is one . exod. 20. 3. hosea 13. 4. mark 12. 32. 1 cor. 8. 5. gal. 3. 20. these and an hundred more such like , clear and express declarations of holy scripture , have been the occasion , that the unity of god , or that there is but one god , is the first article of faith , both with jews and ( true ) christians . from the christians and jews , it hath been learned and embraced by all the mahometans , and is now the general belief even of the pagan and idolatrous nations : for tho these last own and worship many gods , yet they ( commonly ) own but one who is supream , infinite , almighty and pre-eternal ; they make the other deities to be but the ministers of his providence and will , and their mediators with him. but that there is an almighty and all-wise mind , the maker of heaven and earth , and of all the creatures and kinds in them , we discern plainly by the order , beauty and stability of things ; and more especially , by the admirable designs in the whole , and in all the parts of the creation : but as this divine beauty and order , and those numberless and most useful designs , aims and ends seen in the creation , do evince that there is a thinking , designing and all-powerful mind , whom we call god ; so they no way intimate to us , that there is more than one creating and governing mind , or god. they demonstrate to us ( beyond exception ) that one such mind there is , but not that there is more than one : therefore we may say , that we can own and worship but one such mind , or but one god , because we know of no more . of one we are certain , by the order and design of the parts in the world : of more than one , we have no manner of proof ; therefore we cannot own , or worship , or but talk , or even think of more . but the revelation made to us in holy scripture is categorical , apodictical , express and direct : there we are told plainly , and in terms , there is no other god but one ; there is one god , and there is none other but he ; the lord thy god , the lord is one ; god is one . as this doctrine is so clearly delivered in scripture , so good christians have been always very jealous ; that neither directly nor indirectly , neither in express words nor in consequence , any thing should be said or held contrary thereto . they have considered , that polytheism and atheism are much the same thing : as 't is much one to acknowledg , and contend for more kings of england , others besides king william , and to renounce or deny him to be king of england . both the covenants , the old as well as the new , are between us on the one part , and the one true god on the other part : he covenants to be our god , and our exceeding great reward ; we covenant to be his people , and his only : this covenant is manifestly dissolved , and the premium , or promise of eternal life , annexed to our faithfulness to this covenant , is utterly forfeited ; if we take to our selves any other , besides him with whom we are in covenant , and who alone is true god. the guilt of polytheism , or of affirming more than one god , being so very great ; and the forfeiture thereby made so unspeakable , and the unity of god being so often and so expresly delivered in holy scripture ; 't is an amazing circumstance , that polytheism is not only found among christians , but is also the more general and prevailing belief of christian states and kingdoms . it is true , we all agree in the words , there is one god , and there is none other but he : but when we come to explain our selves on these words , the incomparable majority of modern christians are found to affirm three gods , and not one only . one would have thought that these words , thou shalt have no other gods but me , the lord thy god is one lord , thou shalt know no other god but me , there is none other god but one , god is one : i say , one would have thought these declarations to be so plain , and so uncontestable , that a question could never have arose concerning their meaning . but so it is , that there are a great many senses given of these words , which senses are contrary to , and destructive of one another . the doctrine of the unitarians concerning god. the first of these senses is the unitarian . for the unitarians say , there is none other god but one , god is one ; the plain , obvious and indubitable meaning of these words is this , there is but one , who is god , or a god : one god , say they , is to be understood in the same natural , sincere and unsophisticated sense ; as when we say one sun , one earth , one world. when the scriptures , say they , speak to us of so high an object as god ; when they tell us , there is one god , and there is none other but he ; when they declare this faith to be the very first of all god's charges , or commandments to men ; without doubt they speak without artifice or querk , they have no double or deceitful meaning ; they don't lay snares for us , by intending such a meaning as is contrary to the usual , the grammatical and proper sense of the words . there is but one god , say the holy scriptures ; where can be the ambiguity of such usual and plain words ? the meaning of the terms one and god , is perfectly known to all men ; why do we study subtilties and finenesses , with which to deceive our selves into polytheism , and to destroy the simplicity of the faith ? when god says in the first commandment ; thou shalt have no other god but me , he speaks to all men , to the illiterate , to the sincere , and even to children , as well as to those who are practised in the arts of deceiving and being deceived , by a disguise of words , and by captious forms of speaking . if his meaning therefore was , there is an almighty father , who is god ; he hath an almighty son , who also is a god ; and besides these , there is an almighty spirit distinct from the other two , and a god no less than either of them : if ( i say ) this was his meaning , would he have couched it in such words as these , there is none other god but one ? or in these , there is one god , and there is none other but he ? or would he have said , thou shalt have none other god but me ? could the wisdom of god it self find no other words but these , which are so directly contrary to such a meaning , by which to express himself ; and that too to those who were utterly uncapable of apprehending such a sense in them ? these are the words which god spake upon mount sinai , with thunders that shook the earth and heavens , i am the lord thy god , thou shalt have no other god but me. they tell us his meaning was , there are three almighty , all-knowing , and most good persons , each of them ( singly and by himself ) god , and all of them jointly creators of all things : now who would have thought it , that this should be the meaning of no other god but me ? without doubt , the texts and the meaning are as far from one another , as any the most contradictory propositions can be : and till they can remove this first commandment out of the way , it will be impossible for men of sense to be of the trinitarian perswasion ; i mean , if they be also sincere , if they suffer not themselves to be blinded by the interests , or awed by the ( vain ) terrors of the present false world. our opposers themselves grant , that when the israelites first heard this commandment , they understood it , and could then no otherways understand it , as the unitarians now do , namely thus , thou shalt never own any other person as god , but only me who now speak to thee . god almighty suffered this sense of his words to pass current for upwards of 1500 years : but then , say they , he sent our saviour and his apostles to give another sense of them ; nay , a contrary sense . the apostles and our saviour had it in charge to tell us , that no other god but me , was as much as to say , god the father , and god his son , and god the holy ghost , three divine persons , each of them almighty , each of them all-knowing and most good , and each of them god. but i verily think , had the apostles indeed pretended this to be the interpretation of the first commandment , they would not have found a single person who would have believed or received them . for these good men had not ( nor desired ) penal laws , prisons , confiscations , deprivations , exclusions from the common privileges of the society , by which to awe mens minds , to profess , and even to believe that black is white , and white is black . it would have been told them by all their hearers , that the sense of words is unalterable ; and that even the greatest miracles cannot authorize an interpretation evidently contrary to the text. if the speaker had been only a man , yet the sense of his words when actually spoken , can never be changed by any authority whatsoever : if heaven and earth were miraculously destroyed to confirm an interpretation that disagrees with the natural and grammatical sense of the words , it will ( for all that ) ever remain a false interpretation . cardinal bellarmine is extreamly puzled with this difficulty ; he saw plainly , that the first commandment ( and other texts of the law ) is conceived in such words , that the israelites could not think there were three divine persons , but only one divine person . but the reason , saith he , of this was , because the israelites having lived long in a nation where they owned and worshipp'd many gods ; if they had been told of three divine-persons , ( or of god the father , god his son , and god the holy ghost ) they would most certainly have apprehended them to be three gods. this , saith the cardinal , is the reason why the doctrine of the trinity was reserved to the times of the new testament . bellarm. de christo , l. 2. c. 6. notandum est , deum in vetteri testamento noluisse proponere mysterium triuitatis expresse , quia judaei incapaces erant , & quia recens exierant de egypto , ubi colebantur multi dii , & intraturi erant in terram chanaan , ubi etiam multi babebantur dii , ne videlicet putarent , sibi tres deos proponi colendos● voluisse tamen deum adumbrare hoc mysterium ; ut cum in novo testamento praedicaretur , non videretur omnino novum . q. d. the doctrine of the trinity was not propounded expresly to the jews in the old testament ; they were uncapable of it , because coming out of egypt where many gods were worshipped , and entering into canaan where also many gods were acknowledged , the jews would have thought that three gods had been propounded to them to be worshipped . nevertheless it was hinted , or shadowed to them , lest when it came to be preached in the new testament , it should seem altogether a new thing . in reading the works of this cardinal , i have often had this thought , that provided his works were but bulky and learned , he never cared what other property they wanted : no one can deny that his five books against the unitarians , intituled by him de christo , are the most learned of any that have been written against us ; but they have no wit , and are ( throughout ) most injudicious . what can be more unthought or silly , for instance , than this vain elusion ? god speaks to the jews , saith he , as if he were but one person , because they ( living among people who acknowledged many gods ) would have mistaken three divine persons to be three gods. how came it to be more safe or seasonable , or less liable to misinterpretation , to instruct christians in the belief of three divine persons ; than it would have been to teach the same belief to the jews ? the jews , saith the cardinal , would have mistaken , they would have thought the trinity ( an almighty father , an almighty son , and an almighty spirit ) to be three almighties , and three gods ; so this mystery was not preached to them . what a narrowness of thought and consideration is implied in this answer ; for , was not the whole christian church taken from among such nations , who all worshipped and owned many gods ? the reason alledged by the cardinal , if it were good for any thing , must also have prevented the revelation of that ( pretended ) mystery to any of the christian nations and churches . i might also ask the cardinal , why he hath so much better thoughts of athanasius , than of moses , and the prophets ? athanasius knew how to compose a trinitarian creed , in the most express and particular manner , that might be delivered out to all the churches , without the least danger of leading them into any mistake about it : but moses and the prophets , tho inspired by god , wanted this dexterity . they , poor men , were forced to speak ( falsly ) of god , as if he were but one person , not a trinity of persons , lest they should commit some dangerous blunder in the wording of their doctrine , and so lay an occasion of polytheism in the way of the jewish church ; but athanasius , and the nicene fathers have happily got over this difficulty , they have blest the christian churches with a pair of creeds , worth an hundred first commandments . but to be short ; the unitarian explication of the texts , which say there is but one god , is , that there is but one who is god , or but one divine person , but one who is almighty , all-knowing , and perfectly good. our very opposers confess that this was the antient and first sense of the words , so the faithful understood them for 1500 years together . they confess too , 't is a very natural and a very rational sense ; that it hath no difficulties , no mysteries or monstrosities in it . they are constrained also to own , that the before-mentioned texts alledged by the unitarians , are so read in all copies both of the hebrew and greek , and can no other ways be rendred from the original text ; or more clearly thus , as to these texts there is no variety or difference in the reading , in the copies of the original , nor any uncertainty in the translations of those copies . this is a very great matter , and cannot be said , nor is so much as pretended , for the texts are urged by trinitarians ; they have been often challenged to produce but one text for their doctrine of the trinity : but either 't is otherwise read in the most antient and eminent copies of the greek and hebrew , or 't is easily and naturally render'd and translated to another sense ; or 't is given up by their own ( ablest ) interpreters and criticks , as wholly impertinent , and no proof of the doctrine in question . from these confest and acknowledg'd premises , we have these two necessary and unavoidable consequences . 1. that the account which the unitarians give of god , and his unity , is the very voice of nature and reason , supported by such texts of holy scripture , as have neither uncertainty nor ambiguity . 2. that the trinitarian faith is at best but precarious , uncertain and doubtful ; because it is not only disclaimed by reason , but it hath no other scripture-proofs but such , concerning which there is no certainty , either how they are to be read in the originals , or how they are to be translated from the originals into the modern languages . no faith or doctrine whatsoever can be more certain than the proofs are on which 't is grounded : if those proofs are of suspected authority and credit , or of uncertain meaning and sense , the doctrine it self must be altogether uncertain , suspicious and precarious . but because you expect from me a letter , not a volume , i will say no more now of the unitarian hypothesis , but will briefly ( as i can ) compare and consider the hypotheses , or explications advanced by our opposers . of the explication by dr. j. wallis . all men know , that the difference between the unitarians and their opposers the trinitarians , is ( in few words ) this , whether there be more than one divine person , or more than one person , who is true and most high god ? the unitarians say there can be but one divine person ; because , not to mention the scripture-proofs of it , a divine person being as much as to say a divinity , or a god ; if you say , there are more divine persons , you therein and thereby say there are more gods. as three angelical persons are three angels , and three human persons are three men : so three divine persons in grammar and common sense , are three divinities ; which ( all grant ) is as much as to say three gods. so they . but , saith dr. wallis , here 's a reasoning why 't is grounded on this silly mistake , that a divine person is as much as to say a divinity , or a god ; when indeed a divine person is only a mode , a respect , or relation of god to his creatures . he beareth to his creatures these three relations , modes , or respects , that he is their creator , their redeemer , and their sanctifier : this is what we mean , and all we mean , when we say god is three persons ; he hath those three relations to his creature , and is thereby no more three gods , than he was three gods to the jews , because he calleth himself the god of abraham , the god of isaac , and the god of jacob. three human persons , say the socinians , are tres homines , or three men , and three angelical persons are three angels ; therefore three divine persons are , in grammar and common sense , three divinities , or gods : where , i pray , did they learn this stuff ? not from tully ; that learned orator , and great master and director of elegant and proper speaking , would have taught them , that an human person is not as much as to say homo , or a man , but is a qualification , a capacity , a respect , or relation of one man to other men. n●o unus tres personas , saith tully ; i. e. i being but one man do sustain ( or am ) three persons , that of my self , that of my adversary ; and that of a judg. see here , one man sustains ( or is ) three persons , an advocate , an accuser , and a judg , without being three men : why should it be thought incredible , or harsh , to say with the church , three divine persons are but one god , when tully maketh those three other persons to be but one man ? this is the sum of what dr. wallis hath said in eight printed letters , and in three sermons that were preached to the university of oxford . sermons that have been preached to the university , and not censured by them , must be supposed to contain nothing heretical , no nor dangerous , scandalous , or heterodox . but besides that these sermons have passed so great a test , as that of the university of oxford , the doctor assureth us , that he hath been thank'd and complemented , in a great number of private letters , on account of his sermons and letters : some of these letters written to him have been published ; and it doth appear , they were indeed written by able men. we must also take notice of two other considerations in favour of these letters and sermons of dr. wallis : the first is , that dr. s — th ( author of the animadversions on dr. sherlock ) having taken particular notice of the letters written by and to dr. wallis , speaks respectfully of the authors of them , calling them reverend and very learned persons , without making the least reflection on his doctrine , as heretical , or as heterodox . the second is , dr. sherlock himself , tho dr. wallis had expresly said in his answer to w. i. that dr. sherlock's doctrine doth imply tritheism , and that so much had been proved upon him by w. i. yet does dr. sherlock , who is so little wonted to carry coals , pass by this affront and imputation which no clergy-man ought to bear ; nay he even fawns upon the oxford doctor , in his late answer to the stander by . but a very surprizing thing hath happened ; dr. wallis writes in defence of the trinity and the athanasian creed ; his explications are allowed by the university of oxford , and even applauded by great numbers of learned men who profess to be trinitarians : and yet after all , the socinians in their observations on the letters of dr. wallis , profess that they are of his mind ; they even say , that in honour of him they are content to be called wallisians . this is very odd ; for it follows , that either the socinians are the true orthodox , and their opposers tritheists ; or else , that this good doctor is a socinian , and knows it not . those that say , without doubt the socinians understand their own doctrine , are very picquant upon dr. wallis ; they pretend themselves very desirous to be informed , what might be in the doctor 's mind , to apologize for the athanasian creed and the trinity , and yet to asperse at the same time his own patriarch socinus , and his dear and close friends and brethren the unitarians ; especially in such an hainous manner as we see in his third and fourth letters . they say , either the man is wood , or he has written after that fashion , only to give occasion to the socinians , as in effect it also happened , to appear more bright , by a thorow and unanswerable vindication of themselves : for so it is , that wronged innocence and vertue are rendred more conspicuous and lovely , when injurious calumnies are wiped off . they say farther , that 't is not to be much regarded that so many have complemented dr. wallis for his letters ; for what assurance have we that the writers of them are not secret socinians , and that they only banter the good doctor ? as for the university of oxford , to whom these sabellian and unitarian sermons were preached , 't is very usual for the old men that preside in that university , to sleep at sermons , especially at dull ones . but you are not to think , say they , that these sermons or letters were ever licensed to the press by the university ; or that the doctors there understand so little , as to mistake a disguised sabellianism or socinianism , for the trinity of the catholick church . the three persons , says dr. wallis , are but three relations , capacities , or respects of god to his creatures ; he is their creator , redeemer and sanctifier ; and in this sense of the word person , god is three persons . but then because god hath also the capacity or relation of a judg , and of an oeconomus , or provider , and many more ; we must not say that god is only three persons , he is five at the least , besides i know not how many more . furthermore , this new-fangled socinian or sabellian has introduced a trinity of divine persons ; that were but of yesterday . the churches trinity are all of them from all eternity ; co-eternal , saith the athanasian creed ; before all worlds , saith the nicene creed : but dr. wallis his three divine persons , the first of them begins with the creation , and the second is no older than the crucifixion of our saviour ; for god was not a creator before he created any thing ; nor a redeemer , till those words were spoken by our saviour on the cross , it is finished , i. e. the great work of redemption is accomplished . the three divine persons believed by the church , begat one another after a wonderful manner : will dr. wallis , being the oldest divine of england , instruct novices that are desirous to learn , how his persons begat one another ? how did creation beget redemption , and from all eternity , that is , before either of them were ; for creation it self is but coeval with the world : and how was sanctification , we must not say begotten , for that 's heresy when you speak of a third person ; but how did it proceed from creation , and from redemption ? dr. wallis , say they , will find it as hard to account for these difficulties , as to double the cube , or even to square the circle , which the most learned mathematicians think to be impossible . he is not , say they , to think that he is orthodox , because he hath escaped the heavy cudgelling that hath all fallen on dr. sherlock ; 't is not because his doctrine , but because his luck hath been better than that doctor 's . in a word , whereas the church believes three real subsisting persons , dr. wallis hath taught a trinity of external denominations , or accidental predications only . creation , redemption and sanctification are acts of god's free and soveraign will : he was under no necessity to create , to redeem , or to sanctify ; they are all effects of his most voluntary and every way free love : if therefore the mystery of the trinity , so much hitherto contested , be nothing else but almighty god , considered as the maker , redeemer and sanctifier of his creatures ; 't is a trinity only of three denominations or names , and of predications purely accidental ; and besides that , 't is no manner of mystery , but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the word ; nor was it ever denied , either by sabellians or socinians . thus it is , sir , that divers learned persons speak concerning the trinity maintained by dr. wallis : i , for my part , will add nothing to the observations i have formerly made on dr. wallis his letters ; only ( i pray ) take notice here with me , how well the cadmean brethren agree among themselves . three divine persons , saith dr. wallis , are the three relations of god to his creatures ; he made , he redeemed , he sanctifies them ; this is the holy trinity . out upon it , saith dr. sherlock , 't is nonsense and heresy both ; for the divine persons are three beings , three minds , three spirits , all of them living , subsisting , and conscious to one another . no , no , that 's as much too much , saith dr. s — th , 't is neither so nor so , but as i have explained it in my eighth chapter of animadversions on dr. sherlock . the explication of the trinity by dr. sherlock , saith dr. s — th , is a treacherous and a false defence of that mystery ; he hath advanced a notion , that immediately and unavoidably infers three gods : and if he had lived in the times of the sixth general council , he would have incurred the penalty of deprivation . pref. p. 2 , 7 , & 8. well , i hope dr. s — th hath at length told us the very true doctrine about the trinity . yes , he hath ( without question ) laid down the very explication of the schools , the doctrine or explication generally received in universities ; i doubt not it would be approved by most of the chairs of our european universities , or schools of learning : he hath verily acquitted himself like a man of learning and wit. for all that , dr. cudworth , in his intellectual system , hath largely and clearly proved these two things . 1. that this trinity of the schools is quite different from the trinity held by the fathers , and that by them it would have been reckoned no other than sabellianism . 2. that as the first inventors of it were peter lombard and the schoolmen ; so it hath no other publick authority , but that of the fourth lateran council , held in the year 1215. he saith , 't is a gross piece of nonsense ; that it falleth not under human conception ; neither ( saith he ) can it be in nature . this is the judgment , which this great philosopher and divine maketh , of the explication propounded and defended in dr. s — th's animadversions on dr. sherlock . and in very deed , dr. s — th's explication can ( fitly and properly ) be called by no other name , but an absurd socinianism , or socinianism turn'd into ridicule ; as we shall see , when we come to consider it , in particular . mr. hooker , the celebrated author of the ecclesiastical polity , giveth yet another explication of the trinity ; he descibeth it to be the divine essence , distinguished by three internal and relative properties : this explication differs as much from dr. wallis as any of the rest ; for dr. wallis's three persons are all of them external denominations or predications . but these differences , sir , among our opposers , will appear to you most clearly , without my needing to point at them ; in the accounts i am about to give , of their several explications of their trinity , and the observations i shall make on them . therefore i pass on , to the explication given us by dr. sherlock . of the explication by dr. w. sherlock . for memory and method's sake , and because the division is so just ; we may distinguish the accounts , or explications of the trinity contrived by our opposers ; after this manner . there is , first , the trinity according to tully , or the ciceronian trinity ; which maketh the three divine persons , to be nothing else but three conceptions of god ; or god conceived of as the creator , the redeemer , and sanctifier of his creatures . dr. wallis , after many others , hath propounded and asserted this trinity , in his letters , and his sermons to the patris conscripti at oxford . he found in tully , sustineo unus tres personas ; of which he mistaketh the meaning to be , i being but one man , yet am three persons : saith the doctor hereupon ; why may not god be three persons ; as well as one man was three persons ? the next is the cartesian trinity , or the trinity according to des cartes : which maketh three divine persons , and three infinite minds , spirits and beings , to be but one god ; because they are mutually , and internally , and universally conscious to each others thoughts : mr. des cartes had made this inventum to be the first principle and discovery in philosophy , cogito , ergo sum ; i think , therefore i am : and he will have the very nature of a mind or spirit to consist in this , that 't is a thinking being . therefore , says dr. sherlock , three persons can be no otherways one god , but by unity of thought ; or what will amount to as much , as internal and perfect consciousness to one anothers thoughts . any one may see , that dr. sherlock's mutual consciousness , by which he pretends to explain his trinity in unity , was by him borrowed from the meditations and principles of monsieur des cartes : his system was hinted to him , by that unhappy philosopher who hath razed ( as much as in him lay ) the only foundation of religion ; by resolving ( so absurdly , as well as impiously ) the original of the world and of all things , not into the contrivance and power of an almighty and all-wise mind , but into the natural tendencies of bodies , or as he calls them , the laws of motion . the third is the trinity of plato , or the platonick trinity ; maintained by dr. cudworth , in his intellectual system . this trinity is of three divine co-eternal persons , whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferior to the first ; in dignity , power , and all other qualities , except only duration . yet they are but one god , saith he ; because they are not three principles , but only one ; the essence of the father being the root , and fountain of the son and spirit : and because the three persons are gathered together under one head , even the father . this , saith dr. cudworth , is the trinity of plato , and the genuine platonists ; and is the only true trinity : all other trinitarians besides the platonists , are but nominal trinitarians ; and the trinities they hold , are not trinities of subsisting persons , but either of names and denominations only , or of partial and inadequate conceptions . the fourth is the trinity according to aristotle , or the aristotelian or peripatetick trinity ; which saith , the divine persons are one god , because they have the same numerical substance , or one and the self-same substance , in number : and tho each of the three persons is almighty , all-knowing , and most good ; yet 't is by one individual and self-same power , knowledge and goodness , in number . this may be called also the reformed trinity , and the trinity of the schools ; because the divines of the middle ages , reformed the tritheistick and platonick trinity of the fathers , into this sabellian jargonry ; as dr. cudworth , often and deservedly , calleth it . this is the trinity intended by dr. s — th , in his animadversions on dr. sherlock , especially at chap. 8. the author or first contriver of it , was peter lombard , master of the sentences , and bishop of paris , who died in the year 1164. it never had any other publick authority , saith dr. cudworth , but that of the fourth lateran council ; which is reckoned by the papists among the general councils , and was convened in the year 1215. he might have added , that the doctrine of p. lombard was disliked and opposed by divers learned men , and censured by alexander the third , and other popes ; till pope innocent the third declared it to be orthodox . it may be not unprobably said , that an unitarian was the true parent of it ; for 't is said , that peter lombard took his four books of sentences , for so much as concerneth the trinity , out of a book of p. abelardus concerning the same . to this trinity ( of aristotle and the schools ) we must reckon the trinity of properties ; which ( we shall see hereafter ) is so variously explained , as to make even divers sorts of trinities : yet i refer all the property-trinities to this fourth distinction of trinities , the trinity according to aristotle ; because they are all grounded , on the abstracted or metaphysical and logical notions , of that philosopher ; nor can they be understood , without some knowledge of his philosophy . we must add to all these , the trinity of the mobile ; or the trinity held by the common people , and by those ignorant or lazy doctors , who in compliance with their laziness or their ignorance , tell you in short , that the trinity is an unconceivable , and therefore an inexplicable mystery ; and that those are as much in fault , who presume to explain it , as those who oppose it . i have propounded to my self , to discourse briefly on all these trinities ; i have begun with the trinity of marcus tullius cicero , or , if he pleases , of dr. wallis : i have said of it , as much as is necessary ; the next is the trinity according to the philosopher des cartes , but the discoverer of which is dr. sherlock . when dr. sherlock came out with his vindication , in answer to the brief history of the unitarians , and the brief notes on the creed of athanasius : the more ignorant of the doctors and rectors , and all the young fry of lecturers and readers about town , were his hawkers to cry it about , and cry it up . they questioned not , what such a master in polemicks had delivered ; especially with so much assurance and confidence , and with so much keenness , and contempt of the poor kick'd note-maker , and epistler . but the more learned among them , said from the very first ; that indeed dr. sherlock meant honestly , and he might have propounded this explication to his private friends , to be considered and debated : but it was liable to too many obvious exceptions , to be published to all the world ; without great corrections , in the manner of expression . but the socinians presently saw their advantage ; and resolved to make use of it : accordingly , in about four or five weeks time , out came their observations on the vindication of dr. sherlock ; which in some editions of them are prefaced , with the acts or gests of athanasius . here they tell the doctor , that he hath published a worse heresy , than even ours is held to be , by our bitterest opposers ; in one word , that he hath revived paganism by such an explication of the trinity , as undeniably introduces tritheism , or three gods. they show him , that his error was condemned by the antients in the person of philoponus ; and in the middle ages in the person and writings of abbat joachim : but more severely since the reformation , in the person of valentinus gentilis ; who was condemned at geneva , and beheaded at bern , for this very doctrine . they demonstrate to him , by a great many unexceptionable arguments , that a mutual consciousness of three ( supposed ) divine spirits and minds , having each of them his own peculiar and personal understanding , will and power of action , is so far from making three such spirits to be one god in number ; that 't is the clearest and the certainest demonstration , that they are three gods. mutual-consciousness maketh them to be a consult or council , a cabal or senate of gods , if you will ; but by no means , one numerical god , or one god in number . the observations of the socinians opened all mens eyes , to see and acknowledg , that dr. sherlock had greatly overshot the mark ; and that it was necessary , he should yield his place to some new opponent , who ( in these disputes with the socinians ) would speak more cautiously . all endeavours therefore were used by his friends , to perswade dr. sherlock to be quiet : and because such an example had been made of him , they stopped a while all sermons and other tracts , that were going to the press against the socinians . the politicians among them feared the success of a war , that in its beginnings had been so unsuccessful : they said to one another , we need not trouble our selves with the socinians ; because being masters of all the pulpits , we can sufficiently dispose the people to the orthodox belief , without the help of printed answers and replies . 't is about three years , since these observations on dr. sherlock's vindication were made publick ; and all this time , he hath very peaceably taken the imputations of heresy , and paganism ; tho he had said in the preface to his vindication , that having dipped his pen in the vindication of so glorious a cause , by the grace of god he would never desert it , while be could hold a pen in his hand . the socinians did not design to give him any farther trouble : but dr. s — th not able to endure , that such aspersions should lie at the door of the church ; could not refrain from declaring to all the world ; that the church had suffered nothing , in the defeat of dr. sherlock . he professeth , that the charge drawn up against dr. sherlock , by the socinians , is true ; for he hath in very deed advanced an explication of the trinity , saith dr. s — th , which immediately and unavoidably inferreth three gods. pref. p. 2. it not being the design of dr. s — th , in his animadversions , to prove the truth of the doctrine of the trinity ; but only to explain or declare it , that is , to notify in what sense and manner 't is held by the church : we must say , that his performance is an accurate , and learned work. he concerneth not himself with the socinians ; but only rescues the received doctrines of the church , from the misrepresentations of them by dr. sherlock , who either understood them not , or ventur'd to depart from them . nor do we concern our selves with dr. s — th : but whereas he is the only writer , since the revival of these controversies , who has indeed understood what the church means by a trinity in unity ; therefore we must take leave to say , and will also prove it ; that this his true explication of the trinity , is ( for all that ) a great untruth , or rather a great piece of nonsense . dr. sherlock's was a rational and intelligible explication , tho not a true one ; 't is not orthodox , as orthodoxy is reckoned since the lateran council : dr. s — th's is a true and orthodox explication , of what the church intends to say ; but 't is neither rational , nor intelligible , nor possible . but of that in its proper place ; for i must next examine the trinity according to plato , defended by dr. cudworth . of the explication by dr. cudworth . it will be necessary , in the first place , to declare dr. cudworth's explication , more largely and clearly , than hath been yet done . in accounting for the doctrine of the trinity , he professeth to follow the platonick philosophers ; with whom , saith he ( not the arians , as some suppose , but ) the orthodox fathers perfectly agree . these held a trinity of divine persons , co-eternal indeed ; but not co-equal : for the son and spirit are inferior to the first person , or the father , in dignity , in authority , and in power . they are so many distinct substances ; not one numerical substance , as hath been taught by the school-doctors , and the lateran council . for tho the fathers said , that the three persons have but one and the same substance , essence or nature ; they did not mean thereby one and the self-same substance or essence in number , but the same essence or substance for kind , or nature . because each person of the three , is spiritual , eternal , infinite , a creator , and necessarily existent , therefore they were said by the fathers and platonists , to have the same nature , essence or substance ; and not because their essences or substances , physically or properly so called , are one and the same physical substance in number . in few words ; saith he , this famous term consubstantial ( or of the same substance ) was never intended by the platonists , or by the fathers , to deny ( as the schools do ) three distinct individual essences , or to denote one numerical substance or essence ; but only to signify , that the trinity believed by the orthodox is not made up of contrary or unlike natures , ( as the arian trinity is ) but of persons all of them homogenial , all of them eternal , spiritual and uncreated . they that shall deny this to be the doctrine of the fathers , will find themselves obliged to answer to two things , which are indeed ( fairly and truly ) unanswerable : the first is , why those fathers who contend for the homo-ousios ( consubstantial , or of the same substance ) do yet expresly reject the tauto-ousios and mono-ousios , or of the self-same substance and essence in number ? the tauto-ousios and mono-ousios ( or of the self-same essence or substance , in number ) is the very doctrine of the schools and moderns ; but is denied by the fathers , as meer sabellianism : which invincibly proves , that by one and the same substance and essence they meant , not one and the self-same , or one in number ; but one for kind , nature or properties . secondly , they must also satisfy the citations of d. petavius , and s. curcellaeus , and these in the intellectual system ; which do all of them severally ( and much more conjunctly ) clearly show what the sense of the fathers was , about homo-ousios , and consubstantial . it appears by this , and abundance more the like ; that dr. cudworth had the same apprehensions , concerning the three divine persons , with dr. sherlock : they both apprehend the three persons to be as distinct and different , and as really three several intelligent beings and substances , as three angels are , or as peter , james and john are . dr. sherlock saith , they are however called one god , because they are internally conscious to all one anothers thoughts and actions : but i do not believe , that dr. cudworth would have allowed so much to the son and spirit , as to be internally conscious to all the thoughts and actions of the first person ; he always speaketh of them , as every way inferior to the father : he will not allow them to be omnipotent in any other respect , but only externally , that is to say , because the father concurreth omnipotently to all their external actions , whether of creation or providence . dr. cudworth desires to distinguish his explication , from all others of the moderns , by this mark ; that it alloweth not the three persons to be , in any respect but duration , co-equal : for ( saith he ) three distinct intelligent natures or essences , each of them pre-eternal , self-existent , and equally omnipotent ad intra , are of necessity three gods , nor can we have any other notion of three gods ; but if only the first person be indeed internally omnipotent , and the other two subordinate in authority and power to him , you leave then but one god , only in three divine persons . this is dr. cudworth's explication . every one will readily make this exception : he thinketh , either that there is one great god , and two lesser ones ; or else only the first is true god , and the other two in name only . the doctor foresaw , without doubt , this objection ; therefore see , how he hath endeavour'd to prevent it . first , he reports some answers of the fathers , to this difficulty ; which answers he expresly rejecteth . for some of them said , that the three persons are one god , by their unity of will and affection : others said , they are one god , as all men or all mankind are called homo , or man ; namely because they all have the same specifick nature , or essence , or substance , even the rational . for as all men have the same specifick essence or nature , which is the rational ; so the divine persons also agree in one nature , namely the eternal , spiritual and self existent . but dr. cudworth confesseth , that an union of will and affection is only a moral union , not a physical or real unity : and as three human persons would be three distinct men , notwithstanding the moral union in affection and will ; so also the three divine persons will be three distinct gods , notwithstanding such an union in will and affection . as to the other , that the three persons are but one god , by their having the same specifick nature or essence ; or as some call it substance , namely because they are all of them spiritual , self-existent , and coeternal ; he calleth it an absurd paradox , contrary to common sense , and our common notions of things : for so all men will be but one man , because they have the same specifick essence or nature , namely the rational ; and all epicurus his ( extramundan ) gods will be but one god. then , he propoundeth divers other explications , which he neither approveth , nor expresly rejecteth , tho 't is plain that he disliked them : for the explication on which he insisteth , and which appears to be his sense of the matter , is this that follows . the three divine persons are one god , because they are not three principles , but only one ; the essence of the father being the root , and fountain of the son and spirit : and because the three persons are gathered together under one head or chief , even the father . he adds here expresly , that if the persons were co-ordinate , ( i. e. equal in authority , dignity , or power ) they should not be one , but three gods. this is at large dr. cudworth's opinion : the short of it is ; that the three persons are as really distinct beings , essences , or substances , as dr. sherlock hath imagined them to be . and as their substances or natures are not one , but three ; so also must their understandings , and other personal powers and properties . the doctors differ only in this ; that dr. sherlock maketh the unity of the three persons in the godhead , to consist in the mutual-consciousness of the persons ; but dr. cudworth in this , that the father is both the principle ( root or fountain or cause ) and also the head of the other two persons . they neither of them believe one numerical , but one collective god : one god , not who is really one god , but is one god in certain respects ; as of mutual consciousness , or of being the cause , principle and head of all other beings , and of the second and third persons . dr. cudworth contends by a great number of very pertinent and home quotations ; that his explication ( i mean , that part of it which makes the three persons , to be so many distinct essences or substances ) is the doctrine of the principal , if not of all the fathers , as well as of the platonists : and i ( for my own part ) do grant it . for i am perswaded , that no man hath read the fathers , with judgment and application , but he must discern ; that tho they do not express themselves , in the incautelous , unwary and obnoxious terms used by dr. sherlock , as neither doth dr. cudworth ; yet the fathers as much believed the three persons are distinct minds and spirits , as dr. sherlock doth ; all the difference ( as i said ) is only this , that they and dr. cudworth do not use his very terms . they do not say in express words , three minds , or three spirits : but the comparisons which they use , and their definitions or descriptions of what they mean by persons , are such ; that it cannot be questioned by any , that they apprehended the three persons , to be three distinct spirits , minds and beings , having each of them his own understanding , and all other personal qualifications . it is indeed apparent tritheism ; and that was the true reason , why the schools advanced a new explication : but because the schools durst not find fault with the fathers , or seem to depart from their doctrine ; therefore what the father 's intended of one specifick essence , or nature , or substance , that the scools interpreted of one numerical substance , nature or essence ; but of that hereafter , when we examine their doctrine in its own place . dr. cudworth being so great a philosopher , as every one knows he was , found himself very hard put to it , what to say ( colourably , and reasonably ) concerning the persons of the trinity . he saw , that either he must say , that they are but one self-same essence or substance , in number ; or that they have distinct and several substances or essences . to say , that they are ( or they subsist in ) one self-same substance or essence in number , is such jargonry in philosophy ; that is to say , in the nature and possibilities of things ; that he never speaks of it , without a just mark of contempt : 't is nonsense , saith he , and 't is impossible ; and besides that , 't is sabellianism , and a trinity not of persons , but of words and names . well , shall we say then , that the three persons are three distinct substances ; is it not plain tritheism ? no , saith the doctor ; for the persons are not equal : the father is both the principle or original , and the head of the other two persons ; and besides that , he only is omnipotent ad intra . but then , will some say ; indeed this explication leaveth us but one god , which is the thing we look'd after : but it is , by utterly abolishing the godhead of the son and spirit ; it maketh only the father to be really god , the other two persons are so only by a certain dependance on him , both in origination and acting . as bad as this consequence is , and as clear ; dr. cudworth is forced to swallow it , and to sit down contented with it : he thought , it should seem , it is better somewhat to strain the use of words , than the natures and possibilities of things . 't is hard indeed , that we must say , one supream and two dependent persons make but one god ; but 't is harder to say , three persons have but one substance or essence in number . words are arbitrary signs , applied to things according as men please , and therefore are capable of alteration in their use : but the nature of things is absolutely unchangeable ; three persons can never be one substance , essence or individual nature . no philosophy , but that of gotham , will allow ; that one intelligent substance can be more than one person : but divers philosophers , especially the platonists , have called three distinct , intelligent , divine substances , one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one di●inity , or god ; therefore nothing hinders , but that so also may christians . to this purpose dr. cudworth , in divers places of his intellectual system . but it is now time to make our observations on this doctor 's explication ; which i shall do the more carefully , because i am perswaded , that all the chief fathers were in his sentiments , that the three divine persons are three distinct individual substances or essences in number ; which by the schools and all the moderns , is granted to be tritheism : and because it is evident by his intellectual system , that this doctor understood all the philosophies , antient and modern , in the most perfect manner ; and was himself one of the ablest philosophers we have known . his explication hath these parts . 1. that the divine persons are ( one specifick , but ) three distinct , particular individual substances or essences in number , or in the reality of things : and that otherwise , there could not be three divine persons , but only one such person . 2. that three distinct , individual , intelligent divine essences or substances , commonly called persons , are yet but one god ; because tho they are three in number , yet they are one in original ; for the second and third persons are derived from the father , as their fountain and cause . 3. tho they are three persons , yet they are but one god , because they concur to all the same actions both of creation and providence , under one head , even the father . the emphasis of this lies in their concurring to all the same actions ; but principally in this , that they concur to the same actions under one head , which is the father . 1. that the divine persons are three distinct , particular , individual , intelligent substances , essences or natures ; and that otherways , that is , were there but one self-same substance or essence in number , they should not be three persons , but only one person . i have granted , that if there are three divine persons ; those persons are ( of necessity ) three distinct , individual essences or substances : so that , as to this first proposition , the doctor and the socinians are perfectly agreed ; all that we deny , is , that three such essences ( or persons ) are , or can be but one god. but tho the socinians allow , that three persons must be three distinct substances or essences , yet all the modern trinitarians utterly deny it : the reason is , because they saw plainly , that to say there are three distinct essences , or substances , is to grant ( in effect ) to the socinians what they so much contend for ; namely that the doctrine of the trinity doth imply three gods. three distinct divine persons , saith dr. cudworth , are three distinct divine essences or substances ; it is true , say the socinians , and we grant this to the doctor : no , say all the modern trinitarians , three distinct divine essences , are not only three distinct divine persons , but they are also three distinct gods ; if once we grant that the three divine persons are three essences , the socinians will extort it from us ( as an unavoidable consequence ) that we teach three gods. the truth is , since the lateran council , which determined in favour of p. lombard , against abbat joachim and the fathers , that there is but one only divine essence or substance in number ; i do not believe , there hath been any divine of note but dr. cudworth and dr. sherlock and some few who may have borrowed it from them , who durst ever publish it in writing , that there are three distinct divine substances , essences or natures , or that every distinct person is a distinct substance . they all saw , that so to say , is to introduce three gods : for if you say , there are three distinct intelligent , almighty , all-knowing and pre-eternal substances , essences or natures ; you have actually said , there are three gods , because you can possibly give no fuller nor other description of three gods. if one all-knowing , almighty essence or substance , is one perfect god , to whom nothing at all can be added ; 't is no better than fooling , or effrontry , to deny , that three such essences or substances are three gods. this plain and clear reason hath constrained the school-divines to depart from the explication of the fathers ; and has also obliged all the moderns , to follow the schools , and forsake the fathers . yet so , as out of good manners , to deny that the fathers ever held more than one divine essence or substance : but i have shown before , the ground of that gross ( and i doubt not , wilful ) mistake , of the doctrine of the fathers . but dr. cudworth thought , that he had found an expedient , how he might keep sincerely to the fathers , and yet not be guilty of tritheism : for , saith he , tho there are three distinct divine essences or substances , vulgarly called persons ; yet the second and third persons or essences are derived from the first ; and they all concur to the same actions , under the same head or principal , even the father . therefore , 2. to that , the second and third persons are derived from the father , as their fountain and cause ; therefore they may be reckned as one god with him . here begins the controversy , between the socinians and the doctor . they grant , that every distinct person is a distinct and particular essence or substance ; but they deny , that three distinct divine essences can be understood to be one god : unity of original , or that the second and third persons are derived from the first , will not help the doctor , no not in the least . the three divine essences ( which are called persons ) are one god , saith this doctor ; because the second and third are derived from the first : why doth he not say too , that three human essences ( or persons ) whereof the second and third derive themselves from the first , are one man ? he may as well say this , and as soon perswade it , as the former : the son and grandson derive themselves from a first human essence ( or person ) called the grandfather ; two brothers derive themselves from their common father : doth this unity of original make them all to be but one man ? if not , neither can unity of original make the son and spirit one god , with their fountain and cause , even the father . it is a reasoning , altogether unworthy of dr. cudworth ; the son and spirit are particular substances or essences , derived from the essence of the father , as their principle or cause , therefore they are one god with the father : for then , all angels , all men , nay and all beasts , shall be one god with the father , who is their cause and principle . unity of original is so far from proving , that they are one god with him ; that it even demonstrates the very contrary : for if they are derived from the one true god , they themselves cannot be that one true god ; no more than the effect can be the cause , that very cause whose effect it is . these arguments are so clear , and withal so very obvious ; that i wonder much , that dr. cudworth foresaw them not : but it may be , he foresaw them ; but thought withal that even all these consequences are better , than to admit such a monstrosity in philosophy , as three persons having only one self-same substance in number . all things , how hard soever , would go down with him , but only that ; but that can never be agreed to , by a philosopher . 3. his last subterfuge was this ; the three divine essences ( called persons ) are but one god , because they concur to all the same actions , of creation and providence , under one head the father , who only is almighty ad intra , or really almighty . how many rarities hath he boxed up , in a very little compass ? 1. here is one almighty , who together with two other persons , is one god. i would know , how two other persons can contribute to make him a perfect god , who without them is almighty ? the scale is already full , if almightiness be there ; we need no more weight : and least of all , the weight of two impotents . if the son and spirit are not almighty ad intra , or not really almighty , but only as the father omnipotently concurs with them ; they are impotent : for every person and thing , that is not almighty , or cannot do all things , is impotent to some things . dr. cudworth , being so accurate a philosopher , saw evidently , that three almighty persons are ( of necessity ) three gods ; therefore he will admit of but one almighty person , even the father . but then , he should have look'd a little further , or closer ; and he would also have seen , that when he had found one almighty , there was no need to add to him two impotents , to make him a compleat god ; or ( as he speaks ) to make up the intireness of the divinity . 2. 't is altogether as rare , strange and surprizing ; that the son and spirit are one god with the father , because they are gathered under him , as their head and principal . doth not the doctor prevaricate ? doth he not say these things , only to establish unitarianism , so much the more strongly ? for if you say first , that the father is the head and principal , and the son and spirit are subjected to him ; and then , therefore they are one god with the father their principal and head : this , in a man of so great sense , looks like meer prevarication ; for 't is plain to all , that he should have inferred the contrary , namely , therefore only the father is god. we shall see the weakness of dr. cudworth's reasoning , so soon as ever we apply it to any other instances . the son and spirit are one god with the father , saith he , because he is their head and principal : therefore say i , the servants and their master , the subjects and their prince , the children and their parent , are all one governour ; because the subjects , servants and children , are gathered under their prince , their master and parent , as their principal and head. will the doctor allow of this ( last ) consequence ; if not , he vainly urges , or insists on the other . 3. but the son and spirit concur with the father , to all the same actions , both of creation and providence ; and therefore may be said to be one god with him . if the doctor could prove , that the son and spirit concur to the same acts , of providence and creation , with the father ; he would thereby prove , that there are three gods , not that the concurring persons are one god. many carpenters , for instance , concur to make a ship , under one head or principal , the master-builder : many colonels and captains concur to the marshaling of an army under one principal and head , their general : are therefore all these carpenters , colonels and captains , one master-builder , and one general ? that there is but one master-builder , and but one general , we grant ; but the captains and carpenters , concurring with their master-builder and general , are not one with the general and master-builder . i do not think it necessary to make any further reflections , on such impotent reasonings : i will leave it with you , sir , to judg , whether dr. cudworth hath given any new strength to the trinitarian cause , by reviving an old forsaken explication ! if we will give a name to dr. cudworth's explication of the trinity , we must call it mollis arianismus , a moderate arianism . the arians were divided into two parties , the high or rigid arians , and the ariani molles , or the moderate arians . the former of these ( being the eunomians and aetians ) strictly followed arius ; they believed that the son was created by the father , or god , but a little before the creation of the world ; and that the spirit was the work or creature of the son : and further , that their substances or essences were altogether unlike ; from whence they were also called heterousians . but the moderate arians were content to say , that there was no conceivable duration or time , between the being of god or the father , and the generation or creation ( for those are with them equivalent terms ) of the son ; the father made or generated the son , so early , that there was no conceivable portion of time before the son was ; no more than was absolutely necessary , for giving to the father the priority of existence , and his title of father : and as to their substances , they are consubstantial ; by which this sort of arians meant ( and the church then meant no more ) that their substances or essences are alike , or the same for kind and properties , tho not in number ; that is , the essences of these three persons are all of them spiritual , eternal and infinite , tho only the father is infinite in power . these moderate arians were received to communion by the moderate trinitarians ; and particularly by pope liberius . dr. cudworth holdeth their very doctrine ; he alloweth only the father to be omnipotent : and tho he saith , that the son and spirit are also eternal ; yet he cannot deny , that there must be some priority of the father , as the fountain , principle and cause , before the son and spirit as effects . in a word , the moderate arians ascribed as much to the son as dr. cudworth doth . were dr. cudworth alive , it would not be expedient to make this judgment of his explication ; but being dead , it cannot hurt him . he is retired to the true mount moriah , or land of vision ; where he no longer guesses , by prudent and wary conjectures , but he knows and even sees how these things are . god and nature , after which he enquired with so much application and freedom , are now known to him : and he now rests from his excellent labours , out of all danger from the malevolence of the present evil generation ; with whom 't is a crime , not to take every thing upon trust , on the meer credit of those who have been before us . as if it were the way to truth ; not to enquire , but to believe ; not to examine , try and judg , but to pre-suppose and take for granted , every thing that has been told us , by men in power and place . this is the spirit that now prevails in the church : and on the contrary , an ingenuous freedom in enquiring and examining , tho it be nothing else indeed but an honest and necessary sincerity , is now called heresy , and schism ; and is , if you 'll believe them , to be punish'd with certain damnation . we have however , in the mean time , this satisfaction ; that it is god , who shall at last judg us : he that hath said to us , try all things , hold fast that which is good . but i pass to the trinity according to aristotle , defended by dr. s — th . of the explication by dr. s — th . i have already done right to dr. s — th , and his book : if he takes it amiss , that i observe also some defects in it ; he ought to show his patent , by which he is constituted the only animadverter on the books of others . if he hath received any personal wrong , or affront from dr. sherlock ; he is the more excusable , that his book hath so much more scurrility , than argument : but the injury must have been very great , to excuse him wholly . he has noted some errors , either of inadvertency and haste , or of the pen ; in some expressions and words used by dr. sherlock : he imputes all these as faults of meer ignorance or dulness to the doctor . this was somewhat barbarous : nay it was more barbarity in point of morality or manners , than ever dr. sherlock was guilty of , in grammar or speech . dr. s — th will not ( at least has not yet been able to ) perswade many , that dr. sherlock wants the qualifications , or the degree of the qualifications , for which dr. s — th hath deserved esteem : the world thinks , there is a great deal more in dr. sherlock to be commended , besides his preferments ; it is only wished , that both these doctors had something more of the tenderness , and catholick charity of genuine christianity , tho it were accompanied with lesser abilities or learning . dr. sherlock hath publish'd an essay , towards vindicating and explaining the difficulties of the trinity , and incarnation ; the method he hath taken , is wholly new , and is a mistake , but it was meant well : and i do not think , that setting aside some authorities or quotations , dr. s — th hath said any thing against it , which dr. sherlock will much value . the arguments used by dr. s — th , are only metaphysical reasonings ; easily advanced , and as easily destroyed . dr. s — th's is the true explication ; that is to say , as orthodoxy is reckoned since peter lombard , and the lateran council : but dr. sherlock knew it to be nonsense , and therefore adventur'd to propose another ; he put forth his hand , to save the tottering and falling ark , and 't is made an inexcusable fault . but i will pass from the too cynical doctor , to his book and explication . 't is not till chap. 8. that he begins to bless us , with the catholick and orthodox account , of his trinity in unity : but at length , at pag. 240. out comes the secret ; with this preface to it . the doctrine of the church , and of the schools , concerning the blessed trinity ; so far as i can judg , but still with the humblest submission to the judgment of the church of england in the case , is this . truly , i am heartily sorry to hear it ; that dr. s — th , at these years , has no fixed religion of his own , no not concerning the trinity it self : but is ready to turn with the wind ; is prepared to renounce a doctrine and explication , which he believes to be not only true , but fundamental ; if the church commands him . mr. milbourn makes the same complement to his good mother the church , in his late book against the socinians ; as i have noted in my answer to him : but mr. milbourn is somewhat excusable , because he hath not yet received any of the rewards , due as he thinks to his industry and learning ; but dr. s — th is full , and even overflows with the blessings of the holy mother . it should seem dr. s — th thinketh , he hath not yet enough ; else he would never be so over-mannerly , as to put his faith it self afloat , and that too with the humblest submission , at the command of his reverend mother . we may infer however , from these publick professions of the writers , that could the socinians get mother church of their side ; all her champions would also come over to us : for 't is not ( it seems ) the cause , that they defend ; 't is not the trinity or incarnation , that they value ; but our mother , our mother the church . if dr. s — th makes so light of his own explication , that he is ready to fling it into the kennel ; at the first nod , that the church shall make : he cannot wonder , that the socinians will handle it , will look on both sides of it , will view it in a clear light ; before they bargain for it . well , see , here it is : the personalities , by which the godhead stands diversified into three distinct persons , are called and accounted modes . therefore for understanding the mystery of the trinity ; we must declare , what is properly a mode ( or manner ) of being : it is not a substance , nor an accident ; which two make indeed the adequate division of real beings : but a mode is properly a certain habitude of some being , essence , or thing : whereby the said essence or being is determined to some particular state or condition , which , barely of it self , it would not have been determined to . and according to this account , a mode in things spiritual and immaterial hath the like reference to such beings , as a posture hath to a body ; to which it gives some difference or distinction , without superadding any new entity or being to it . in a word , a mode is not properly a being , whether substance or accident ; but a certain affection cleaving to being , and determining it , from its common general nature and indifference , to something more particular ; as we have just now explained it . as for instance , dependence is a mode , determining the general nature of being to that particular state and condition , by virtue of which it proceeds from , and is supported by another : and the like may be said of mutability , presence , absence , inherence , adherence , and such like , viz. that they are not beings , but modes or affections of being ; and inseparable from it so far , that they have no existence of their own , after a separation or division from the things , or beings to which they belong . animadver . p. 240 , 241 , 242. behold the birth of the mountains ! we are kept in suspense seven long chapters ; at length in the 8th , at p. 240. of his book , he gives forth this oracle . that the three divine persons , so much talk'd of , are neither substances , nor accidents ; and consequently , saith he , no real beings . nay , they have no real existence of their own ; but are modes , habitudes , or affections of the divine substance , or the substance of god : they are in the godhead , or in the substance of god , such as mutability , presence , absence , inherence , adherence , and such like , are in the natures , or substances to which they belong . or if you will have a great deal in one single word , the very iliads in a nut-shell ; they are postures : or what amounts to the same thing , they are such in spiritual and immaterial beings , that a posture is to a body . i must needs here tell you , sir , the story of the princess dulcinea del toboso , mistress to the renowned don quixot , of the mancha in spain . this famous princess had the honour to be mistress of the affections of the so much celebrated don quixot : for her , he traversed mountains , deserts , and other dreadful places ; for her he encountred giants , knights-errant , and other formidable dangers ; and at length for her , to satisfy his amorous passions towards her , he retired to a place called the poor rock ; where he spent much time in lamenting the disdains , the cruelty and hard-heartedness of his mistress towards himself , as is largely related in the history . don quixot was waited on in his long travels and adventures , by his esquire sancho pancha , who greatly pitied his master , that he should serve so rigorous a mistress : but the esquire had one scruple in his mind , who this dulcinea del toboso should be ? but while don quixot was tormenting himself , at the poor rock ; he unluckily happened to drop some words , by which it evidently appeared , that dulcinea del toboso was only an imaginary lady or princess : and that indeed she was no other person , but a certain coarse country wench , daughter of the farmer alonso zanchez , and for her plainness called joan. ta , ta , cries sancho pancha , and is the princess dulcinea , our neighbour joan zanchez ! by my troth , a sturdy quean ; well may my master languish for her , for i am well perswaded , she hath no regard or sense of love-matters : but 't is a good-natur'd wench , &c. methinks , sir , there can be nothing more pat , or proper for this place , than this story . for just such a disappointment do we all meet with , in the explication for which dr. s — th hath made us wait so long ; as sancho pancha had when he found the princess dulcinea , was joan zanchez . dr. s — th had raised the expectation of his readers , in no fewer than seven preliminary chapters ; in the eighth he promises in the title of it , the long-lock'd for , the much-desired , catholick , and orthodox explication of a trinity of divine persons , in the unity of the godhead : but when all comes to all , he tells us , the three divine persons are nothing else but the substance of god , or the godhead , diversified into three postures . never were men so bilk'd before as his readers are , at this news ; 't is the princess dulcinea turned into joan zanchez ! was it worth while , to fall upon dr. sherlock in that outragious manner , only because he would not call the three divine persons , three postures of the godhead , or the substance of god in three postures ? dr. sherlock , poor , sensless , illiterate , cantabrigian ignoramus , thought , that these words father , son and spirit implied something that was real . he imagin'd , that the notion which all men naturally have of a father , his son , and a spirit distinct from both , must be filled up with something that will honestly and satisfactorily answer to such names and natural notions of a father , a son , and a spirit diverse from both : therefore , saith he , seeing these persons are spiritual , and immaterial , and intelligent ; i call them three minds , three spirits , and three beings . but the adepti of oxford will make him know his mistake ; first , dr. wallis tells him , three persons and one god , is as much as to say , three respects of one god to his creatures ; he is their creator , redeemer and sanctifier , and in this sense is called three persons , tho he is indeed but one god , and but one being : but dr. s — th answers , 't is neither so nor so ; three divine persons are the substance of god , in three gambals , or postures ; or in three such i know not what 's , which have the same or like reference to things spiritual and immaterial , that postures have to bodies . the three personalities are that in the one substance of god , which mutability , presence , absence , inherence , adherence , and such like ( changeable ) affections and habitudes , are in the substances to which they belong . he thinks , it should seem , that the faithful must put their trust in three postures ; and worship mutability , presence , absence , or something which in spirituals is like to them ; something which is no more in the deity , than postures are in bodies . i fancy dr. sherlock will object to him , that it is of the nature of a meer habitude or modality , to be changeable : and that the personalities in the divine nature ( or god ) are not alterable or changeable . he will say too , it may be , that there is no meer modality but may be away from the nature , or substance to which it belongs ; without any damage to the essential perfections , of such nature or substance : but you cannot take away the personalities , or the persons , from the substance of god , without lessening the perfections of the godhead . therefore we must not say , that the three divine persons , are only the divine substance with three modes . the three divine persons , he saith , are the one substance of god diversified in three postures . but how shall we conceive , that the substance of god in the first posture , or in posture a , begat the same substance of god ( in number ) in posture b ? and how doth the third posture , or posture c , proceed ( for under pain of damnation we must not say of this third posture , how was it begotten ) from the substance of god considered in the postures a and b ? the divine substance , say they in posture a , or in the first mode , generated the divine substance in the second mode , or , as dr. s — th speaks , in posture b ; and the self-same divine substance in the first and second modes , breathed ( you must well mark that ) the self-same divine substance in the third mode , which is posture c. now how shall we understand such gibberish as this ? may they not as well tell us in plain terms , that to be trinitarians , 't is necessary that we should renounce at once all good sense , and content our selves for ever with a cant without sense ? the persons , as distinguished from the substance of god , are only personalities ; which is to say , three such modes , as posture , mutability and dependence ; saith dr. s — th . they that hear this , will presently say dr. s — th and the socinians are very near to an agreement ; we are like to have this tedious , intricate and dangerous controversy fairly ended , by the rare and particular dexterity of dr. s — th . for he hath taught us , that all the difference is indeed nothing : both parties confess one self-same substance , essense or godhead , only the orthodox contend for three postures in this substance ; and the sullen , conceited socinians hitherto seem unwilling to allow of more than one mode or posture ; but under the institution and instruction of such a teacher as dr. s — th , they will return to the full acknowledgment of the whole truth . dr. sherlock had said , that there are some who make the three divine persons , to be nothing else but three modes ; and he maketh thereupon this note , can any one think that the father begat only a mode , and called it ▪ his son ? let us see now , how dr. s — th rates him for this piece of ignorance . no , good sir , no ; none that i know of , is in danger of thinking or saying so : no more than that socrates begat only the shape and figure of a man , and then called it his son ; or ( to turn your own blunt weapon against your self ) no more than god the father begot another self-consciousness , and called it his son. animadv . p. 291. and at p. 241 , 242. and often else-where , he saith , the personalities , by which the deity stands diversified into three distinct persons , are by the generality of divines , both antient and modern , called and accounted modes . so that in short , let all the dunces take notice for the time to come , that dr. s — th , with all the antients and moderns at his heels , saith , pronounceth and declares , in manner and form following ; the personalities in the godhead ( not the persons ) are three modes , affections , or habitudes , of the divine substance , nature , or essence . now were i dr. sherlock , i would not grant to this arrogant adversary , the least tittle of all he contends for . it is certain , there is nothing more common with the metaphysicians , who follow the schools ; than to call the three persons , three modes ; and sometimes more largely , three modes of subsistence of the divine substance , or the substance of god. dr. sherlock may well defend it , that neither hath he mistaken the modalists , nor have they mistaken in what they mean to say . he may say , it is indeed true , that in all other persons , human persons and angelical persons , we may be so nice , as to distinguish between the persons and the personalities : for example , the personalities of peter , james and john , are only modes or properties peculiar to these three persons , by which they are ultimately distinguish'd from one another , and from all other persons of the same specifick nature , namely the human ; but the persons of peter , james and john , besides those modes and properties , take in also three distinct intelligent substances , in which those modes suosist . it is true , i say , that human ( and also angelical ) persons may be thus distinguished from their personalities ; but 't is otherways in the three divine persons : the three divine persons are properly and truly called only three modes ; the reason is , it is supposed by the modalists , that in the godhead the three persons have all the self-same individual substance or essence in number ; and that they have also but one self-same understanding , will and energy ( or power of action ) in number ; contrary to what happens in all other persons , whether human or angelical , who all have distinct substances , distinct understandings , wills and energies , as well as are distinct persons : this being so , 't is evident , that the very modes or personalities in the godhead , cannot be distinguished from the persons ; we must say , that the three divine persons are three modes , because they are distinguished from one another by nothing else , as all other persons are . all other persons are distinguished by their distinct substances their distinct and several understandings , wills and energies ; as well as by their peculiar modes and properties : but in the godhead there is no such distinction ; it has one self-same substance , understanding , will and energy ; 't is only distinguished by its modes , and those modes are distinguished from one another by themselves only . briefly , dr. sherlock may say , that all the modalists acknowledg no other distinction between the three divine persons , than is between modes ; they are not distinguished by their substances , nor by particular understandings , wills , or energies of their own : therefore we , properly enough , call them three modes . dr. s — th may wrangle as long as he pleases ; he may ( if it be for his credit ) write such another book of inadversions , as this upon dr. sherlock ; but when he has done and said all he can say or do , all men but himself will perceive that these two propositions are the same for sense : this of dr. sherlock , which he imputes to the modalists , and which dr. s — th so much abhors , the three divine persons are only three modes , of subsistence , in the substance or essence of god ; and this , which dr. s — th owns , and maketh to be the substance of his whole book , the three divine persons are the substance or essence of god , diversified by three modes of subsistence . but above all ; i would not have dr. s — th please himself overmuch in this ; that he hath cited some passages of the fathers , which describe the personalities of the father , son and spirit , by modes . justin and irenaeus have called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , modes of subsisting ; others call them properties : but by modes , properties , characters , and such like , the fathers meant quite another thing , than dr. s — th and the moderns do ; they meant what dr. sherlock and dr. cudworth mean. by a mode and property they meant that discriminating character , by which the individuals of any specifick nature are distinguished or differenced , from all the individuals of the same species or nature . for example , the individuals of the specifick nature of humanity , are particular men ; and all these individuals or particular men are discriminated , characterized , differenced or modified , each by his ▪ particular properties : peter from john , peter and john from james , by particular properties , characters or modes , both of body and mind ; one ( for instance ) is bigger ▪ taller , wiser , or some other the like , than the other . this was what they meant , when they described personalities by modes , and when they said there were three properties , modes , or characters in god : they meant not in the least to deny , that each person is a particular substance , essence or nature , different in number from all other substances , essences or natures ; or to deny , that each person is a particular being : they meant only , that each individual , or each person , besides the common specifick nature , ( that is , besides the meer human , angelical or divine nature ) has also some particular properties or characters ; which ultimately distinguish him , from all the individuals or persons of the same species , specifick nature , or kind . it is not true therefore , what dr. s — th pretends , that by modes of subsistence the antients meant no more , than certain such habitudes or affections , as mutability , presence , absence , posture , or such like : they meant real , discretive and characterizing properties or qualifications ; and by person they meant , a particular , individual , intelligent substance or essence , and so modefied or characterized . they were far from dreaming , that the three divine persons , an almighty son , an almighty father ; and an almighty spirit distinct in number from both , were only one individual substance distinguished , or diversified by only three such lank and meagre affections , as absence , posture , adherence ; or any other that are no more in a spiritual substance , than those three are in bodies ; to which they add no perfection , and from which they are ( every moment ) separable . but the socinians are not concerned , what becomes of the dispute about persons and personalities in god ; whether they are adequately the same , yea or no ; and again , whether the moderns who follow the schools , agree with the antients in their notion of them : for i will put to dr. s — th a plain question , to which if he is disposed to give a clear and categorical answer , it will appear to all men , that either he falls in with dr. sherlock , or with the unitarians ; that is to say , he is either a tritheist , or ( what , i doubt , he will as much abhor ) a socinian . he saith , there is one only divine substance , essence or nature ; and thus far we agree with him : but he adds , this one substance is so diversified by three modes , affections or habitudes , or something like to them , that we must say ( under pain of heresy and damnation ) that this one substance is three divine persons , a father , his son , and a spirit distinct from both . therefore i ask , have the three ( pretended ) divine persons , each his own proper , peculiar and personal understanding , will and energy ; so that there are in the divine substance , or in god , three distinct ( all-knowing , almighty ) understandings , wills and energies , as there are three distinct persons ; as dr. sherlock has affirmed ? or have the three persons but one only self-same understanding , will and energy in number , as there is but one self-same substance in number ? if he saith the former , he joins hands with dr. sherlock ; and is guilty of tritheism , no less than he : for three ( omniscient and omnipotent ) understandings , wills and energies , without doubt , are three gods. if there be three omnisciencies and omnipotencies , of necessity there must be three omniscients and omnipotents : but that is tritheism , even in the judgment of athanasius himself ; who expresly denies three almighties , or three all-knowings . and indeed i do not think , dr. s — th will say , that each person hath his own proper and personal understanding , will or energy ; so that there are three distinct understandings , wills and energies in what his party call the godhead : i see his book is written with more judgment and precaution , than dr. sherlock's ; or even than any that i have seen , that have been written in defence of the trinitarian cause . but if he denies , that there are three ( all-knowing , almighty ) understandings , wills and energies ; he is a socinian , he has granted to us the point in controversy , he grants the whole that we contend for . they will allow him to say , there are three persons , or three thousand persons in the godhead ; so long as he grants but one ( omnipotent ) energy and will , and but one ( all-knowing ) understanding or wisdom . if this be granted to us , 't is plain to every one who gives but never so little heed ; that the question about three persons , is a meer strife of words ; and the authors of the brief history , and brief notes , are ( tho not in their words , yet in their senses ) as orthodox as dr. s — th and the schools . i will affirm , we have no need of our brief histories , or brief notes ; we need not make an operose proof of our doctrine of the unity of god , from the holy scriptures or from reason : the whole controversy with the church is ended , in the resolution of this short and plain question ; is there more than one all-knowing , almighty understanding , will and energy ? if you say , there is but one such understanding , will and energy , in one self-same divine substance ; you may talk of as many persons , fathers , sons , spirits , modes , properties , respects , nothings , as you please : we will only peaceably advise you , that these are meer empty words , that have nothing to answer them in the thing under consideration . when you have granted to us , that there is but one divine substance , and but one omniscient , omnipotent understanding and energy ; what you add more of persons , properties , thingams , and call them a trinity , 't is an addition only of words and names ; not of realities , or persons that are properly so called . these things being so , and so very evident ▪ i cannot wonder , that so discerning a philosopher as dr. cudworth , never speaks of the trinity of the schools ( maintained by dr. s — th ) without calling it a nominal trinity , a trinity of names and words only , a disguised sabellianism : which is to say , unitarianism or socinianism drest up in the absurd cant of the schools . but whereas the schools deform the sincere and easy notion of the unity of god , as 't is held by the socinians and sabellians , by transforming it into a fantastick trinity of nominal persons , or of persons who are persons only in name , not in truth and reality : therefore dr. cudworth saith farther , that this trinity is jargonry in philosophy , a trinity that falls not under human conception , and which cannot be in nature . intellect . system , p. 605. elsewhere he scruples not to name it , the philosophy of gotham . these are the just characters which that great philosopher and divine gives of the scholastick trinity of dr. s — th : he giveth his reasons up and down in the intellectual system ; but 't is not necessary for me to report them , when every one may see them in the author himself ; and besides they are too philosophical , to be put into a discourse which i design for the use of the less learned , as well as of the learned . i have done with dr. s — th's explication , for this time : if he is angry with me for the reflections i have made thereupon , i protest 't is without just cause . i have used no disrespectful language ; i have acknowledged , and do acknowledg the worth of the man , and all other perfections in his book , but only this one , that it maintains an unjustifiable explication . the method or structure of his book is natural , elegant and judicious ; the words , expression , or phrase , is proper , forcible , clean , and well chose : it hath very many agreeable turns of wit , which render it pleasant to an ingenious reader . as this author hath a great deal of wit , so he hath known how to govern it in this respect ; that he is witty , without buffoonry . this is a conduct , not very usual in those that have much wit ; commonly they know not how to manage it ; and among other unjudicious neglects , they forget the where and when , and other such like circumstances ; they are so taken with their talent , as to be always using it , because they know not that everlasting fooling is true and meer fooling . but i wish that dr. s — th in exercising his wit , had remembred the who , which he hath utterly forgotten : and that was utterly an oversight , and a very great one . he cannot excuse himself , by pleading the many contradictions in dr. sherlock's book : a candid man would not impute them to the author , but to the extream obscurity of the subject ; when the subject it self is contradictory , there will be many contradictions committed in defending it . i doubt not that dr. sherlock will find many contradictions in dr. s-th's second chapter . having done to dr. s — th this right , he ought not to be out of humour , that i as a socinian , have attacked his explication ; as i have some other learned men : i mean no disrespect thereby to him , or them ; i acknowledg their personal merit , but cannot give up to them so sacred a truth , as the unity of god , or consent that it be disguised and deformed . of the explication by mr. hooker , author of the ecclesiastical polity . mr. hooker , tho he was none of the fathers of the catholick church , is not of less authority in the particular church of england , than any one of the fathers is : and it must be confest he was not only a very good , but a very learned and discerning man. but it is observed of him , that in speaking of the trinity , he speaks somewhat incorrectly : this was a doctrine which he took for granted , there was no dispute in his time about it ; so he hath delivered himself , not with his usual precaution and judgment . he saith , that the substance of god , with this property , to be of none , doth make the person of the the father . the very self-same substance in number , with this property , to be of the father , maketh the person of the son. the same substance , having added to it the property of proceeding from the other two , maketh the person of the holy ghost . so that in every person there is implied both the substance of god , which is one ; and also that property , which causeth the same person really and truly to differ from the other two . i must observe , in the first place , hereupon , that mr. hooker in this matter hath not spoken over critically and correctly ; nay , hardly orthodoxly : i mean , as orthodoxy goes among the learned of his own parry . he saith that the substance of god , with these properties , to be of none , to be of the father , and to proceed from the other two , make the persons of the father , son and spirit : now to be of none , to be of the father , and to proceed from both , are but other words for this sense , to beget , to be begotten , and to proceed . but that father of modern orthodoxy , peter lombard , whom we have already twice mentioned , denies that these ( before-mentioned ) are properties in the substance of god , or that they can belong to it : he saith , essentia divina non est genera●● , nec genera●● , nec procedens ; i. e. the substance of god neither begets , nor is begotten , nor proceeds . 't is impossible to make this consist with mr. hooker , who expresly ascribeth those properties to the divine substance or essence , and saith , that being in the divine substance , they make it to be three persons . what shall we do here ? shall we say , reverend hooker has mistaken , and missed his sons ( who are all the church of england ) into an error concerning the trinity ? hath he ascribed to the divine essence , properties , which he calleth persons , that are not in it ? to give up hooker , is to dishonour the church of england it self ; to part with father hooker , is to endanger the very surplice , and even the cross in baptism ; nay , that book of books the common-prayer . if mr. hooker could err about the trinity ; what will the fanaticks and trimmers say ? will they not be apt to pretend too , he may have erred in his profound dissertations and discourses for the rites and discipline of the church ? i am afraid , for all that , we must keep close to peter lombard , master of the sentences , and of the modern divinity : he hath been espoused by all the popes since innocent the third , by the lateran council which was general , and by the tacit approbation of the whole church ever since . i doubt , it is not much more passible , that mr. hooker saith , that the properties , to be of none , to be of the father , and to proceed , do ( together with the substance of god ) make the persons of the father , son and spirit . it is not true , that those are the properties which make the persons : he might say , that they make the persons to be father , son and spirit , or to have that threefold relation among themselves ; but they do not make the three persons to be persons ; or thus , they do not make ( as he speaks ) the persons . to be of none maketh the father ; but i deny , that it maketh ( as mr. hooker affirms ) the person of the father : the character , or property which maketh the person of the father , is quite another from the property or character that maketh the father . to beget , to be begotten , and to proceed , are properties which constitute the relations of father , son and spirit : but they are other properties , which make the persons of the father , son and spirit . concerning the properties or characters which make the re●●tions , all learned trinitarians are agreed ; they acknowledg them to be these three , active generation , ( not , as mr. hooker mistakes , this meer negation to be of none ) eternal passive generation , or to be begotten , and eternal procession : but concerning the properties that make the persons , they are not so well accorded . the antient divines said , the property that maketh the person of the father , or the peculiar property and character of the first person , is monarchy ; the property of the second person , is wisdom ; and of the third is love. others said , that the property of the first person , is beatitude and rest ; the property of the second is operation : others had still other conceits , all of them false . but allowing now the way of speaking , used by mr. hooker , what a riddle has he propounded ? here is the self-same substance ( in number ) unbegotten , and yet begotten : the divine substance with the property to be of none , or to be unbegotten , is ( saith he ) the person of the father ; the self same substance ( in number ) with the property to be of the father , or to be begotten , is ( or makes ) the person of the son. can the self-same substance ( in number ) be of none , and yet be of the father ; be unbegotten , and begotten too ? are they not contradictory terms , and therefore not to be applied to the self-same substance in number ? they will say , mr. hooker doth not affirm , that the self-same substance is begotten and unbegotten ; this indeed were a ●●t contradiction : but he saith , that as 't is in the father , 't is unbegotten ; as in the son , 't is begotten . but do they reckon they have to deal only with fools ? what if i should say , my hand as in my pocket , is unskalded ; but at in my glove , 't is skalded : would it not be a contradiction , for all the blinds of in the pocket , and in the glove ? the self-same hand in number , cannot be burnt , and unburnt ; the place in which it is , will not palliate such a contradiction : in like manner , the self-same substance cannot be begotten , and unbegotten ; because you are pleased to pretend , you consider it sometimes in one subject or person , sometimes in another . in whatever person a substance is , it must either be a begotten substance , or an unbegotten ; it cannot possibly be both : if it really remains unbegotten , then it never was begotten ; but if in process of time it has been begotten , then it cannot still be unbegotten . why do our opposers choose to maintain such extravagant paradoxes , rather than acknowledg so easy and natural a truth , as the unity of god ? rather than receive the first commandment , in its natural and obvious sense ; rather than we will sincerely ( and without disguise or juggle ) own that there is but one only god : we will choose to make our selves scorned by all sensible men ; by saying , the self-same substance ( in number ) is begotten , and unbegotten ; 't is of the father , nay 't is of father and of son , and yet 't is of none . let us consider mr. hooker's catch , in three human persons . he will say , the substance of john is begotten , as john is the son of peter ; but john's substance is unbegotten , as john is the father of james : and yet it is the self-same substance in number , that is thus both begotten and unbegotten . is it so ? but if john's substance be really begotten , i will ever stand in it , that his substance is not unbegotten : it was begotten by his father peter , therefore 't is a begotten substance , not an unbegotten . some one may say , but is not john's substance unbegotten , in respect of john ' s son james ; tho it was begotten by peter ? by no means : for if peter begot john's substance , then john's substance is begotten , tho his son james begot it not ; and consequently it cannot be said to be an unbegotten substance , in any respect whatsoever . in short , they would have us to say ; john's substance is unbegotten , because it was begotten by peter , and not by john's son james . i deny , that 't is a proper , or a true way of speaking : for if the substance has been begotten by any whomsoever ; it must never after be called unbegotten , on this absurd account , that it was not begotten by james , but by peter . farther , whereas mr. hooker saith , the substance of god , with this property to be begotten , or to be of the father , maketh the person of the son : i ask , is then the substance of god begotten ; i pray , who begat it ? they must answer , the father ! but did the father beget the substance of god ? do they not say , that the self-same substance that is in the father , is also in the son ? but if so , then if the father begat the substance of the son , or of god , he begat his own substance . can any one beget his own substance ? is it not a contradiction , a manifold contradiction ? is it not as much as to say , he was before he was ? he that begets his own substance , begets himself : but he that begets himself , is thereby supposed to have been before he was . i know , it hath been said by some divines , god is self-originated or self-begotten . but 't is utterly false ; they ought to have said , he is unoriginated or unbegotten . as god is not originated or begotten , by another ; so much less by himself : not by another , for then that other must be before him , at least in order of nature ; not by himself , because then he must be before he was . but to finish with mr. hooker , i will show his followers , that in pursuance of his explication , they will be forced to say ; that as the father begat the son , so the son destroys the father . and i make challenge to them all , to rescue their master's explication from that fatal consequence . begotten doth always destroy unbegotten ; when once a person or thing is begotten , that self-same thing or person can be no longer unbegotten . if therefore the substance of god unbegotten , maketh ( as mr. hooker contends ) the person of the father ; and the self-same substance begotten , maketh the person of the son : it unavoidably follows , that the generation of the son is the destruction of the father ; because the property or characteristick of the father , even unbegotten , is destroyed out of the divine substance , by the characteristick of the son , which is begotten . unbegotten ( that is to say , the father ) remains no longer in the divine substance ; if begotten ( that is , according to hooker , the son ) hath taken place in it . o that our learned opposers would vouchsafe , to consider these things impartially : that they would not reckon 't is their glory , to defend received doctrines , only because they have been long received , and by many ; as if prescription or numbers could alter the nature of truths and untruths . which ( i pray ) is more honourable , to own a clear and necessary truth ; or to set one's self to darken and to obstruct it ? i confess the latter requires more wit , especially against an able and dexterous defendant ; but 't is the other that deserves greater praise , especially before god , because it argues sincerity and justice . but i pass to the last sort of trinity , the mystical trinity . of the mystical trinity , or the trinity of the mobile . the poor common people are first made to believe , by the help of corrupted copies , and false translations of the bible , that 't is a scripture-doctrine ; that there is a trinity of divine persons , an almighty father , an almighty son , and an almighty spirit distinct and different ( in number ) from both father and son. but because this ( at the very first sight ) appears contrary to reason and common sense ; therefore in the next place they are told , that they must consider this doctrine , as a mystery , impossible indeed for us to understand , yet necessary to be believed , because god hath said it . how many things , say these teachers , are there in the works of nature , which we understand not , no more than we can understand the trinity : and yet we believe them to be , as assuredly ; as if there were no difficulty , in conceiving how they should be . as , that there are antipodes , whose feet are opposite to our feet , and who walk with their heads downwards , with respect to our parts of the world. again , that a spirit can move a body from place to place : tho reason first assures us , that there can be no motion without a resistance ; and then , that a pure spirit can meet no resistance , from matter or bodies . also , that the parts of matter or bodies hold together ; tho no cause can be assigned for it , but what appears immediately to be unsufficient , nay ridiculous . all these are great truths , and we believe them , even contrary to the verdict of reason : how much more ought we to believe the trinity , which hath been propounded to us , as an article of faith , in the word of god it self , tho our fallible and frail reason reclaims , and kicks perhaps against it ? when the socinians , say these gentlemen , have accounted for all the mysteries of nature and art ; let them begin to object to the trinity , that 't is a mystery , and that it hath sundry contradictions to reason : but till they do the first , 't is nothing else but a bold impiety to insist on the other . it must be confessed , sir , that this is the most plausible pretence ; the strongest hold , as well as the last resort of our opposers : when we have drove them from all other posts , here they take sanctuary . i will therefore take care to remove this occasion , and cover of error . i say , 1. i might leave it wholly to dr. s — th , to answer this pretence of some of his party . at p. 2 , and 3 , &c. of his animadversions , he shows at large , what is a mystery ; he saith , that a mistery is a truth revealed by god , above the reach of human reason to find out , or to comprehend . he vindicateth this definition , part by part ; he saith , p. 3. first , a mystery is a truth ; by which , saith he , i exclude every thing from being a mystery , which is absurd , or contradictions . now we desire nothing else of our oppo●●●● , but that they would abide by this account of mystery ; that 't is not something absurd , or contradictory , but only some secret revealed by god , because it was above human capacity to discover it , and sometimes also even to comprehend how it can be . for there is a vast difference between my not being able to conceive how a thing should be , and a clear apprehension and sight that it cannot be . there are ( it may be ) mysteries , which we cannot comprehend how they should be : but that three divine persons , or three distinct almighty and all-knowing persons , should be but one almighty , but one all-knowing , or but one god , a man ( who considers but with never so little intention and sincerity ) clearly sees , that it cannot be . in short , that 't is not a mystery , but ( as dr. s — th speaks ) an absurdity and a contradiction . in a word , we do not reject the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation , because they are mysteries ; but because they are plain contradictions to reason and common sense , and consequently untruths : for ( without doubt ) reason and truth are but two names , for the same thing ; and clear reason is no other thing , but clear truth . 2. i consider , that what will equally serve to excuse all the nonsense , and impossible doctrines , that are to be found among men ; we cannot admit of it , as a defence of the ( pretended ) trinity and incarnation : especially in opposition to such powerful proofs , both from scripture and reason ; as may be , and actually are alledged against those doctrines . a papist , for example , does ( with equal colour ) alledg this pretence , for his transubstantiation . he says , 't is a scripture-doctrine , delivered in these express words , this is my body : and how many things are there in the works of nature , which we comprehend not , no more than we can comprehend the miracle of the transubstantiation ; and yet we believe them to be , as assuredly , as if there were no difficulty in conceiving how they should be , or that they can be . such as the antipodes ; and that a pure spirit can ●●●ve a body , in which it findeth no resistance ; and that the parts of matter or bodies are continuos , or hold together : and many the like . thus do the papists argue ; and i deny , that this pretence can be wrested from them , by any trinitarian : for 't is the same defence that the trinitarian makes for his doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation . our opposers will not vouchsafe , so much as to hear catholicks and lutherans , when they plead mystery , for the transubstantiation or the consubstantiation : i desire of them therefore , to give me but one reason , why that plea is not as good in those controversies , as in these of the trinity and incarnation . the author of two dialogues , concerning the trinity and the transubstantiation , finding himself pressed with this difficulty , answers to this effect , that there are a great many more texts of holy scripture for the trinity , than are pretended for the transubstantiation . but this is no solution of the proposed difficulty : for 't is not at all the question , which doctrine hath most texts alledged for it ; but only , whether the pretence of mystery , be not a plea as rational and allowable , against all the exceptions made against the transubstantiation , as an impossible , inconceivable and contradictory doctrine ; as 't is to the same exceptions , when urged by the socinians against the incarnation or trinity ? but whereas that author insists upon an answer , wholly foreign to this difficulty ; and is so careful to bring together , from cardinal bellarmine , all the texts alledged for the trinity : he is desired to name to us so much as one text for either of those doctrines ; that is not given up to the socinians , by some of the most learned interpreters and criticks of his own party , as indeed no proof of the trinity , the incarnation , or the divinity of the son or spirit . what avails it , for a man to talk of the great number of texts , which he can alledg ; when the ablest persons of his own party , do ( in the mean time ) ow● the unsufficiency of every one of them in particular ? if he thinks he has cause to deny , that the socinians have this great advantage on their side ; whenever he shall do it publickly , i will bear the reproach , if i do not justify what i have said , by citation of particular authors of the first note and rank among our opposers . 3. our opposers urge , that there are ( and the soci●●●●s themselves believe ) a great many mys●●●●●s in nature ; of which no human reason can give an account , nay reason objects against them , and professedly contradicts them : as that a pure spirit can move a body , in which it meets no resistance ; that bodies or matter consist of indiuisible parts ; and such like . well , suppose the socinians should grant these , or other unaccountable mysteries , which not only are not comprehended , but are contradicted by reason : what then ? why , then they are very inconsiderate , to deny ( as they do ) the trinity and incarnation ; on this account , that 't is contrary to reason , or implies contradictions and absurdities . but our opposers should have thought better of this objection , before they laid so great a weight on it ; even the weight of their whole cause . for tho we should grant , that we believe some mysteries of nature or art , against which reason objects , and many ways contradicts them ; yet is this no plea for the trinity , or the incarnation . for if we believe natural or artificial mysteries , 't is because we plainly see that so the thing is : we see or we feel , or have some other undeniable proof of the thing ; some such proof , as no rational man will or can resist . doth any man believe misteries , or wonderful tales , contrary to his reason , and the reason of all other men ; without a most manifest and uncontestable proof of them ; without some such proof or proofs , as undeniably evince the thing so to be ? but will our opposers pretend , they have any such proofs for the incarnation or trinity ; such manifest , such evident , such uncontestable proofs , that no sober man , or no reasonable man can except against them , or refuse to admit of them ? i do not think they will pretend to it , if it be but for this only reason , because the socinians are confest to be a rational and learned party . are those evidence or proofs uncontestable , which are rejected , not without some scorn , by some of the learnedest , and most unsuspected of their own party ? are they uncontestable , that not only may be interpreted to another sense , but also are either otherways read in the best copies of the hebrew and greek , or may be otherways translated from those languages ; and all this , by confession of the more ingenious of our opposers themselves ? briefly , we say , mysteries there are ; and it may be such mysteries , as are even contradicted by reason ; that is , are in some respects contradictions to our present ( short-sighted and frail ) reason : but when we believe there are some such mysteries , it is because they appear to our senses ; or are proved to us by some such either reason or authority , as no reasonable man , much less any number of such men , does or can deny to be uncontestable . and otherways , all the unwarrantable nonsense in the world may be imposed on us , under the pretence and cloak of mystery . but now the doctrine of the trinity , hath not only no uncontestable proofs ; but the pretences for it are so feeble , that none of them can be named , but is not only rejected , but despised by some of the learnedest of our opposers themselves . they would perswade us to acknowledg a mistery , full of contradictions to the clearest reason , and to indisputable texts of holy scripture ; and supported in the mean time , only by some texts that may be interpreted to a rational sense , that is , to a sense that hath nothing contrary either to reason , or to the unquestionable parts or texts of the holy scripture . for peace sake , we would do so , if it were some light matter that they urged on us : but when the question is , about one or more gods , one or more divine persons , we judg it adviseable , not to be too facile in admitting such dangerous mysteries ; mysteries that would destroy the allegiance and homage that we all owe to the one true god. i have done , sir , with the explications of our opposers . you see what they are : dr. s — th's explication is only an absurd socinianism ; or unitarianism disguised in a metaphysical and logical cant. dr. wallis his explication is an ingenious sabellianism ; and in very deed differs from unitarianism , no more than dr. s — th's , that is to say , only in the wording . dr. sherlock's is such a flat tritheism , that all the learned of his own party confess it to be so ; and dr. s — th hath written a very accurate book to prove it so . dr. cudworth's is a moderate arianism ; the ariani molles ascribed as much to the son , as this doctor doth : and he denies as much to the son , as they did ; even an equality of power , and authority with the father . mr. hooker's is a trinity , not of persons , but of contradictions : and he hath advanced such a son , as of necessity destroys his father . what the mystical divines teach , cannot be called an explication ; they deny all explications : we must say therefore 't is samaritanism ; for what our saviour says of the samaritans , by way of reproof and blame , that these gentlemen profess concerning themselves , that they worship they know not what . these , sir , are the doctrines that we oppose ; i shall leave it with you , whether it be without cause . before i conclude , i beg your leave to say two words to mr. basset , who hath answer'd ( or thinks he has answered ) to the brief history of the unitarians : and to dr. fulwood and dr. edwards , men of dignity in the church ; but who have not thought it below them , to use the very vilest language , and the basest and most ungrounded scandals , that their malice to our persons , and their ignorance of the points in question between us and the church , could suggest to them . these two doctors tell their readers , that the unitarians deny the omniscience of god , or that he fore-knoweth contingent events : that they deny his omnipresence , making him to be present in all places , only by his knowledg , and his power ; that they ascribe the same degree of power and knowledg , and pay the self-same worship to the lord christ , whom they affirm to be a meer man , which they ascribe or pay to almighty god ; and hereby , say these doctors , they are guilty of an idolatry that is equally evident and abominable . they pretend to prove this charge out of the writings of socinus , smalcius , and some others of the party . i say now ; 1. that their quotations out of socinus and the rest , are ( for a great pa●● of them ) as false and disingenious as those ●● dr. wallis were : as any one will see , who shall take the pains to consult the authors themselves . 2. they make it to be a great heresy in some socinians , that they deny there is a certain fore-knowledg of contingent events : they say 't is a denial of god's omniscience . and yet all men know , that very many of the most learned trinitarians , have been of the same opinion ; antients as well as moderns , protestants as well as catholicks . nor have these doctors so much as offered at an answer to the reasons of socinus and crellius , concerning a conditional knowledg in god. 3. that god is omnipresent , not in his essence or person , but by his knowledg and power ; is also held by divers learned trinitarians : and it must needs have been the opinion of those fathers , who either were anthropomorphites ; or held that god is a body , not a spirit . 4. these doctors have written against the socinians , by occasion of the english books , that have been lately published , by those of that perswasion : they should therefore have attacked the doctrine of those books ; they should have described our opinions out of our own writings , not from the books of foreigners . the english socinians sincerely believe , that god is truly omniscient ; that he foreseeth all events , how contingent soever they may be to us . they believe the real omnipresence of god ; or that he is present in his essence or person in all places , and not only by his power , knowledg or ministers . they honour , or if we must use that word , they worship the lord christ ; neither with the same sort , nor with the same degree of worship , which is due to god : they worship or honour him , with their minds , only as one who is highly exalted by god , above all principality and power , and every name that is named ; and to whom god hath given to be head over all things to the church . in a word , they neither pay a higher worship , nor impute a greater power or knowledg to the lord christ , than the most learned , and the far greater number of trinitarians , impute and pay to the human nature ( the meer human nature ) of jesus christ , in his present state of exaltation . we have said these things so often in our late books ; we have defended them so earnestly , that none but persons of little honesty , or great inconsideration , would object to us such opinions as these before-mentioned . but these gentlemen had a longing mind to be authors ; and who should they signalize themselves upon , so popularly , as upon the socinians : if they have got reputation by their books , that is , by weak arguments and strong calumnies ; it is with so very few , that i do not think they will reap an advantage by it . but one of them urgeth , that socinus was in this dangerous heresy , that the soul of man , after the death of his body , is in a state of inactivity and unperception ; in a word , neither perceives nor lives , till the resurrection of the body : at which time , it receiveth immortality , by the meer grace or gift of god ; but is not , of its own nature , immortal . i do acknowledg , that this seems to be the opinion of f. socinus ; but , i believe , of very few unitarians besides . but this error was common to him , with some of the fathers : the learned monsieur du pin has noted , that justin martyr , irenaeus , minutius foelix and arnobius were in this sentiment . there was no reason therefore to object this , to socinus ; as if it were a peculiar opinion of his ; much less to the english unitarians , who never defended it ; nor , that i know of , do any of them hold it . as to mr. basset , there are two things very remarkable , in his answer to the brief history of the unitarians : the meanness and dulness of the book it self , it being written with no vivacity , wit , or elevation of thought ; and the undecent insolence of the author . his book being such as it is , if the brief history cannot shift for it self , against that reply to it ; the historian is resolved it shall take its fortune : he is perswaded , that when a discerning man has read mr. basset's answer ; if he again looks over the brief history , he will ( at least ) as much approve of it , as at first . mr. basset has said nothing , that can in the least shake the reputation of the brief history ; unless his reader will believe him , when he charges the historian with false quotations of authors . to this the historian answers ; that he hath not made one false or mistaken citation : but mr. basset sometimes not understanding the authors that are quoted , for they are greek and latin ; and sometimes mistaking the sense of the historian , which he doth very frequently ; it hath happened hereupon , that he hath charged the historian with his own either ignorances or inadvertences . but i am not at leisure to write a vindication , every time that negligent and ignorant scriblers mistake my meaning ; or the sense or the authors by me alledged . i reckon it to be his insolence , that a person who had nothing to offer on these questions ; but what was very trivial and vulgar ; should yet give disrespectful language , without any the least provocation given by the historian . he saith , for instance , that indeed the foreign socinians have been learned and subtile men ; but he cannot say so concerning the english : but for the epistler , so he calls the writer of the brief history , because 't is written in four letters ; he saith , poor wretch ought to have imploy'd his small talent to honester purposes , and not have sought for reputation only by his nonsense , his follies , and his impieties . this was a mortification indeed , c●ming ( as it does ) from so great and worthy a hand : but the comfort is , we are apt to be more advised , and better'd also by our humiliations . and yet i am still of opinion , that as mr. basset thought it requisite to answer the brief history after the great victory gained over it by dr. sherlock : so there will not want many others , who will judg it no less than necessary ; to give other answers to it , after this triumph of mr. basset . but however that be , i answer to mr. basset , as moses did to pharaoh , glory over me ; i am resolved mr. basset shall have the self-satisfaction , that he hath mauled the epistler for ever . for i will not catch flies , nor spend my artillery upon mud-walls ; when i happen on some such second , as dr. sherlock found up against the jesuits , mr. basset may hear from me , and not before , i will not ask pardon , sir , for the length of this letter ; for you see to how many it was necessary to make some answer : but i ought not to forget , to give you my thanks and respects , for the liberalities and favours , which you have done to your humble servant . a letter to the publisher from another hand . sir , i heartily thank you for the perusal of this most learned and judicious letter , which i return you ; and i congratulate the worthy author , whom the divine wisdom has made an instrument for the vindicating of his glorious and incommunicable attribute of unity , which he has in several tracts even demonstrated , not only by clear and express scriptures and obvious reason , but also now at length from the confessions of the trinitarians themselves , the infringers of it . for whilst each one condemns the several explications of the rest , as either inconsistent with the unity , or the trinity , they do all in their turns bear witness to the unitarians , that their opposition to the trinitarian doctrine is well-grounded and reasonable , and consequently their doctrine of the unity the truth of god. for if each one of their explications does either introduce the worship of three gods , or the heresy of sabellianism , as they call it , the turning the son and holy ghost into names and operations without any real distinction of persons , or things answering those distinct names , as it plainly appears they do ; then it undeniably follows , there is no such trinity as they imagine , but a numerical unity of person and essence in god , as the unitarians hold ; and as some trinitarians contend in their opposition one to another . it remains then that the trinitarian worshippers , especially the common people , do seriously and in the fear of the one most high god , consider , what notions , conceptions , or idea's they have , of an infinite and almighty holy ghost distinct from the almighty father and producer of them : for they cannot possibly escape the condemnation of one of the highest crimes , even the worship of three infinite real gods , or two imaginary ones , or two names without notions ; that is , they know not what , as this author expresses it ; condemnation i say , not only by the unitarians ( who worship the father only as god in the highest and strictest sense of that term ) but also by all the trinitarians , that hold not the same opinion , or have not the same notion . i know the times of ignorance god winketh at , as well now , as before the preaching of the gospel ; but after he has made his unity manifest , and vindicated it from the scholastick subtilties and absurd distinctions , that have been invented to hide the truth , he then commands all men , to whom this evidence comes , to repent . inconsideration or negligence will not now excuse . men must not say or think ( as they commonly do ) this point is too high for me to determine ; for they have already determined it , whilst they profess to believe in , and to worship three equal ones , a father , a son , and a spirit . neither can they alledg the universality of the trinitarian faith : for besides ( as this author observes ) the worshipping of many gods was formerly , and is now far more universal ; we see that this opinion and worship , which soever it be , is condemned by at least four to one of those that go under that common name of trinitarians . the rise of these divers and contrary explications has been this ( as is observed by the author in that which now obtains ) that learned men looking narrowly into former explications , have found them inconsistent with the oneness of god , and therefore have devised somewhat either more obscure , that would hide the contradiction , or somewhat more consistent with the unity , tho it destroyed the trinity ; or more consistent with the trinity , tho it destroys the unity , as dr. sherlock has done . and perhaps others like him may devise other hypotheses , taking it for granted from the prejudices of early education and customary thinking , that the trinity is a fundamental of christianity . but we see here they labour in vain to reconcile manifest contradictions : and in believing the son and holy spirit to be equally god with the father , they offend against express scriptures and clear reason , upon the account of their own reasonings upon obscure texts ; and therein transgress the plain principles , both of natural light and revelation , which require , 1. that nothing be held for truth contrary to evident and fundamental truth . and , 2. that obscure passages are to be interpreted by clear passages , and the current of scripture , and not otherwise . the jews walking contrary to these principles , was the cause of rejecting christ and christianity , and it is indeed the ground of all error whatever . in vain do men press a great many texts ( that have , even in the opinion of learned trinitarians , another meaning ) to prove that the son and holy ghost are god ; till they can reconcile that inference to plain scripture and evident reason . in vain does the author of the snare broken ( who could not overcome the prejudices of his education and converse ) perswade men to lay aside their philosophy , and wholly to betake themselves to a scriptural consideration of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; by which i understand , they must take the words of scripture without understanding them , or reconciling them to other scriptures , or even the current of scripture or common reason . do they think that scripture is to be interpreted contrary to it self ? or , that divine wisdom has made the belief of contradictions necessary to salvation ? it seems strange that christians should be very zealous in the punctilio's of the worship of god , ceremonies of posture , gesture or apparel ; forms of addresses to god , the wording of faith to an iota ; and yet go on in the worship of one god the father , and of two distinct from him , god as perfectly as he ; and in which their worship terminates equally with him . they can love god the father with all their hearts and strengths , and two persons distinct from him with the same all : they can give all to one , and all to another , and all to a third , and never question the possibility of it ; as if there were a trinity in unity in every man ; that his own heart were three hearts , to be bestowed all and entirely upon each of three objects , and yet be but one heart still . but whither am i carried ? this author needs none of my notes or illustrations : and indeed both he and all others that have labour'd in this controversy , may surcease their pains henceforth , and leave what they have already said to the judgment and conscience of all considerate and sincere men. i am , sir , yours , &c. a letter to a friend concerning a french invasion to restore the late king james to his throne and what may be expected from him should he be successful in it. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1692 approx. 50 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59824 wing s3295 estc r37546 16971517 ocm 16971517 105558 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59824) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 105558) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1159:4) a letter to a friend concerning a french invasion to restore the late king james to his throne and what may be expected from him should he be successful in it. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 30 p. printed, and are to be sold by randall taylor ..., london : mdcxcii [1692] attributed by wing to sherlock. imperfect: print show-through. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng james -ii, -king of england, 1633-1701. great britain -history -restoration, 1660-1688. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a letter to a friend , concerning a french invasion , to restore the late king james to his throne . and what may be expected from him , should he be successful in it . london , printed , and are to be sold by randall taylor , near amen-corner , mdcxcii . a letter to a friend , &c. sir , in your last you seem much concern'd about the french invasion , and desirous to know what i think may probably be expected from the late king , should he prove so successful , as to recover his throne ; and what english subjects are bound in conscience to do , should he land in england and demand his right . the last is a material question , but i wonder how you came to ask the first , as if it could be any question what the late king will do , if he were restor'd by power to his crown ; for i think it past all doubt , that he will do as he did before , only in all probability a great deal worse : and you remember how that was ; for arbitrary power and popery are of too great concernment , and have left too frightful an impression behind them , to be so soon forgot ; and this will go a great way towards an answer to your second question , unless you think we are bound to take king james , and a french government , and a french popery with him ; which i shall not easily be perswaded to ; and , i believe , there are not many english protestants will. but to answer your questio●s distinctly . as to the first , when we see what the late king iames has done , what reason have we to expect , that should he return with power , he would ever do otherwise ? is he more oblig'd now by his protestant subjects , than he was before ? can he make fairer promises , than he did before ? is he less zealous for popery ▪ or grown more out of conceit with arbitra●y powe● ? o● wi●● he be less able to make himself arbitrary , and set up popery when he returns a conquerour ? for i take it for granted he must conquer first , because king william won't abdicate nor steal away , and the power that conquers , will give laws and religion to the conquer'd . i know there are two things pretended , as a foundation for better hopes . first , that the late king is ●ow sensible that the english nation will never bear popery , nor arbitrary power , and that he has suffered so much by these attempts already , that he will never venture the like again . secondly , the great merits of the non-swearing clergy and gentry , which will atone for the church of england , and make him their sure and fast friend , patron and defender , especially if those who have been too forward in complying with the late revolution , shall expiate that crime by an early repentance , and a vigorous assistance to restore him to his throne . first , as for the first , there are too many answers to be given to it , to hinder it from being the least probable ground of hope ▪ though hope it self is , res incertae nomen , so very uncertain , especially when we guess only at the inclinations of princes , that lives , and fortunes , and liberties , and religion , are not to be ventured on it , against former experience . but to let that pass , pray consider what the true import of this argument is ; for it amounts to this , that all men will learn by experience ; that men will not venture on those things a second time , which have proved fatal to them once ; that princes will certainly for ever after dislike such counsels and measures , as have already shaken their thrones , and made their crowns fall from their heads . now we may flatter our selves with such hopes as these , which may upon some account be called reasonable hopes , because there is great reason it should be so ; but yet they so often fail , that there is no reason to rely upon them . the repentance of dying sinners and of undone prodigals , who return to their old sins again , if they recover their health , or find new treasures to waste , confutes such expectations . sufferings rarely cure a vehement love and fond passion for any thing , which is the case of old habitual sinners ; and no man can be fonder of any vice , than some princes are of unlimited and arbitrary power . and wh●n this is join'd with a resolved and inflexible temper , which scorns to yield , and had rather be undone a thousand times , than own , retract , or amend a fault : such m●sfortunes do but whet revenge , and make them swell as a river does when its current is stopp'd , which flows with a more rapid and foaming stream , when it has once forced its way . especially when superstition is the prevailing ingredient , which fires the spirits , and raises imaginary scenes of glory out of the loss of crowns and kingdoms : and what will such a prince , if he ever recover his throne and power , forfei● the glory of losing his kingdoms again , by deserting t●e cause for which he lost them before ? no man can certainly tell , how superstition will act , no● how it will reason : especially when the consciences of princes are under such directors , as will venture their crowns for them over and over , to carry on their own designs , and know how to expound providence to flatter superstition . and then the recovery of his thro●e may be made a better argument , and a stronger obligation to revive and prosecute his old designs , than the fear of losing it again can be to make him desist . and to make this yet more demonstrative , with reference to the late king , we ought to consider , that this is not the first tryal he has had , and that this consideration has done him no good . he saw before what his father king charles the first suffered , only for some attempts towards arbitrary power , and for meer jealousies and suspicions of his favouring popery : he lost his kngdoms and his life , and his sons suffered a long and hard exile . charles the second indeed took warning by this , and though possibly he might be big with the same designs , yet would he not venture too far , nor discover himself too openly , for fear of travelling again , as he used to speak : but king james had not patience to conceal his inclinations , till he came to the crown ; and that had like to have cost him his crown , before he had it ; and yet this was not sufficient to caution him against those violent methods he afterwards used to advance popery , which were so seasonably defeated by the happy arrival of our present sovereign , whom god long preserve : and those who are so desirous to try him again in england , as they have lately done in ireland , to their full satisfaction , if they could try only for themselves , should have my free consent to make the experiment . have not the poor irish protestants made it to their cost , even since this very revolution , from whence , and from the wisdom he must needs have learned by it , this miraculous change in him is now expected ? and did they find any such change in him , unless for the worse ? and yet , if ever , then he was upon his good behaviour , when he wanted their assistance to secure his possession of that kingdom , and to recover his other dominions . and when , in reason , it might have been expected , that , whatever resentments he had , he would have thought it his interest to have treated protestants with greater tenderness and respects . but if the necessity of his own affairs could not obtain this from him , what must protestants expect , if he return with power ? and though some protestants here in england , seem not to be at all affected with this experiment , yet it hath made such an impression upon the protestants in ireland , that they are for ever cured of their fondness , and have not the least curiosity left to make any further tryals . it is pretended indeed , in excuse of this , that he was then under the government of french ministers and counsels , and under the power of irish priests and papists , and so was not at liberty to follow his own inclinations : i should be very glad of a good argument to prove , that he had better inclinations . but however , what comfort is this to protestants , that he has better inclinations , but is not his own master ? for if he must never shew any kindness to protestants , it is no matter what his inclinations are : and can any man imagine , that if the french king by force and power place him on the throne , he will be less under his government than he was in ireland ? the french king , among many other wise maxims , has this , i am sure , for one , never to make a king , without making him his own vassal ; and the power that can make a king , can make him his slave : so that it is to no purpose to enquire what king james will do , but what king lewis will do , if king james returns ? secondly , as for the great merits of the nonswearing clergy and laity , i greatly suspect , that neither the late king james nor king lewis will think them so great as they themselves do . their merit must consist either in their principles , or in their practices . and we will briefly consider both . their meritorious principle is this , that the rights of princes , especially of hereditary princes , to their thrones , are so sacred and inviolable , that as they cannot forfeit them to their own subjects by any male-administration , so neither can they by any provocations , or by any success of war , forfeit them to any other princes : that while such a prince , or any legal heir is living , no other prince can have any right to his throne , nor must his subjects own and submit to any other prince , as their soveraign lord. now as much as this principle seems to flatter princes , and to make their thrones eternal , i am apt to suspect , that no prince , who considers the just consequence of things , can think it so very meritorious ; for it is a very dangerous principle to weak and unfortunate ●rinces , and an intolerable restraint upon the aspiring and ambitious . it is dangerous to the unfortunate , because it lays a necessity upon the conquerour to take away his life , if he can , as well as his throne , since he cannot lose his throne , without losing his life , though most princes would rather chuse to have them parted , than lose both together ; and how do they think king lewis will like this principle , which stands in the way of his glory , and preaches restitution to him of all those dominions , whose legal heirs are living ; which teaches the subjects of other princes to deny him fealty and obedience , and to conspire with their legal princes against him . i doubt not but he likes the principle as little as he would like the practice , and that our nonswearers would quickly understand , were they the subjects of his new conquests , which god grant england may never be . indeed , how great a complement soever this principle may be thought to princes , it can have no merit , because , though it may in some junctures do them hurt , it never did , and never can do them any service . it never yet hindred a revolution , and never can make one ; and the reason is plain , because no princes , and very few subjects , do believe it , and practice upon it . if a prince have a just cause of war against another prince , he makes no scruple , if he conquers , to take his crown ; and the subjects of such a conquered prince make no scruple of conscience to submit to the conquerour ; though sometimes a personal kindness for a just and indulgent prince , and a concernment for their own liberties and fortunes , may make them uneasie under it , and glad of the first opportunity to do themselves and their prince right . the truth , is princes have no reason to like this principle ; for , were it true , they could have no remedies against the injuries of neighbour princes ; they might indeed fight and conquer , but they had better let it alone , if they must not take the throne , which their sword has won ; for it is only the fear of conquest , and losing their crowns , when they are conquered , that can keep princes in awe , and bring them to just and equal terms ; and if no prince must lose his crown , because no prince must take it , it will be impossible to beat an injurious and obstinate prince into good terms ; and , i believe , princes will as soon be perswaded , that it is unlawful to make war , as that it is unlawful to seize a conquered crown , and will think one as meritorious a principle as the other . and it is certain , subjects have less reason to like this principle , because it makes them slaves and sacrifices even to the misfortunes of their prince . a prince , when he is conquer'd , or sees that he must be conquer'd , may escape by flight , but a whole nation cannot run away ; and if they could , have no reason to leave their country , and their fortunes behind them : and yet , according to this principle , they must not submit nor swear allegiance to the conquerour , while the prince who has forsaken them lives , though they cannot secure their lives and fortunes without it . but nature and common sense is too powerful for the sophistry of such principles , and those who cannot reason , can feel what they are to do in such cases . the loyalest subjects , when no personal obligations , or secret interests determine them otherwise , will save themselves by submission , when they cannot defend their prince by their arms ; and do not think they do ill in it : and i suppose princes do not think so neither , because they expect the same from the subjects of other princes in the like circumstances ; and such an universal consent both of princes and subjects , when there is no law of god or nature against it , makes it a standing law in all revolutions , which both princes and subjects must submit to . so that this principle , were it never so true , can do no service , and therefore can have no merit in this world , because there are so few that believe it ; that they are not hands enough either to keep a prince on his throne , or to restore him to it . all our nonswearers could not hinder the late revolution , nor can they make another : they are enow to make a noise , especially if the loud and zealous ladies of that side be reckoned in ; but other hands and other pretences must do their work , if ever they hope to see it done ; and then no thanks to their principles for it . whatever reward their future services may deserve , princes themselves will not think that their principles deserve any . let us then now consider the merit of their actions , and what opinion the late king is like to have of that , if he should return . i suppose , they will be contented he should forget their merits towards him , while he was on the throne ; especially about reading his declaration ; as likewise their tower and their westminster-hall merits ; which were indeed very great , and did deserve and would have had a better reward from a better hand , had they not rendered themselves incapable of it . but sure they don't expect the late king should reward them for such services . he knew that this raised that general discontent , which occasioned that general revolt , which cost him three crowns . and if all their merits can expiate this guilt , they come off well ; and those had need be very extraordinary merits , which have first so great a guilt to expiate , before they can pretend to merit . could their nonswearing restore him to his throne again , it would but just undo● what they had done , which is no more than their duty , and therefore cannot merit , no , not so much as a pardon , though it may make them capable of it , if they fall into merciful hands . but still there are four years exile , and the loss of three crowns , and the expence of so much blood and treasure ; the dishonour of so many defeats , and the ruine of ireland to be accounted for ; and how can they make restitution for all this ? which yet they must do before they can lay claim to merit . let all this then be forgot , for it is their interest it should ; but they are very sanguine men , if they hope it will. whence then will they date their merits ? when it was certainly known , that the prince of orange , now our gracious soveraign , was ready to land , they seemed as well pleased with it as other men ; and refused , when they were pressed to it by the late king , to declare their abhorrence of it ; but , instead of that , took upon them to give him advice , and to publish it when they had done : in which advice they recommended almost every particular of the prince's declaration , complained of the same abuses , and advised the calling of a parliament to redress them ; as if the prince's declaration , and their advise had been drawn by the same pen , and the advice had been published on purpose to second the declaration . this , i suppose , they will not reckon among their merits neither : and if they can excuse what was so hastily done at guildhall , before the late king was gone out of the land , they may very well be contented no more should be said of that . the only merit then they have to pretend , is their refusing the oath of allegiance to king william and queen mary , and forfeiting their ecclesiastical , civil , or military preferments for it : but what is this to the late king ? is this done out of kindness to him or his government ? would they not have been contented to have lived peaceably and quietly , as they themselves professed , could they have kept their preferments , and have been excused from the new oaths ? and how do they merit of him , by refusing the oaths with the loss of their preferments , if they did it not for his sake , but for another and better reason , for fear of being damned ? god may reward this , but king james is not beholden to them . will they be better subjects hereafter ? will they read his declaration , when he returns ? will they make his will their law ? will they submit to his next ecclesiastical commission , and give up their colledges and churches to priests and jesuits ? will they be content to take him the very same man that he went away , and to serve him in his own way ? will they no more fill the nation with the noise and fears of popery and arbitrary power ? will they turn papists themselves , or stand by patiently , and give leave to his priests to pervert protestants as fast as they can ? will they promise to demean themselves with more respect towards the king's religion , and to leave off their old fawciness of printing and preaching against popery ? this indeed would bid fair for merit , but if they oppose his methods of government , and his glorious designs , as much as they do king william's right ; if it be only a title they boggle at , if this be all that makes them uneasie at the change , their not swearing does him no service ; he could have kept his kingdoms upon these terms before , but he scorned it , and so he will those , who to salve their consciences or their honours , and to recover their preferments , would have him upon these terms again . as much as some men glory in their steddiness to principles , which is certainly a very honourable thing , and an excellent degree of virtue , when the principles are plain and certain , yet few princes ( to be sure , not the late king ) like such a steddiness to principles , as opposes their designs ; a stubborn , inflexible conscience , is a very unruly thing , and kings do not like such subjects as dare oppose a king upon the throne , whatever the cause be . so that i suspect , their very boldness and resolution in opposing their present majesties upon a meer point of law , will be thought no virtue fit to be rewarded by a prince ; who would make his will superiour to all laws . and if the merit of the non-swearers is likely to vanish into nothing , especially when there is no occasion any longer to court and flatter them , and priests and jesuits have free liberty to comment on their merits ; what merit will those men have to plead , who were forward and zealous in the revolution , have sworn allegiance to their present majesties , have served them in their armies and navies , at home and abroad ? there is no doubt , but they shall have fair promises and good words at present , and shall be remembred hereafter , when there is occasion . but suppose the merits of the non swearing or for-swearing clergy and laiety , who will help forwards another revolution , should be acknowledged to be very great ; what probability is there , that the church of england should fare ever the better for it , when popery and arbitrary power stand in the way ? past experience gives no great encouragement to hope this . king lewis was as much obliged to his protestant subjects of france , as it is possible for any king to be ; for they set the crown upon his head ; and how he has rewarded them , all the world rings of it . the late king was not much less beholden to the church of england , when they so vigorously opposed the bill of exclusion ; and how he also rewarded them , we all lately saw and felt . and shall protestants after this , think of obliging such princes by their merits ? they understand better , that merit is no protestant doctrine , and that there can be none out of the church of rome . and why should any body expect that which cannot be . nay , should the late king return again , and be as much at the devotion of his nonswearing friends , as they promise themselves he will be ; i very much doubt what the church of england will gain by this . if we may guess at the spirit of the party by the bitter zeal , which inspires all their writings , i can expect nothing from them , but as fierce a persecution of the church of england , as ever it suffered from papists or fanaticks , excepting smithfield fires , which possibly may be exchanged for tyburn . all who live in the communion of the church of england , as now established , are in their account and constant language , no better than hereticks and schismaticks , and perjured apostates , much greater crimes than the traditores were guilty of , which was the only pretence for the donatist schism and persecution . they seem to comfort themselves under their present sufferings , more with the sweet hopes of revenge , than any great expectations of future rewards ; that they shall live to see the swearing bishops and priests , the contempt of princes and people ; for if the a. b. of york , who is particularly named cannot escape them , i doubt they will make but very few exceptions . and is not this a great encouragement to any who have complyed with the present government , to help these men to power again ? must not the nobility and gentry expect their share of vengeance , as well as the clergie ? and is not the church of england then in a hopeful state , which must be purged and reformed into jacobite principles , and by a jacobite spirit ? these are all very sensible proofs ( as far as we can reason about such matters ) how little good is to be expected from the return of the late king with a french power : he must return the same man he went , and then popery and arbitrary power must return with him ; nay , he must return much worse than he went , because he must return more a vassal to france , which i suppose will not mend the condition of english subjects , during his reign . these things ought to be well considered ; for if his government was so uneasie before , and gave us such a frightful prospect , as made the nation very willing to part with him , when he thought fit to leave them ; it would seem very strange to by-standers , should they now grow fond of his return , when it is certain if he does return , and returns by the methods now intended , popery and arbitrary power must be more triumphant then ever . he wanted nothing but power to make himself absolute , and to make us all papists , or martyrs , or refugees ; and that he will ●ow have : for if a french power can conquer us , it will make him as absolute as the fr●nch king will ●et him be ; or to speak properly , it will make him , though not an absolute prince , yet an absolute viceroy , and minister of fr●nc● : he will administer an absolute power and ●overn●ent , under the influence and direction of french councels : and then we know what will become of the liberties and religion of england . and have we so long disdained the thoughts of ●ubjection to france ? has a french league been thought such a n●tional ●rievance ? has the pretence of a war with france been found such an excellent expedient to get money of english parliaments ? has the ex●e●tation o● it fired english spirits , and upon occasion filled our armies and navies , without need of pressing or beat of drum ? have we so detested the french cruelties to protestants ? and shall we now so willingly stoop to the yoke , ●nd think it a great favour that they will vouchsafe to conquer us ? let us never complain hereafter , that our chains pinch and gall us , when we our selves are ready with so much joy and thankfulness to put them on . and whatever some fancy they will find it a very easy and natural thing , for the late king , if he return by force and power , to make himself absolute by ●aw : princes always gain new powers by the ineffectual opposition of subjects : if they lose their crowns and recover them again , they receive them with an addition of some brighter jew●ls , and turn dispu●ed prerogatives into legal and undoubted rights . ●hus we know it was when king ch. 2 d. returned from a long exile , all the new acts and d●clarations were made in favour of the crown , and subjects bound to their good behaviour , as fast as laws could bind them ; for in all such revolutions , those who suffered with , or for their prince , return with zeal and resentment ; and take care in the first place to establish all such prerogatives of the crown , as were disputed before , and to grant such new powers as they think are wanting . and others there are , always forward to make their fortunes by complementing the returning prince ; and to expiate t●eir ●ormer crimes by a forward and flaming loyalty ; and the rest are over-awed and frighted into a compliance ; th●s it is commonly seen , that between zeal , and and fl●ttery , and fear , the king increases in power , and the people forfeit their liberties ; and we must not expect that it should be otherwise now , should the late king return . the first complement that must be made to him , is a jacobite parliament , and god knows what such a parliament will do ! will they deny him a toleration for papists , the repeal of the test , the forfeitures , or surrenders of charters , and a new regulation of corporations ? will they dispute , nay , will they not declare his dispensing power , and approve his eccl●siastical commissions ? will they make any scruple to declare the legitimacy of the prince of wales , or to leave the manner of his education to those who will certainly breed him up in popery ? will they not take care for new jacobite tests to renounce and abhor all the several hypotheses and principles of government , which have been urged to justify our submission and allegiance to their present majesties ? and when they have done this , how easy will it be for a downright popish parliament , which will be the next step that will be made , to do all the rest ? it is very evident what advantages the priests and jesuits will have in such a juncture to make proselytes while the people are in a fright , and grown giddy with such frequent revolutions ; and those , who in the late reign , were the great advocate● of the protestant cause , are disgra●'d at court , threatned into silence , their authority weakned , and their persons reproach'd both by papists and jacobites . numbers of conv●rts was their great want before , and the press and the pulpit their great hindrance ; but jacobites will by natural instin●t learn more loyalty , and others will be taught it , as gid●on once taught the men of succ●th with briars and thorns . and there never was such an opportunity since the reformation for a plentiful harvest of converts , as this would be like to prove . and who can bear the thoughts of this , who has any compassion for the souls of men , any zeal for the church of england , or any concern to p●eserve and propagate the true faith and worship of chri●t to posterity ? all this is upon a supposition of the late king's return , which i declare to you i am not afraid of , though it is fit to mind those men who are so fond of it , what they may reasonably expect , if he should return ; which possibly may abate their zeal in this cause , and th●t may prevent the mischiefs of an attempt ; for without a hopeful conspiracy in england , the french king is to● wary to make such an attempt . but if they have any love to their countrey , any pity left in them for the lives and fortunes of english protestants , i beseech th●m to consider what the calamities and desolations of civil war will be ; for that it must end in , if there be an invasion from abroad strengthned with a powerful conspiracy at home : king william , as i said before , will not desert or abdicate ; for i never heard of a prince who had ventured so much to rescue a kingdom out of so great a danger , that would so easily expose it again to the same , or a greater danger . and surely the late king does not expect he should , for he knows him too well : so that if they look for such another revolution , to turn king william out , as brought him in , they will , in a●l probability , be mistaken . there are too many persons of honour and fortune engaged in this cause , who know the late king too well to take his word ; and were it possible to wheedle men of fortune and sense , the genius and spirit of the nation is against them : and that which could ma●e the late revolution , will probably be able to prevent this . it must then come to blows , if an attempt be made ; and the fortune of one battel may not decide it ; and those who are too young to remember the desolations which the late civil wars in england made , let them look into ireland , and see to what a heap of rubbish a flourishing and fruit●ul countrey is reduced by being the scene of a three ye●rs war. it is made a popu●ar pretence to raise discontents , and to make people disaffected to the present government , that the taxes for maintaining this war are grown so into●erable , and there is no prospect of an end of them : now i must confess , that the taxes fall very heavy upon some , and am sorry that the present posture of our affairs does require it , and that there can be no easier ways found to supply the plain and pressing necessities of the state : ●ut ●e ought to consider , that still a●l this is infinite●y easier than popery and french slavery , if we regard only our estates . the annual exactions of the church of rome , ( besides all the cheating ways their priests had to get money ) , while popery was the religion of england , used to be complained of as a national grievance , and a heavier tax upon the subject , than all the king's revenues : and if those who complain of our taxes , were but one month in france , to s●e the poverty and misery which the french government has brought upon them , they would come home very well contented to pay taxes , and to fight against the french too . we are free subjects , not slaves ; we are taxed by our own representatives , who tax themselves as well as us ; and this not by the arbitrary will of the prince . we pay for our own defence and pr●servation as all peop●e ought to do ; and while we do not pay near so much as our religion , and lives , and liberties are worth , and have left wherewithal to maintain our selves , we have no such gre●t reason to complain . but how heavy soever taxes are , are they like a civil war ? like the dread and terrors of an enemies army , or of our own ? are they like having our houses filled with soldiers ; or which is worse , burnt or plundered ? are they like losing our friends , our fathers , husbands ▪ or children ; by whose kindness or labours we subsisted ? in a word , are they like the spoyls of harvest , or the desolation of a whole countrey ? and can we be contented to see england again the seat of war ? it is certain in our present circumstances it cannot be made so , unless we our selves please : france has too many enemies , to think of conquering england without factions at home ; and were it not for them , we need not fear its united force ; and i hope considering men , of what perswasion soever they be , will not think it worth the while to ruin their countrey by a civil war , to purchase a french slavery and popery ; two very dear things , could we purchase them never so cheap . what i have said hitherto , only concerns england ; but it becomes us to look a little abroad , and consider , what a fatal influence a french conquest of england will have upon the affairs of all europe . that it is not mere justice and honour that makes the french king espouse the cause of the late king james , his encroachments and usurpations on his neighbours , will witness . he has no scruples of conscience about the rights of other princes ; all he can get is his own . but england was formerly a friend and confederate , at least , not an enemy ; and now the power of england , ( which the french have never had reason to despise ) is in the hands of a king who owes the french king a good turn , and will not , i hope , dye in his debt . this checks his ambitious designs ; gives life and spirit to the confederacy ; threatens to make him restore what he has taken , and what he keeps by meer force and violence , and to reduce him within his ancient bounds , and to the ancient consti●ution of the french government ; and he knows while king william possesses the english throne , and keeps up the confederacy , he must not expect to get much more , and may be in constant danger of losing what he has gotten . this makes the french king so concerned to restore the late king james to the throne of england , to get rid of a formidable enemy , and to strengthen himself with the alliance of a powerful friend ; for england will probably turn the scales , on which side soever it happens to be : and there is no doubt , but the arms of england must be devoted to the service of france , if a french power should place the late king in his throne again ; and let any english protestant who can think coolly of things , consider what a malignant aspect this would h●ve upon the liberties of europe , and on the whole protestant interest . the arms or the money of france , has hitherto been an equal match , at least for all the confederates ; while he has found other employment for the imp●rial and english forces ; but thanks be to god , the king of england , and the english force● are now at leisure to attend his motions ; those forces which beat him at the boyn , at athlone , at agrins , at lymerick ; in a word , which beat him out of ireland , and have now got a habit of beating the french : and it is no wonder that he is not fond of such company in fland●rs , but endeavours to find some new work for them at home . and if he can but send them home again , and embroil us in a civil war , that is one great point gained ; but if he proves successful in his attempt , he makes england his own , and will turn their arms upon the confederates ; and what can then stand in his way ? what should hinder him from being the sole and absolute monarch of the west ? and then it is easie to read the fate of protestants . thus , sir , i have freely told you , what i apprehend will be the necessary and unavoidable effects of a french conquest . i pretend not to prophesie , nor to demonstration in such cases ; but what i have said , has all the appearances of probabi●ity , all the degrees of moral certainty th●t any thing of this nature can have ; and that is the only rule in these matters by which wise men are to judge and act . and this has prepared a plain and easie answer to your second question , what english subjects are bound in conscience to do , in case the late king should land in england with french forces to demand his crown . now there are two sorts of persons concerned in this question : 1. those who have not sworn allegiance to king william and queen mary , but account the late king james as much their king , as he was when he sat upon the throne ; and that their obligations to him are the same now that ever they were . 2. those who have sworn allegiance to king william and queen mary . and there are two parts of this question ; 1. whether they are bound in conscience to assist the late king if he return ? 2. whether it be lawful for them to oppose him , and fight against him ? as for the first part of this question , and as far as it concerns the non-swearers , i shall ask them two or three questions , and leave them to answer them themselves . 1. the first question is , whether they can think themselves bound in conscience , upon any pretence whatever , to fight for popery against the protestant faith and worship ; that is , ( as they must confess , if they are protestants ) to fight for heresie and idolatry against the true faith and worship of christ ; or to fight for antichrist , and against christ ? can any consideration make this lawful ? if nothing can ( as i will venture to take it for granted , that nothing can ) then whatever duty they may fancy they still owe to their abdicated prince , it cannot be their duty to fight for him , when they cannot fight for him , without fighting against christ and his religion ; though they must not fight against their prince for christ , because christ in such cases requires his disciples to suffer , not to fight for him ; yet it does not follow , that they must fight for their prince against christ , to bring a persecution upon his faithful disciples , and to contribute what they can to extirpate the name and the religion of protestan●s out of europe . do they think themselves bound in conscience to fight for their prince , against the laws and libe●ties of their countrey , as well as against the faith and worship of christ ? let the rights of princes be nev●r so sacred , have the rest of mankind no rights , but only princes ? is there no such thing as justice due to our selves , nor to our fellow-subjects ? have the free born subjects of england , no natural , no legal rights ? and is there any law of god or man , to fight for our prince , against the laws and liberties of our countrey , which are the measu●es and boundaries of that duty which we owe to princes ? that is , to fight for our prince , against the rule of our duty and obedience to princes ; when our prince , and the laws and liberties of our countrey are on contrary sides , tho we should grant them , ( according to their own principles ) that we must not fight against our prince for our laws and liberties , yet no more must we fight for our prince against o●r ●aws and liberties : it is abundantly e●ough , to be passive in such cases ; but a nation which fights against its own laws and liberties , is fe●o de se , gui●ty of the worst kind of self-murder . can any ●nglish-man , whatever opini●n he has of the late king●s right , think himself bound in consci●nce to maintain his right , by giving up his countrey to france ? to make him king , and all his subjects french slaves ? for can any prince have more right to be king of england , than the kingdom of england has to be england ? is it not an unaccountable tenderness and scrupulosity of conscience , to be so concerned for any one prince's right , as to sacrifice the rights and liberties of all the princes in europe , to his ? to set him upon the throne , to drive all other princes from theirs ? we are citizens of the world , as well as subjects of england , and have our obligations to mankind , and to other princes , as well as to our own ; and though our obligation to no one other prince is so great , as to our own , yet the publ●ck good of mankind , or of a great part of the world , is a more sacred obligation , than the particular interest of our own prince or countrey ; much less then can the right of any particular prince , be it what it will , stand in competition with the rights and liberties of our own countrey , and of all europe besides . it is to no more purpose to dispute with men who do not feel the force of this argument at the first hearing , than to reason with blind men about colours ; they have no sense left , nothing but a stupid and slavish loyalty ; all things , tho never so sacred , must give place to this ; the care of religion , the love of their countrey , their justice and charity to all mankind , must vail to their senseless mistake of the true meaning of this word loyalty ; by which they will needs understand an ●bsolute obedience , without limitation or rese●ve ; when most certainly , it signifies no more than obedience according to law. 2. i would ask them , what they would think themselves bound to do in such cases , were the late king upon the throne again ? unless they have chang'd their minds ( and then they are not so steady to principles , as they pretend to be ) we may very reasonably guess , what they would do , by what they did while he was upon the throne . it is certain they so much dislik'd his open designs of popery and arbitrary power , that they opposed him as far as they dur●t , and would not fight for him to keep him on the throne ; nay , by their examples and counsels , they had so influenced the army , that they would not fight for him neither ; and so possess'd the country , that the nobility and gentry took arms , and declared for the prince of orange , which they thought they might very well do , when the bishops would not declare against him . this was then thought consistent enough with the high-tory-loyalty ; and yet if they were not then bound to fight for him to keep him on his throne , i am at a great loss to know , how it comes to be their duty now to fight for him to restore him to it : he was certainly their king then , and yet they would not fight for him , no not to defend his person , crown and dignity . and tho they call him their king still , it is certain he is not king of england , whatever right they may think he has to be so ; and therefore to fight for him now , is not to fight for the king , but to fight to make him king again . but to let that pass , suppose him to be their king , since they will have him so , how do they come to be more obliged to fight for him now he is out of the throne , than they were to fight for him while he was in it ? if they think it their duty to fight for their king against the religion the laws , and the liberties of their countrey , it was their duty to have fought for him then ; if they do not think this , it cannot be their duty to fight for him now . but they did not expect what followed ; they desired to have their laws and liberties secured , but not that he should lose his crown : i believe very few did then expect what followed , no more than they do now consider what will follow : but since he would leave his crown , who could help it ? for no body took it from him . 3. let me then ask them another question ; whether they would think themselves bound in conscience to fight for him , did they verily believe , that if he recovered his throne , he would as zealously promote popery and arbitrary power , as he did before ? if they say they would not , they have been at their non putaram once already ; a second oversight in the same kind , would be worse than the first . if they say they would , i give them over , as profess'd enemies to the true religion , and the liberties of mankind . this i hope may satisfie the non-swearers , if they will coolly and seriously consider it , that they are not bound in conscience to fight for the late king ; nay , that they are as much bound in conscience not to fight for him , as they are bound not to fight against the protestant religion , and civil li●erties not only of england , but of all europe . 2. as for those who have sworn allegiance to king william and queen mary ; besides all the former considerations , they are under the obligations of an oath , not to fight against their present majesties , whose sworn subjects and leigemen they are . ●or let them expound faith and true allegiance , to as low a sense as possibly they can , the least that they ever could make of it , s to live quietly and peaceably under their government ; not to attempt any thing against their persons , or crowns , not to hold any correspondence with , nor to give any assistance to their enemies ; and therefore to countenance a french invasion , or to assist the late king in recovering the throne , which their majesties so well fill , and which they have sworn not to dispossess them of , must be downright perjury . if they be sure that their oaths to the late king still oblige them , that indeed would make void the obligation of this second oath ; but then they must be guilty of perjury in taking it , and by the breaking of it will declare to all the world , that they deliberately , and wilfully perjured themselves when they took it ; and let them remember this , when they take arms against their majesties , and let them expect that recompence which they deserve . those who took this , only as a temporary oath , which obliged them no longer than till the late king should return into england again to demand his crown , are guilty of perjury , if they keep it no longer than till they have a promising opportunity to break it : for this is to mock god , and to deceive the government by their oaths : for no man can think that the meaning of the oath was no more but this , i do promise and swear to bear faith and true allegiance to king william and queen mary , till i have power and opportunity by the return of king james with a french army , to join his forces , and to assist him to recover his throne . those who will take and keep oaths at this rate , we must leave to god : but nothing is more plain and certain , than that the new oath of allegiance obliges all , who have taken it , under the guilt of perjury , at least not to fight for the late king against king william and queen mary . and here i may very fairly conclude , without entring into a longer dispute about the lawfulness of fighting against a foreign army , though the late king were at the head of it ; for were those , who scruple this , satisfied that they ought not to fight for him , their present majesties have friends enow , who are very well satisfied to fight against him ; especially bringing along with him the greatest enemies both to the protestant religion , and to the civil liberties , not only of the english nation , but of all the kingdoms and states of europe , france it self not excepted . however , this letter is large enough already , and if i find you desire farther satisfaction in this matter , especially about the late king james's declaration , which is lately come to my hands , you may expect a speedy account of it in a second letter from sir , yours . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59824-e80 apol. for the new seperat . a vindication of a passage in dr. sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable house of commons, may 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the church of england, to both houses of parliament. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1685 approx. 60 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 16 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59898 wing s3369 estc r202693 11875206 ocm 11875206 50187 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59898) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50187) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 548:2) a vindication of a passage in dr. sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable house of commons, may 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the church of england, to both houses of parliament. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 27 p. printed for j. amery ..., london : 1685. reproduction of original in bristol public library, bristol, england. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -sermon preached at st. margarets westminister, may 29, 1685 before the honorable house of commons. remonstrance, by way of address from the church of england, to both houses of parliament. great britain -history -james ii, 1685-1688. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a vindication of a passage in dr. sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable house of commons , may 29. 1685. from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance , by way of address from the church of england , to both houses of parliament . imprimatur . c. alston , r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. a sacris domesticis . julii 6. 1685. london : printed for i. amery , at the peacock in fleetstreet ; and a. swalle , at the vnicorn at the west-end of st. paul's church-yard . 1685. a vindication of a passage in dr. sherlock's sermon , &c. when i first saw that pamphlet , which bears the title of , a remonstrance , by way of address from the church of england , to both houses of parliament , with some remarks upon dr. sherlock's sermon , i was not so curious to examine the contents of that paper , as to see what he had to say against that sermon , which received so great an approbation from the house of commons ; and turning over the page , i was soon directed by the margin to the place ; where i find these words prickt out for the subject of his remarks . i deny not , but some , who are papists , in some junctures of affairs , may and have been very loyal ; but i am sure the popish religion is not ; the english-man may be loyal , but not the papist ; and yet there can be no security of those mens loyalty , whose religion in any case teaches them to rebel . now this being an address from the church of england , which is so well acquainted with popish loyalty , any one would in reason have expected , that the doctor should have received a reprimand for touching that cause so gently ; and in my conscience , had any one attacked him there , he would have found more trouble , and been put to more shifts , in vindicating the personal loyalty of papists , than in proving that the popish religion does not teach loyalty : which is the accusation brought against him by the author of this remonstrance ; that he charges the popish religion with being disloyal , though some who are papists may be loyal . and i should have wondered at the discretion of this writer ( had he given any specimen of wit or understanding in any thing else ) that he would engage in so baffled a cause . the better way had been to have thanked the doctor for his complement , and to have left the doctrine of their church to have shifted for itself . but i confess , i have so great a kindness for the doctor , that i am unwilling he should continue under so scandalous an imputation , of having charged the church of rome with any doctrines which she dishowns , which had at all times been very wicked , but at this time had been folly and madness ; and therefore not to enter into the merits of the cause , which this writer has given no just occasion for , i shall onely very briefly consider , what he urges in vindication of the popish loyalty . the first argument he uses to prove , that their religion does not teach them to rebel , is because they themselves ( though they are very zealous for their religion ) deny that it does . do both in their publick writings and private discourses , declare and maintain , that their religion teaches no such doctrine , and that they are ready to maintain and practise true loyalty , with the hazard of their lives and fortunes . as for their practising true loyalty , i shall civilly wave that , because the doctor has thought fit to do so , and therefore it is no argument against him ; for it is no new thing for men to act contrary to the principles of their religion , and sometimes to be better than their religion in its just consequences teaches them to be , as i charitably hope many roman catholicks are . but who are these men , and what is their authority , who teach , that the deposing heretical kings , or those who are favourers of hereticks , is no doctrine of the church of rome ? i say , the deposing doctrine ; for i grant , they do not teach rebellion by that name : for when a prince is deposed by the authority of their church , they absolve their subjects from their fealty , and then it is no rebellion to rebel . and i wish our author had not some such reserve in those doubtful terms , rebelling and true loyalty : for to resist and dethrown a deposed prince , is not rebellion , according to the doctrine of the church of rome ; nor to defend him , true loyalty . but does this gentleman think , we have no other way of knowing the doctrine of their church , but by what they say , is the doctrine of their church ? suppose some of these sayers be so ignorant , that they know not what is the doctrine of their church ; some so crafty , as to conceal it ; some so heretical as to deny it , and to be censured , and excommunicated for it at rome ; what does their saying so or so signifie to us ? who have the authentick decrees of their popes and councils . they are very angry with us , when we alleadge the testimonies of their private doctors , though of the greatest note and eminency among them , whose writings have been published with the greatest authority , and received with the greatest applause , and yet they have the modesty to send us to an irish remonstrance , and the writings of p. w. or to the renowned author of the roman catholick principles , to learn the doctrine of the church of rome ; admirable vouchers for the church of rome , some of whom at least are no better than apostates themselves , and are condemned for such at rome . suppose we should be perswaded by the authority and rhetorick of this author , that the church of rome does not teach the deposing doctrine , and should assert it against all the jesuits in the world , and one of them should answer in the very words of this remonstrance . what reason has any man to say , that our religion does not teach us to rebel ( that is to depose and murder heretical princes ) when we who are so jealous of our religion , that we voluntarily suffer the loss of our estates , our liberties , and our lives , rather than renounce the least tittle of it ; do both in our publick writings and private discourses , declare and maintain that our religion does teach the deposing doctrine , and that we are ready to maintain and practise it with the hazard of our lives and fortunes ? what a fine case are we in now ! when the doctrine and practice of the jesuits proves , that the deposing doctrine is the doctrine of the church of rome ; and the doctrine and practice ( says our author ) of some other nameless party proves , that it is not the doctrine of the church of rome ; and yet i see no reason , why the jesuits may not pass for as good catholicks as any other order amongst them , nor why baronius , and bellarmine , and suarez , &c. may not be thought as good catholick doctors , as some few late writers . this argument then will prove nothing because it proves both parts of a contradiction to be true , that the deposing doctrine is , and is not , the doctrine of the church of rome . had he ingenuously acknowledged , that the deposing doctrine had been decreed and practised by their popes and general councils , that no pope or council since gregory the seventh had ever condemned it , that the jesuits do still maintain it , and yet in the late censure of some other jesuitical doctrines , the present pope thought fit to let the deposing doctrine escape without censure ; but notwithstanding this , they did utterly disown it , and would do so , though they knew the church of rome had defined it , or ever hereafter should do so , this had been something to the purpose to satisfie both prince and people of their loyalty . but to say , that this is not the doctrine of the church of rome , is to out-face all mankind , who have eyes in their heads , and skill enough to read the decrees of their popes and councils ; and to found their loyalty upon this supposition , that the deposing doctrine is not the doctrine of the church , gives too great a suspicion that if this were the doctrine of the church of rome , or ever should be so , or they should ever be convinced that is so , then they would be for the deposing of princes too ; and whatever some little inferiour people in communion with the church of rome think of these matters , while the governing part of the church believes otherwise , as they certainly do at this day , ( if the pope and his adherents are the governing part ) princes have no security , that popes will not challenge and exercise this authority , but their want of power to do it ; and this , i am sure , is wholly owing to the reformation : for till princes had subjects who valued not the popes authority , they themselves were the popes vassals , and must necessarily be so again , could they extinguish this pestilent heresie , the great fault of which is , that it has given strength and security to princes , by weakening the pope . but our author proceeds : 't is true , some persons in communion with rome have broached tenents inconsistent with loyalty ; but 't is true likewise , their books have been condemned and burnt ( as they often tell us ) by the publick executioner . it is true indeed , mariana's book de rege & regis institutione , suarez defensio fid . cath. & sanctarellus tractatus de haeresi , and it may be some others , were condemned to be burnt by the parliament at paris ; but no thanks to the church of rome for this , who never condemned these doctrines . it is said indeed , that mariana's book was censured by the pope ; and it is true , the pope did censure one of his books , as we learn from alegambe in biblioth . script . societ . jesu , p. 258. but not that de rege which was burnt at paris : and as for sanctarellus , his book was printed at rome by the express allowance of vitellescus the general of the jesuits ; and when the parliament of paris took great offence at it , and examined some of the jesuits what they thought of it , father coton answered , that they disliked it . and being farther asked , how they could disapprove what their general allowed , he replied , that their general being at rome , could do no less . upon this they enquire what they would do , if they were at rome ; the jesuit frankly answered , they should think as they do at rome , as gramondus relates . and how this proves that the church of rome is such an enemy to the deposing and king-killing doctrine , i cannot tell : for it seems , that those who upon some prudent considerations may condemn such doctrines at paris or london , may prove good catholicks at rome , such influence has a different climate upon some mens faith. but he addes , the roman catholicks do frequently declare , that it is an article of faith in their church , and expresly declared in the council of constance , that the king-killing , doctrine , or murder of princes excommunicated for heresie , is damnable and heretical , as being contrary to the known laws of god and nature . but whatever the roman catholicks declare ( which we have but one nameless author's word for , the author of the roman catholick principles , who yet assignes this as the chief reason , why many catholicks of tender consciences refuse the oath of allegiance , because they cannot renounce the deposing doctrine as heretical ; which is strange , if , as he says , the council of constance has condemned it as damnable and heretical ) i am sure the council of constance declares no such thing . he directs us to sess. 15. of that council , where indeed i find this proposition condemned : quilibet tyrannus potest & debet . that any tyrant may and ought lawfully and meritoriously be killed by any of his vassals and subjects by treachery or flattery , notwithstanding any oath of fealty , non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscunque , without expecting the sentence or command of any judge . so that the council condemns the killing of a tyrant , not of a heretick ; and the killing of a tyrant who is not condemned and deposed , not of one who is excommunicated for heresie . and that last clause , without expecting the sentence and command of any judge , supposes that it is no fault to do it , but may be a very lawful and meritorious act , to kill such princes as are deposed by superiour judges , that is , by the pope or council , which is the onely authority that ever pretended to judge or depose soveraign princes : and therefore when suarez was urged with this decree , he answers , where do you find in the acts of that council , that this extends to princes excommunicated or deposed by the pope . this council of constance owns the fourth council of lateran for a general council , and decrees , that every new-elected pope before the publication of his election , shall profess to maintain this among other general councils , to the least tittle , with the expence of his life and bloud ; and therefore what the doctrine of this council was about deposing princes , we may learn from the council of lateran , which expresly defines , that if the temporal lord being required and admonished by the church , shall neglect to purge his country from the filth of heresie , he shall be excommunicated by their metropolitan and his suffragan bishops ; and if he neglect to make satisfaction within a year , this shall be signified to the pope , that from thenceforth he may declare his subjects absolved from their fealty , and expose his country to be seized by catholicks , who shall possess it without any contradiction , and preserve it in the purity of the faith , provided the principal lord may receive no damage by it , if he do nothing to hinder these proceedings ; and yet the same law shall be observed as to those who have no principal lords over them . that is , all soveraign princes , and emperours , who are liable to the sentence of excommunication and deprivation , if they do not purge their dominions of heresie . now this i take to be deposing doctrine . but we need not go to the council of lateran to learn the sence of the council of constance in this point . pope martin the fifth , in his bull for confirmation of this council , speaks very home to the case , that all hereticks , and their followers of both sexes , and those who hold and defend such heresies , or communicate with such hereticks publickly or secretly , in religious offices or any other way , though they shine in the dignity of patriarchs , arch-bishops , bishops , kings , queens , dukes , or any other ecclesiastical or secular title , shall be pronounced excommunicate in the presence of the people , every sunday and holy-day . and that the archbishops , bishops and inquisitors , shall by our authority diligently inquire concerning them who hold , defend , or receive such heresies and errours , of what dignity , state , preheminence , degree , order , or condition soever they are : and if they be found quilty , shall by the foresaid authority proceed against them by punishments of excommunication , suspension , interdict , as also of deprivation of their dignities , offices , and benefices ecclesiastical , and also of their secular dignities and honours ; and by any other penalties , sentences , ecclesiastical censures , which they shall judge fitting , even by taking and imprisoning their persons , and executing upon them any corporal punishments with which hereticks use to be punished , according to the canonical sanctions . this is the council , which our author tells us expresly declares , that the king-killing doctrine or murder of princes excommunicated for heresie , is damnable and heretical , as being contrary to the known laws of god and nature ; and yet for ought i can perceive by this bull , the greatest emperour in the world , if he be a heretick , or a favourer of hereticks , if the pope have as much power as authority , may be burnt , as john huss , and ierom of prague , were by this council . the account of that article , quilibet tyrannus , in short is this : the duke of burgundy had caused lewis duke of orleans to be murdered ; johannes parvus a divine of paris , to justifie this action , defended that proposition , that a tyrant might be killed by any of his subjects , without expecting the sentence or command of any judge ; which mariana asserts to be certainly true , and that the onely difficulty is to know , who is a tyrant . so that this is a true commonwealth-principle , like the seventeenth article of john wickleff , which was condemned also in this council ; populares possunt ad suum arbitrium dominos delinquentes corrigere . the people may correct their lords or governours , when they do amiss , according to their own will and pleasure . and this i grant is not the doctrine of the church of rome , which reserves this power wholly to it self , though it has been defended by many jesuits , such as mariana and suarez , from whence our late rebels learnt their maxims of government . but these two questions ought to be carefully distinguished , or else we may indeed injure the church of rome ; whether the people have an inherent right in themselves to depose , or punish , or murder tyrannical princes ; and whether the pope have authority to depose princes for heresie or other causes , and to absolve their subjects from their obedience : the first is not the doctrine of the church , ( though it be of many jesuits ) but is expresly condemned by this council ; though mariana truly observes , that the condemnation of this proposition , quilibet tyrannus , is not confirmed by the popes bull , as the condemnation of the articles of wickleff and huss expresly is ; which gives some suspicion , that he did not much like it , especially considering what gerson tells us , that this doctrine of johan parvus was branched out into nine articles , and he was very zealous to have had them all distinctly condemned , but could not obtain it ; and therefore complains , errorem illum non sufficienter sed valdé diminute damnatum esse , that this errour was not sufficiently , but very imperfectly condemned ; which he attributes to that kindness many of them had for the duke of burgundy . however , i do not find this doctrine defined in any of their general councils , and it is condemned ( though gerson says imperfectly ) in this , and therefore is not to be accounted the doctrine of the church of rome . but as for the popes deposing power , it is not onely asserted by jesuits , but decreed by their councils , and therefore must be accounted the doctrine of their church . but our author proceeds : that no catholicks , as catholicks , believe that the pope hath any direct or indirect authority over the temporal power and jurisdiction of princes : so that if the pope shall pretend to absolve or dispence with his majesties subjects from their allegiance upon account of heresie and schism , such dispensation would be vain and null , and all catholick subjects ( notwithstanding such dispensation or absolution ) would be still bound in conscience to defend their king and country , at the hazard of their lives and fortunes , even against the pope himself , in case he should invade the nation . and yet we see that popes challenge this deposing power , and their councils own and decree it ; and where to find the roman catholick faith , but in the decrees of their popes and roman catholick general councils , i cannot guess . and if we may take and leave what we please of their councils , and be good catholicks still , i see no reason why we may not reject the decrees of their councils about transubstantiation , purgatory , indulgences , the invocation of saints , and worship of images , and continue as good catholicks as they are , who renounce the authority of their councils as to the deposing doctrine . i am sure the council of constance would have condemned these men for hereticks , who should presume to reject any doctrine , which this or other general councils had determined ; for in the bull of martin v. in the articles of inquiry after hereticks , they were to ask them this question among others : whether he believed , that what this holy council of constance , representing the vniversal church , hath approved and doth approve in favour of the faith , and the salvation of souls , is to be held and approved of all christian people ; and what it hath and doth condemn as contrary to faith and good manners , that is to be held , and believed , and professed by them to be condemned . it were easie to multiply testimonies to this purpose ; as the deposition of the emperour frederick ii. in the general council at lyons by pope innocent iv. the breve of paul v. to the english catholicks , against taking the oath of allegiance ; but my author has given no occasion to proceed any farther . he appeals to the general council of constance , and i joyn issue with him here , and leave it to every man to judge , whether that council has decreed the king-killing doctrine , or murder of princes excommunicated for heresie , to be damnable and heretical . the first of those three treatises against the oath of allegiance , which are published by the title of the jesuits loyalty , proves at large that the deposing doctrine is the doctrine of the church of rome , by several very material arguments . 1. that popes have taught it as sound doctrine , proving it from scripture and tradition , and condemned the contrary as erroneous in faith , pernicious to salvation , wicked folly and madness , and inflicted censures on them that held it . 2. that popes have in the highest tribunals of the church deposed soveraign princes , and absolved their subjects from their allegiance ; and this with the advice and consent of their councils , and not onely patriarchal , but sometimes even general . 3. that popes , and general councils by them confirmed , have denounced excommunication to such as should obey their princes after such sentence of deposition and absolution of their subjects from their allegiance . 4. that a general council , confirmed by the pope , hath made a cannon-law , regulating the manner of deposing princes in some case , and absolving their subjects from their allegiance . 5. that all catholick divines and casuists that have treated of it , from the first to the last , ( after calvin's time ) in all the several nations of christendom , have asserted this power of the pope , without so much as one contradicting it in all that time . 6. that all catholick emperours , kings , ( yea , even they that were deposed ) states , magistrates , and lawyers , and finally all the catholicks in the world , for the time being , have ( by tacit consent at least ) approved and received this doctrine of popes , divines and casuists , and these censures , canons , and practices of popes and general councils . this is enough in all conscience , if it be well proved ( as i think truly the greatest part of it is ) to prove the deposing doctrine to be the doctrine of the church of rome ; and when there is so great and potent a party among themselves , who appear so zealous in this cause , i cannot understand what fault the doctor committed in charging them with that which they are so ambitious to be charged with . if it be a calumny , popes and councils , divines and casuists and lawyers , are the authors of the calumny ( not those who believe it upon their report ) who are the properest judges , what authority it is they challenge ; and all the world knows what it is they exercise as often as they can . there is indeed an answer given to this treatise by one of those catholick divines ( as they call themselves ) who will not own this to be the doctrine of the church . i read it over with great zeal and expectation to see it confuted , which i profess i should have been very glad to have seen fairly done : for i take no pleasure in the errours and mistakes of any church ; and i think he has proved , that those kings and emperours who were deposed , did not like the deposing doctrine , as any one would guess ; and i confess , i thought it at first a bold attempt in the author of that treatise to prove the contrary , which is the onely matter of fact , wherein he has apparently the better of his adversary ; but as for other matters ( excepting the opinions of all catholick divines and casuists before calvin , which may admit of some debate ) he yields it all , and laughs at his adversary for taking so much pains to prove what no body denies , viz. that popes have taught this doctrine , that popes and councils have made such decrees , and have actually executed them upon kings and emperours ; and that their most eminent divines and casuists have defended this doctrine , and justified such decrees and practices : but yet he says , all this does not prove it to be the doctrine of their church , nor de fide . now this does not concern the doctor , who did not meddle with their church nor articles of faith , but asserted that the popish religion is not loyal , and that in some cases it teaches subjects to rebel . now if the doctrine and decrees of popes and councils be no part of the popish religion , whether they be in a strict sence articles of faith or not ; if the decrees of councils to depose heretical princes or the favourers of hereticks , and to absolve their subjects from their allegiance , do not teach subjects to rebel in such cases , then indeed the doctor may be mistaken , especially if it be any comfort to a deposed prince , that he is deposed by vertue of a decree of popes and councils ; but yet the popes power of deposing princes , is no article of faith. but yet it may be of good use to set this matter in a clear light , and to hear the utmost that can be said to vindicate the church of rome from teaching so pernicious a doctrine as this . and what the answerer to the first treatise against the oath of allegiance says , is contained in a narrow compass , and i shall reduce it into as easie a method as i can . the truth is , i generally like what he says very well , and think he has proved that it ought not to be the doctrine of the church , and that no man is bound to believe it , whatever church teaches it ; but i think he has not proved , that it is not the doctrine of the church of rome . he frankly acknowledges , that this deposing doctrine has been taught by popes , and has been decreed by general councils ( which our remonstrancer denies ) let us hear then how he vindicates the church of rome from teaching such a doctrine , and truly i cannot find that he ever attempts it . 1. he says indeed this is not the doctrine of the church , and we believe it is not , if by church he means the universal church of all ages ; but yet it may be the doctrine of the church of rome , which teaches a great many doctrines which the primitive and apostolical churches never heard of : and therefore though it be true what he says , that all the ages before gregory the seventh were positively against the deposing doctrine ; that this was a doctrine brought in in the eleventh century , against the judgement and practice of ten before ; that the fathers were not of this mind ; and a great deal to this purpose : yet this does not prove that the present church of rome does not teach this doctrine ; which is plain matter of fact to be seen in the decrees of their popes and councils , as he himself acknowledges . thus he proves , that this doctrine is not an article of faith : for two things are necessary to make an article of faith. first , that the point have been originally revealed by christ ; and secondly , that this revelation have been preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform practice of the faithful ; and if any of these conditions are wanting , he denies any engagement of the church in these concerns , or that the church has believed , taught , or practised this deposing doctrine : that is to say , if any church teaches such doctrines , as have not the true characters of articles of faith , she does not teach true articles of faith ; but yet such doctrines may be articles of faith in the church of rome , though they be not articles of the catholick faith ; for if no church can make articles of faith for her self , which are not articles of the catholick faith , then no church can be guilty of heresie , for she never can have an heretical faith , if nothing can be the faith of the church , but what is catholick ; which indeed is the only expedient i know of in the world , to prove the church of rome not to be guilty of heresie ; but then it will justifie all other churches , as well as the church of rome . i thought all different churches or communions of christians had been distinguisht from each other by their articles of faith , and ecclesiastical policy , their canons , or laws of discipline ; and if i would know , what is the doctrine , government , or discipline of the church of rome , or of the church of england , i must not enquire either what the scripture teaches , or what was taught many ages since by the primitive fathers , but must examine the authentick records of these churches , the decrees of popes and councils , their articles and canons ; for it is impossible to know , what is believed and practised in the church of rome , or england at this day , but by such records : what is the true catholick faith , and what is the faith of the church of rome , or of the church of england , are two very different questions , and must be proved different ways ; we must learn the catholick faith of the church from the doctrine of the scriptures , or the writings of the primitive fathers ; but we must learn the faith of the church of rome , or england , or any other church , by their own writings , confirmed by the highest authority that is in such a church : and therefore as we must learn the doctrine of the church of england , from our articles and canons , so we must learn the doctrine of the church of rome , by the definitions , decrees , constitutions , canons of popes and councils , whose authority is received and acknowledged in the church of rome ; and as he , who renounces the 39 articles , or any of them , does so far separate from the church of england , and renounce its authority and communion ; so do those , who renounce the decrees and definitions of popes and councils , so far forth renounce the church of rome , the doctrine , government , and discipline of it . and as it would be absurd to say , that the church of england does not renounce transubstantiation , because this author thinks , it is a catholick doctrine ; so it is equally absurd to say , that this doctrine of deposing princes , is not the doctrine of the church of rome , though taught by popes and councils , that is , by the highest authority of that church , because this author believes , that , notwithstanding what popes and councils say , it is not the doctrine of the universal church in all ages ; which is a good reason indeed to prove , that we ought not to receive such doctrines , though taught by the church of rome , but is no proof , that this is not taught by the church of rome . thus it is nothing to the purpose , as far as we are concerned in this controversie , whether popes or councils be fallible or infallible , whether what they decree be an article of faith , or not , whether it be true or false ; for if the popes and their councils be the highest authority in the church of rome , we must learn from them , what is the doctrine of the church of rome , be it true or false , as we do , what the doctrine of the church of england is , from the articles and canons agreed on in convocation ; though we do not pretend that the convocation is infallible , or that what they determine must be true , because they determine it . all the little ( not to say senceless ) distinctions , which this answerer uses , tend only to prove , that what is decreed by popes and councils , is not therefore the doctrine of the church , that is , of the universal catholick church , unless it have the confirmation of catholick tradition , which i will easily grant him ; but yet it may , and must be the doctrine of the present church of rome , if it be determined by all the authority , that is in that church : for that is the doctrine of any church , which is agreed on , and determined by the highest authority in it ; and i know no greater authority in the church of rome , than that of popes and councils ; and therefore the deposing doctrine being defined and decreed by popes and councils ( as he himself acknowledges ) must be the doctrine of the church of rome . 2. no says this answerer , councils have made a canon for the deposing heretical princes , but have not defined , that the pope or council have authority to do it . councils use to define those things , which they intend we should be obliged to believe . to make a canon is one thing , to define is another . decreeing and supposing are plainly not defining ; and therefore this deposing doctrine is no article of faith in the church of rome ; nor are they bound to beleive it , because though it has been decreed , it has not been defined in any council . an admirable apology for the church of rome ! the council of lateran ( says this answerer ) made a decree concerning deposition ; the council of lyons assented to an actual deposition ; therefore they were both perswaded , they or the pope , had power to depose . i , for my part , see not what more can be made of it . and for my part , i see not what more need be made of it , to justifie the doctor , or any one else , who charges the church of rome ▪ with the deposing doctrine . he may dispute with his adversary , if he pleases , whether such a deposing canon , prove the deposing doctrine to be an article of faith ; but i think it is much at one , whether a prince be deposed by an article of faith , or by a decree or canon . if that canon , which decrees the deposing of princes , and absolving their subjects from their allegiance , teaches subjects to rebel , and the church of rome has made such a canon , ( as evidently they have , if roman catholick general councils be the representative of that church ) i think it does not mend the matter much , whether the deposing doctrine be an article of faith or not . and yet i am not satisfied , but , that to decree what shall be done , includes a virtual definition of that doctrine , on which that decree is founded . to decree , that an heretical prince shall be deposed , signifies something more than a bare definition , that an heretical prince may be deposed ; and i believe all mankind , who have not lost common sense by metaphysical subtilities , have always taken it for granted , that a decree includes a definition . nay to decree without a definition , supposes the deposing doctrine , whereon the decree of deposition is founded , to be so universally received and acknowledged , that there was no need of an express definition ; which , i think , ties it as hard upon the church of rome , as any definition could do . the sum is this : this answerer acknowledges , that popes and councils have decreed the deposing doctrine , but will by no means grant , that this is the doctrine of the church , ( there by meaning , the universal church of all ages ) nor that they are bound to believe it , and i readily grant him all this , but do still averr , that it is the doctrine of the present church of rome ; which is all that i intend to prove , for i never thought it was the doctrine of the true catholick church , or that any christian ought to believe it . as the church of rome is distinguished from other communions of christians , we have no other way to learn what she teaches but from popes and councils , who are the highest authority in that church , and they teach the deposing doctrine ; and therefore those , who live in communion with that church , and own its authority , must own it too . those who disown this doctrine , so far disown the authority of the church of rome , and may be the better subjects for being the worse papists , which i think is no great commendation to that religion . 3. now since popes and councils have decreed and thereby defined the deposing doctrine , and this answerer does and must believe the church of rome to be the catholick church . i desire to know , how he can avoid that inference , that this deposing doctrine , ever since it has been decreed by popes and councils , has been the doctrine of the church ? for is not the church of rome the church still , since it decreed the deposing doctrine ? and is not a general council , the representative of the church of that age , wherein this council is held ? and are not the decrees of such a council then the doctrine of the church ? no , says our answerer , i do not understand , how the church can be engaged , unless she proceeds on those grounds , on which alone a church as a church , or congregation of faithful can proceed . which he there tells us , is a revelation by christ , preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform practice of the faithful , that is , by that exploded oracle of infallible tradition . but if any , or all of those , who make the church believe not , or act on other grounds than these , i conceive they believe and act , not as a church or as faithful , but as men , or scholars , or in some other capacity . — the truth is , when councils leave their proper work , defining and declaring to posterity the faith received from their ancestors , and fall to discoursing , or rather acting on discourses formerly made , they are not in strict formality , councils , i mean in that propriety in which they are held to be infallible , but men assembled to be a council , and proceeding now , not as a council , but as so many men . and must this pass for good catholick doctrine ; that all the men in the church may err , and yet the church cannot err , which preserves infallibility in the church by as great a miracle , as the species of bread and wine in the sacrament without a subject . but , i beseech you , when are general councils infallible ? when they decree and define , what is infallibly true . right ! and thus the convocation of the province of canterbury or york are as infallible , as any general council . nay any private christian is as infallible as either , if he adhere to infallible tradition . but i thought it had been catholick doctrine , that a general council are no longer to be considered as men , but as the church representative , which is under the conduct and influence of an infallible spirit to secure them from error : but it seems even a general council may err ; only then they err not as a council , but as men : but how shall we know , when they are a council , and when they are men ? truly this is not to be known , till they have made their definitions and decrees ; and then if they be agreeable to catholick tradition , they acted as a council , if not they were only fallible men. but who shall be judge of this ? who is the keeper of this c●tholick tradition ? why every man must judge for himself , it is the sence written in the hearts of the faithful , and appearing in their actions : the writing foretold by the prophet , jerem. 3. in the bowels and hearts of the house of israel . and thus i hope in time our quakers may be good catholicks . the sum then of his argument , whereby he proves , that the deposing doctrine is not taught by the church , though it be taught by popes , and general councils , is this , that the pope is not infallible , at least that his infallibility is but a probable opinion ; that general councils are not the church , but fallible men when they err , and infallible only when they do not err ; that though popes and councils and all the men in the church teach this doctrine , yet the church does not teach it . now , whether these propositions be true or false , i enquire not , but desire all good catholicks to observe , that they must renounce the infallibility and authority of the popes and general councils of the church of rome , or acknowledge the deposing doctrine to be the doctrine of the church . this distinction between the church and the men of the church , destroys all the visible authority of the church , and leaves every man at liberty to judge for himself , what is catholick tradition ; which is so loose a principle , that a doctor of the church of england would be ashamed of it ; let them no more talk of a visible church , if the whole visible authority of the church be not the church ; if all those men , in whom the teaching and governing authority of the church resides , whether popes and councils may teach such doctrines , and yet the church not teach them ; does the church cease to be a church , when it teaches any thing contrary to catholick tradition ? then it seems there was no church during all the time of those popes and councils , which taught the deposing doctrine ; nor is there any roman catholick church to this day , wherein these doctrines are still taught , and will be so , till those decrees of popes and councils be repealed , which teach these doctrines : or , are they a church , and yet the church not teach , what they , who are the church , teach with all the authority of a church ? or , are they a church , and no church , at the same time ? is not the sentence , which a judge pronounces by the authority of a judge , a judicial act , though it be contrary to law ? and by the same reason , are not the decrees of the council , which is , the , church representative , the acts of the church , though they be contrary to catholick faith and tradition ? does a judge cease to be a judge , or the church to be the church , when they pronounce false ? and if not , are not such false judgments , or erroneous decrees , the acts of the judge , or of the church still ? let him but tell me , whether he will have a church or no church , and he shall find me very civil in granting either ; but how this doctrine will relish with good catholicks , i cannot guess . in short these men , who will not allow the deposing doctrine to be the doctrine of the church of rome , though they acknowledge it to have been decreed by popes and councils , go upon these principles ; 1. that popes and councils may and have decreed such doctrines , as are contrary to scripture , and catholick tradition . 2. that no good catholick is bound to own such doctrines , though decreed by popes and councils . 3. that the doctrine of the present church of rome , is not the doctrine of the catholick church . 4. that men are good catholicks not by adhering to the doctrine of the present church of rome , but of the scriptures expounded by primitive and catholick tradition . all this i firmly believe , they are the very principles on which our reformation is founded , and by which we justifie our selves against the innovations of the church of rome ; but though these principles will justifie the reformation , yet they will not prove , that this deposing doctrine is not taught by the present church of rome . let us then now return again to our remonstrancer , and having got rid of the council of constance , and proved , that it is so far from condemning , that it hath approved and confirmed the deposing doctrine , what remains is nothing but insinuation , and address , without the least appearance of an argument : but let us hear what it is ; and he proceeds thus . i say seeing roman catholicks do thus generally declare their loyalty , i think they ought no more in justice to be charged with disloyal principles , for the extravagancy of some few of that vast body , and those censured and condemned too by them , than i am to be charged with the principles of the like disloyalty and injustice , because some of my children have been for the bill of exclusion , and others who communicated with me , have written scandalous pamphlets , narratives , &c. tending to treason and rebellion . this is spoke in the person of the church of england , and a very fair speech he has made for her , wherein there is not any one thing fairly represented . for 1. the doctor does not charge loyal papists with disloyal principles , only says , that the popish religion is not loyal ; but it is possible , that many papists may not believe this to be the doctrine of the church of rome , as many of them profess not to do ; others may abhor the doctrine , and renounce the authority of the church of rome in this particular , though they hold communion with her in her worship ; others may have such a natural and inbred loyalty , such a love to their prince and country , as antidotes them against the infection of bad principles ; now these men may be loyal , as the doctor acknowledges , and may act upon very loyal principles too , but they are not the principles of the popish religion ; and there is some hazard , that while men embrace a religion , and own the authority of a church , which teaches the deposing doctrine , they may be corrupted by their religion , when there happens any competition between their loyalty and religion ; which is all the doctor asserted , and which any disinterested person would have thought as inoffensive as it is true . and since this passage has raised such an unjust clamour against the doctor , i shall only observe , what just reason there is for such a jealousie after all their declarations of loyalty , in that ( some very few excepted ) they obstinately refuse the oath of allegeance , which there can be no colourable pretence for , but that they will not forswear the deposing doctrine , and there is reason to suspect , that those who will not abjure so pernicious a doctrine , may be perswaded to practise it , when time serves . pope paul the fifth , an. 1606. by a breve written to the english catholicks , declared and taught them , as pastor of their souls , that the oath of allegeance , established by parliament 3. jac. salvâ fide catholicâ , et salute animarum suarum praestari non posse , cùm multa contineat , quae fidei ac saluti apertè adversantur ; cannot be taken without violating the catholick faith , and injuring the salvation of their souls , as containing many things , which are manifestly contrary to faith and salvation . now as the author of the first treatise against the oath of allegeance well observes ( p. 11. ) there are not in it ( multa ) many things to which this censure is possibly applicable , unless this be one , that the pope hath no power to depose the king , or absolve his subjects from their oath of allegeance . now , when , in obedience to the pope , the roman catholicks to this day obstinately refuse this oath , is there not reason to suspect , that they are not clear in this point ? and then , let any man judge , what security there is of their loyalty . 2. he says it is unjust , that they should be charged with disloyal principles for the extravagancies of some few of that vast body , and those censured and condemned too by them . this i must acknowledge would be very unjust , but it is not true . those whom he calls a few , are no less than popes and general councils , and their most eminent divines , schoolmen , casuists , canonists , for several ages ; who neither were , nor could be censured , because they were the highest authority in the church ; whereas in truth it is only some few , who have taught the contrary , and those indeed have been censured and excommunicated at rome , as some english chatholicks can inform him . 3. he makes the church of england say , that some of her children were for the bill of exclusion . if he would have passed for a church of england man , he should have observed a better decorum in personating the church , and not have made her say such things , as no ingenuous papist would affix to her . if ever the loyalty of the church of england was tried , it was in that affair , which she had no other interest , but a sense of duty , to oblige her to ; and i know not any one man , who was firm and stedfast to the church , but was so to the succession too , though he underwent the imputation of being a papist , or popishly inclined for it . it is sufficiently known , that the prevailing party of these houses of commons , who were for the bill of exclusion , were ready prepared to accommodate and comprehend away the church of england ; and he might , with equal truth , and honesty have charged the rebellion of 41 on the sons of the church of england , as the bill of exclusion . but this is so barefaced a calumny , that it confutes it self , and shames its author . 4. let us then consider , what comparison there is between the case of the church of rome , and of the church of england ; or , whether there be the same reason to charge the church of england with disloyalty , that there is to charge the church of rome . the church of rome teaches the deposing doctrine by all the authority that is in that church ; the church of england teaches the strictest obedience to princes , without any reserved cases , and threatens eternal damnation to all rebels , how religious soever their pretences are . those who teach the deposing doctrine , speak the sense of the church of rome , are her true and genuine sons ; those who allow subjects in any case to rebel , contradict the doctrine of the church of england ; and therefore it is as unjust to charge the church of england , with the treasons and rebellions , which are committed contrary to her declared doctrine , as it is just to charge the church of rome with such practices , as she her self decrees and teaches . if roman catholicks be loyal to a deposed and excommunicated prince , no thanks to the church of rome for it , who forbids them to be so . if any in communion with the church of england be disloyal , this is no fault of the church , which teaches loyalty . and since he has been pleased to mention the bill of exclusion , i would desire him to tell me at his leisure , what roman catholick nation , who had all the power in their hands , would have suffered a protestant prince to have succeeded quietly to his throne ? we know how it fared with henry the fourth of france , notwithstanding the parliament of paris burnt mariana's book , and what henrician hereticks in those days signified . but our church teaches better , and the true sons of the church practise better , and will never repent of what they have done , though they be unjustly reproached by fanaticks for doing it , and as unjustly charged by as kind remonstrating friends , as any rome affords , with opposing it . and now i come to his convincing argument ; that the papists do not hold such pernicious doctrines ; that he sees so many kings and princes in other countries no less jealous of their lives and authorities than others , who yet profess and maintain that religion , and think themselves secure by their principles , when they dare not trust the calvinist . the church of rome , you know , sir , never wants miracles , and it may be , this is none of the least . for my part i dare not pretend to give a reason , why any man professes that religion , much less , why princes do so ; and yet it is not more impossible , that men should maintain a religion against their interest , than believe contrary to their sences . i suppose , it is as much against the interest of princes to be actually deposed by popes and councils , as it is to profess a religion , which teaches the deposing doctrine ; and yet when henry the fourth was deposed by gregory the vii . and frederick the second by pope innocent the fourth in the council of lyons , and in such other instances of the actual exercise of this deposing doctrine , neither the deposed princes and emperors , nor other catholick kings , renounced the communion of the church of rome for it ; and if kings can be contented to continue in the communion of that church , which actually deposes princes , nay , deposes themselves , it does not seem to me so convincing an argument , that the church of rome does not teach the deposing doctrine , meerly because princes , who are jealous of their lives and authority , hold communion with it . if they can perswade princes , that there is no salvation to be had in any other church , those who have a mind to be saved , must be contented to dispense with some temporal inconveniencies to save their souls ; and indeed they have made the way to heaven so very easie , that it may perswade princes , who love their pleasures , to bear with the rudeness and insolencies of popes . and yet no man ever denied , but the papists may be very good subjects to popish princes ; while they obey the pope , the pope commands their subjects to obey them ; the only danger is , when the pope and the prince are not of a side , whom the subjects shall obey then , the deposed prince , or the deposing pope ; and it is no greater wonder , that a popish prince can more securely trust his popish subjects , than calvinists , than that a calvinistical prince places more confidence in his calvinistical subjects , than in papists ; for generally , neither papists , nor calvinists , can endure any prince but of their own religion ; but now any prince , whether papists or calvinists , may be secure in the loyalty of the church of england , which reverences the person and authority of their prince , whatever his religion be . as for what he adds concerning our present king ▪ ( whom god long preserve ) there is less reason for him to fear the deposing doctrine ( though he did believe it to be the doctrine of the church of rome ) than for any other catholick prince in the world. for as the case stands , it is finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59898-e270 remonst . p. 2. roman cathol . principles , p. 6. conc. to. 12. p. 144. suarez defens . fid . lib. 6. cap. 4. concil . constance . sess. 39. si verò dominus temporalis requisitus & monitus ab ecclesiâ , terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica faeditate , per metropolitanum & caeteros comprovinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur , & si satisfacere contempserit infra annum , significetur hoc summo pontifici , ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos , & terram exponat catholicis occupandum , qui eam , exterminatis haereticis , sine ullâ contradictione possideant , & in fidei puritate conservent , salvo jure domini principalis , dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum , nec aliquod impedimentum opponat ; eâdem nihilo minus lege servatâ circa eos , qui non habent dominos principales . concil . to. 11. p. 148 , 149. edit . ●abb . concil . const. sess. 45. omnes & singulos haereticos hujusmodi , necnon sectatores ipsarum haeresum & errorum utriusque sexùs , tenentes & etiam defendentes eosdem , & haereticis ipsis quo modo libet publicè vel occultè in divinis vel alias participantes , etiamsi patriarchali , episcopali , regali , reginali , ducali , aut aliâ quâvis ecclesiasticà vel mundanâ praesulgeant dignitate — excommunicatos singulos diebus dominicis & festivis in praesentia populi nuntietis , & per alios nuntiari faciatis : et nihil ominus contra eosdem omnes & singulos , utriusque sexus , hujusmodi errores tenentes , approbantes , defendentes , dogmatizantes , ac fautores & receptatores , & defensores eorundem , exemptos & non exemptos , & quemlibet ipsorum , cujuscunque dignitatis , status praeeminentiae , gradus , ordinis , vel conditionis ( ut praefertur ) existant , auctoritate nostrâ diligenter inquirere studeatis , & eos quos per inquisitionem hujusmodi defamatos , vel per confessionem eorum seu per facti evidentiam , vel alias hujusmodi haeresis , aut erroris labe respersos reperietis , auctoritate praedictâ etiam per excommunicationis , suspensionis , & interdicti , necnon privationis dignitatum , personatuum & officiorum , aliorumque beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum , ac feudorum , quae à quibuscumque ecclesiis , monasteriis ac aliis locis ecclesiasticis obtinent , ac etiam bonorum & dignitatum saecularium ac graduum scientiarum quarumcunque facultatum , & per alias poenas , sententias , & censuras ecclesiasticas , ac vias & modos , quos ad hoc expedire , seu opportunos esse videritis , etiam pèr captiones & incarcerationes personarum , & alias poenas corporales , quibus haeretici puniuntur , seu puniri jubentur aut solent juxta canonicas sanctiones . conc. const. sess. 45 to. 12. p. 271. richerius hist. conc. gener. part 2. p. 162. concil . to. 12. p. 268. p. 18. p. 10. p. 13. p. 14. answer to the first treatise , p. 5. ibid. p. 71. remonst . p. 2. a letter to anonymus in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1683 approx. 109 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 32 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a71019 wing s3300 estc r14302 12004712 ocm 12004712 52277 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a71019) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 52277) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 802:13 or 1514:13) a letter to anonymus in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 58 p. printed for fincham gardiner ..., london : 1683. written by william sherlock. cf. dnb. signed at end: w.s. anonymous is identified as william atwood. cf. clark memorial lib. dict. cat. this work is also appears on reels 1514:13 and 528:1 (as the third item in v. 1 of: a collection of cases and other discourses (wing c5114)). reproduction of originals in the duke university library, harvard university library and bristol public library, bristol, england. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng atwood, william, d. 1705? -three letters to dr. sherlock concerning church-communion. lord's supper -early works to 1800. lord's supper -church of england -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . london : printed for fincham gardiner , at the white-horse in ludgate-street . 1683. a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . sir , i am very sorry , that my silence and patience has been mistaken by you for an affront and neglect ; which is such a provocation , as i find some sort of great minds cannot bear . but yet that you may have a little mercy , i shall give you a brief account of the reason , why you had not an answer before . i did not answer your first letter in so publick a manner as you desired , because i believed your objections were such , as no body was concern'd in but your self ; and i cannot think it decent to trouble so numerous an auditory with every particular mans conceits . i did not answer your second letter , because by the temper and spirit of it , i easily foresaw , that it would end in a publick quarrel ; and if i must be in print , i henceforth resolve to correct the press my self , and not to suffer any man to print my private letters for me . but yet i called at mr. r's shop , whither you directed me , several times , to have invited you to a private conference , but could never see him , till i accidentally met him in the street , the same day i received the present of your printed letters . the reason why i printed those discourses , which you heard me preach , was because they were designed for the press , before they were designed for the pulpit , and before i dream't of your terrible queries ; and were printed and preach'd exactly by the same copy , excepting the introduction to fit them to a text , which you know is very convenient for a sermon . and the reason why i sent you one of those tracts , when it was printed , was because i did hope you might have had understanding enough , upon a careful perusal of it , when it lay before you , to have answered those objections which you made against it , at the first hearing . and now sir , i come to consider the contents of your first letter ; you have made some repetition of what i discoursed , and a very good repetition to be done by memory , which gives you the commendable character of a diligent and attentive hearer : but when you had the discourse before you in print , you ought not then to have depended upon your memory , but to have given me my own again in my own words and order , and with that dependance and connexion , in which the whole strength of that discourse consists ; and to have applied your queries distinctly to those parts of the discourse , which they related to : had you done this , you would either have been able to have resolved your own queries , or would more effectually have convinc'd me of my mistake , or at least have given your readers better satisfaction in the pe●tinency of what you say ; but now you have onely given us a heap of queries , which it is no easie matter to know to what they relate . as for your repetitions , the reader who desires satisfaction may compare them with what i have writ , which is exactly the same with what i preach'd : and as for your queries , you know how easie a thing it is to ask questions ; however , i will endeavour to find out to what they belong , and give as plain and short an answer to them as i can ; for i assure you , i am not at leasure now to write a long book upon this argument , and therefore it is a great comfort to me , that there is no need of it . after your repetition of what you could remember , or what you thought fit to take notice of in my sermon , you give us a very mistaken summary of it . to sum up ( say you ) what i take to be the force of all this . the apostles and their successors were by our saviour invested with a power of receiving members into his church upon his terms , and with such rites as they should think fit ; and they who are not so received into the church , have no right to any of the blessings promis'd to the members of christ's body . this power is by an uninterrupted succession , derived upon the governours of our national church , wherefore all others , that pretend to the exercise of this power within this nation , are vsurpers ; and all the laity baptized by their pastors , not being duly admitted into any particular church , are so far from being members of christ's body , that they are vsurpers and traitors to that power , which is derived from him in a right line . durus hic sermo . had you not told the world in your title-page , that you are a lay-man , to make your triumph over a poor undone dr. of divinity the more glorious , i should have taken you to be the founder of some new sect of conjectural divines ; and truly you are so happy in your guesses , that i believe few men will ever be able to out-do you in this art. for there is not one word of all this matter in the discourse , which you pretend to sum up , as it was delivered by me . that to which you seem to refer , is contained in one short paragraph , which i shall transcribe , and leave the most fanciful reader to try his skill to sum it up as you have done . having before asserted , that god onely can constitute a church , i added , and i think it is as plain , that the only visible way god has of forming a church ( for i do not now speak of the invisible operations of the divine spirit ) is by granting a church-covenant , which is the divine charter whereon the church is founded , and investing some persons with power and authority to receive others into this covenant , according to the terms and conditions of the covenant , and by such covenant-rites , and forms of admission , as he is pleased to institute ; which under the gospel is baptism , as under the law it was circumcision . i was discoursing of gods visible way of forming a church , which i asserted to be by granting a church-covenant , which is that divine charter on which the church is founded ; but then lest any one should question , how men are admitted into this covenant , i added , that god had invested some persons with power and authority to receive others into this covenant by baptism ; and by receiving them into covenant , they make them members of that church , which is founded on this covenant . now what of all this will any sober dissenter deny ? here is no dispute , who is invested with this power , what form of church-government christ instituted , whether episcopal or presbyterian ; here is no dispute about the validity of orders , or succession , or in what cases baptism may be valid , which is not administred by a valid authority ; this did not concern my present argument , which proceeds upon a quite different hypothesis , viz. the necessity of communion with the one church and body of christ , for all those who are , or would be owned to be christians , or members of christs body . i make no inquiry , by whom they have been baptized , or whether they were rightly baptized or not ; but taking all these things for granted , i inquire whether baptism do not make us church-members ; whether it makes us members of a particular or universal church ; whether a church-member be not bound to communion with the whole catholick church ; whether he that separates from any sound part of the catholick church , be not a schismatick from the whole church ; whether we be not bound to maintain constant communion with that particular church , in which we live , and with which we can , when we please , communicate occasionally ; whether it be consistent with catholick communion , to communicate with two churches , which are in a state of separation from each other : if you have any thing to say to these matters , you shall have a fair hearing ; but all your queries , which proceed upon a mistaken hypothesis of your own , do not concern me ; and yet to oblige you , if it be possible , i shall briefly consider them . 1. your first query is , whether a pious dissenter supposed to be received into the church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient power , is in as bad a condition as a moral heathen , or in a worse than a papist . ans. the catholick church has been so indulgent to hereticks and schismaticks , as to determine against the necessity of rebaptization , if they have been once , though irregularly baptized . this you may find a particular account of , in the vindication of the defence of dr. still . p. 22. &c. but the question is , whether if they continue schismaticks , whatever their other pretences to piety be , their condition be not as dangerous , as the condition of moral heathens and papists . 2. whether the submission to the power and censures of this church , ( which all must own to be a sound church ) be part of the divine covenant , which vnites the members of the catholick church to god and to each other . ans. this is a captions question , which must be distinctly answered . a general submission and obedience to the authority and censures of the church , though it cannot properly be called a part of that divine covenant whereon the church is founded , which primarily respects the promise of salvation by christ through faith in his bloud ; yet it is a necessary church duty , and essential to church-communion , and so may be called a part of the covenant , if by the covenant we understand all those duties which are required of baptized christians , and members of the church , by a divine positive law , as obedience to church-governours is . but then obedience to the church of england is not an universal duty incumbent on all christians , but onely on those , which are , or ought to live , in obedience to this particular church : for the particular exercises of church-authoritie and jurisdiction is consined within certain limits , as of necessitie it must be ; and though all orthodox churches must live in communion with each other , yet no particular church can pretend to any original authority over another church , or the members of it , as is the constant doctrine of protestants , in opposition to the usurpations of the church of rome . but i perceive sir you know no difference between the authority and power , and the communion of the church . but you add , if it be , then as he who is not admitted into this church , is no member of the catholick , and has no right to the benefits of being a member of christs body : so is it with every one , who is excluded by church-censures , though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect , nay , for a wrongful cause . truly sir , i know not how any man is admitted into the church of england , any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole catholick church , viz , by baptism , which does not make us members of any particular church , but of the universal church , which obliges us to communicate with that part of the catholick church wherein we live ; and whoever lives in england , and renounces communion with the church of england , is a schismatick from the catholick church . and whoever is excommunicated from one sound part of the catholick church , is excommunicated from the whole . but then , there is this difference between excommunication and schism ; the first is a judicial sentence , the second is a man 's own choice ; the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause , the second is always valid , and does in its own nature cut men off from all communion with christs body . i say in its own nature , for i will not pretend to determine the final states of men , for i know not what gracious allowances god will make for some schismaticks , no more than i do what favour he may allow to other sinners . but you proceed . if it be no part of the divine covenant , then a man that lives here may be a true member of the catholick church , though he is not in communion with this sound church . this is another horn of your formidable dilemma . if obedience to the authoritie and censures of the particular national church of england is no part of the divine covenant , then those baptized christians , who live in england , are not bound to the communion of the church of england , and may be catholick christians for all that . as if because the subjects of spain are not bound to obey the king of england , therefore english men are not bound to obey him neither , but may be very good subjects for all that . we are bound by the divine law , to live in communion with all true catholick churches , and to obey the governours of the church wherein we live ; and therefore though obedience to the church of england be not a law to all the world , yet it is a law to all english christians inhabiting in this church . but your way of arguing is , as if a man should say , it is a divine law to obey civil magistrates , but there is no divine law that all the world should obey the king of england , france or spain , therefore french or english subjects are not bound to obey their own prince . oh what comfortable doctrine is this to some men ! you proceed . but you will say ( which i think is not much to the question ) that he ought to communicate , if communion may be had . yes , i do say this ; and i believe by this time you see , or at least others will see , that it is much to the question . but then query , whether the dissenters may not reply , that they are ready to communicate , if the communion be not clog'd with some things , which are no part of the divine covenant . yes , they may replie so if they please , or anonymus for them ; but whoever does it , the replie is very weak and impertinent . it is weak , because obedience to authority , in all lawful things , is in a large notion part of the divine covenant : and it is very impertinent , because the supposition of communicating , where communion may be had , supersedes that query . for communion cannot be had , where there are any sinful terms of communion : and though i assert , that the church must be founded on a divine covenant , i never said , that nothing must be enjoyned by the church , but what is express'd in that covenant . a corporation , which is founded upon a royal charter , you know , may have authoritie to make by-laws , which shall oblige all the members of it , and so are terms of communion with it ; and yet it is the charter , not these by-laws , whereon the corporation is founded . i was not concerned to examine the terms of communion , ( that is , and will be done by other hands ) but , supposing nothing sinful in our communion , whether all christians , that live in this church , are not bound to live in communion with it . q. 3. your next query concerns the derivation of church-power from christ himself , without any immediate derivation from other church-governours ; which does not at all concern my doctrine of church-communion ; for whether it be so or so , still we are bound to maintain communion with all sound parts of the catholick church ; so church-authoritie be derived from christ any way , it is well enough , but then we must be sure that it is so : and if christ have appointed no ordinarie way for this , but by the hands of men , who received their authoritie immediately from himself , i know not who can appoint any other way . but may not a lay-man preach the gospel and gather a church in a heathen country , where there is none of the clergy to do it ? i suppose he may ; and if you please to consult the vindication of the defence of dr. stilling fleets unreasonableness of separation , p. 331 , &c. you will finde this case largely debated . but it seems it doth not satisfie you , that this be allowed onely in case of necessity , for then up start two other queries . 1. whether this will not put the being of our church upon a very hazardous issue , and oblige your self to prove , that it was a true church before the reformation ? ans. this is no hazard at all , for the church of england was certainly a true , though a corrupt , church before the reformation , as the church of rome is at this day . a true church is that which has every thing essential to the being of a church , though mixt with such other corruptions , as make its communion dangerous and sinful , as a diseased man is a true man ; and remove these corruptions , and then it is not onely a true , but a sound church , as the church of england is at this day . and if you will not allow this , i doubt , sir , all private christians will be at as great a loss for their baptism , as the church will be for orders . but the case of a true and sound and catholick church , if you please , you may see stated in the same book to which i referred you before . and thus your second query is answered , that though this church was antichristian before the reformation , yet there was not the same necessity for private christians to usurp the ministerial office without a regular authoritie , as there is for a lay-man in a heathen nation , because an antichristian , that is , the most corrupt church , retains the power of orders , as well as of sacraments . as for that independent principle , that christ has instituted a power in the church to ordain her own officers , you may see it examined in the defence of dr. still . vnr. of sep. p. 306 , &c. but what now is all this to me ? i don't charge our dissenters with schism from the invalidity of their orders , but for their causeless and sinful separation . let us suppose , that they have no need of any orders , or that such orders as they have are good , or that they had episcopal orders , and were governed by bishops of their own , as the donatists were , yet they would be never the less schismaticks for that , while they separate from the church of england , and from each other . if orders be necessary , and they have no orders , then they are no churches at all ; if they have true orders , and are true churches , but yet divide christian communion by separating from any sound part of the christian church , they are schismaticks . 4. q whether from the supposition , that there ought to be but one church-covenant throughout the catholick church , that there cannot be one true church within another , and that the nature of catholick-communion is such , that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound church , from which one is not hindred by reason of the distance of place ? it do's not follow . ans. fair and softly ! let us first consider the suppositions , before we consider what follows from them ; for you have so mis-represented , so eurtailed these propositions , and so mixt and blended things of a different nature , that it is necessarie to restore them to their true sense and proper place again , before we can tell what follows . i asserted , that the christian church is founded upon a divine covenant , and since god hath made but one covenant with mankind in christ jesus , therefore there can be but one christian church throughout the world , founded on this one covenant . having explained the general notion of church-communion , which signifies no more than church-fellowship and society , that to be in communion with the church is to be a member of the church , i came to enquire , what made a separate church . for if there be but one church and one communion , of which all true christians and christian churches are or ought to be members , then those churches , which are not members of each other , are separate churches . and for a fuller explication of this , i observed several things . i. that there must be but one church in one place . because there is no other rule of catholick-communion , but to communicate in all religious offices , and all acts of government and discipline , with those christians with whom they live . for to renounce the ordinary communion of christians , or true christian church , is to divide the vnity and communion of the church ; and to withdraw our selves from ordinary communion with the church in which we live , into distinct and separate societies for worship , is to renounce their communion , and when there is not a necessary cause for it , is a schismatical separation . and a little after i added , if all christians are members of the one body of christ , nothing can justifie the distinction of christians into several churches , but onely such a distance of place , as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the conduct and government of several bishops , for the greater edification of the church in the more easie and regular administration of discipline . and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a church out of a church , and dividing neighbour-christians into distinct communions . now then let us consider what follows . 1. you say , either that the french protestants have no church here , but are schismaticks in not communicating with ours ; or that ours is guilty of schism , in making the terms of communion so streight , that it is not the duty of of every one ( though a licensed stranger ) to communicate with this church . ans. if any foreign church among us , which by royal favour is allowed the observation of their own discipline and rules of worship , renounce communion with the church of england , or communicate with our separatists , she is schismatical her self ; as the protestant churches in france , geneva , or holland would be , should they do the like . but if there be any reason to allow those foreigners , which are among us , to form and model their congregations according to the rules of their own churches to which they originally belong , this is no more a schism , than there is between the protestant churches of france and england , which own each others communion . a bare variety of rites and ceremonies makes no schism between churches ; our church pretends not to give laws to other churches , in such matters , but leaves them to their liberty , as she takes her own : and why an ecclesiastical colony may not for great reasons be transplanted into another church , as well as a civil colony into another kingdom , while they live in communion with each other , i cannot tell . it is a different thing to gather a church out of a church , and to transplant some members of one church into another ( maintaining the same communion , though with some peculiar an different usages ) with the consent of the church to which they come . the case of strangers and natives has always been accounted very different , both upon a religious and civil account : every particular national church has authority over her own members , to direct and govern her own communion , and prescribe the rules of worship ; but as she does not impose upon other churches at a distance , so she may allow the same liberty to the members of such foreign churches , when they live within her jurisdiction , without breach of communion : for tho the communion of the whole christian church is but one , and all true catholick churches are members of each other , yet the authority and jurisdiction is different ; every church challenging a peculiar authority , which it exerciseth in its own communion ; and therefore for the church of england to suffer foreign churches to observe their own customs and usages , is not to allow of distinct and separate communions in her own bowels , ( which were schismatical , ) but onely to exempt such congregations of strangers from her particular jurisdiction , and to leave them to the government and authority of the church to which they belong . there was no such thing indeed allowed in the primitive church , as distinct congregations of foreigners under a different rule and government ; and it were very desirable , that all christians who have occasion to live in other countries , would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the church where they sojourn , which seems most agreeable to catholick communion ; but yet distinct congregations of foreigners , who own the communion of our church , tho they observe the customs of their own , are not schismatical , as the separate conventicles of dissenters are . 2. but does it not follow from the obligation to communicate , or to be ready to communicate with any true church where distance does not hinder , that a member of the church of england is not obliged to constant communion with that church , but may occasionally communicate with the french church , nay with dissenters too , if he believes that any of their congregations is a true member of the catholick church ? ans. this is a great mastery of wit , to turn my own artillery upon me . i prove the dissenters to be schismaticks , because they set up a church within a church , whereas there ought to be but one church and one communion in one place , every christian being bound to communicate with the sound part of the catholick church in the place wherein he lives ; for according to the laws of catholick communion , nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual communion ; hence you conclude , that we must communicate with schismaticks , if there be any among us , or so near to us , that distance does not hinder our communion . but you should consider , that our obligation to catholick communion does equally oblige us to renounce the communion of schismaticks whether at home or abroad ; and tho we should allow them to be true churches , yet if schismatical , they are not catholick churches , and therefore not the objects of catholick-communion . but however , we may lawfully communicate with the french church that is among us , as occasion serves . yes , no doubt we may , because they are in communion with us . but then follows the murdering consequence , that a member of the church of england is not bound to a constant communion with her . i pray , why so ? every member , as a member , is in constant communion ; for to be in communion with a church , is to be a member of it , as i proved at large : but then church-communion does not primarily respect a particular but the universal church , and therefore it is no interruption of our communion with the church of england to communicate actually with any church , which is in communion with her : for as all christians , who are neither hereticks nor schismaticks , are members of the catholick church , so they are in communion with the catholick church , and every sound part of it . the state of communion is constant with the whole catholick church , the acts of communion are performed sometimes in one part of it , sometimes in another , as our presence , abode , or occasions , require ; and thus it is possible actually to communicate with the french church , either in england or out of england , without interrupting our communion with the church of england ; for the communion is one and the same in all christian churches , which are in communion with each other , though they may observe different rites and modes of worship . and this i suppose is a sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence , that if the members of the church of england may occasionally communicate with the french church , then constant commnnion is not always a duty , where occasional communion is lawful ; i suppose , because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential communion with the french church , though we may occasionally communicate with it . but certainly , sir , had you ever considered , what i discourst about constant and occasional communion , you would not have made such an objection as this : for this is a modern distinction , which has no sence at the bottom , as i plainly shewed . but however , by constant communion , our dissenters understand the performing the acts of communion , always or ordinarily in the same church ; and by occasional communion , performing the acts of communion sometimes , or as occasion serves , in another church ; now with respect to this notion of constant or occasional communion , as it signifies the constant and ordinary , or the occasional acts of communion , must that question be understood , whether constant communion he a duty , where occasional communion is lawful ; the meaning of which question is this , whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my personal communion ordinarily to one church , it be not my duty to communicate ordinarily with that church , if i can lawfully communicate sometimes with it : and there being no other reason to justifie non-communion with any church with which i am bound for other reasons ordinarily to communicate , but onely sinful terms of communion , and there being no colour for such a pretence , where occasional communion is acknowledged lawful , ( for sinful terms of communion make occasional as well as constant acts of communion sinful ) i hence conclude , that it is a necessary duty to communicate constantly or ordinarily with that church in which i live , if it be lawful to communicate occasionally , or sometimes , with it . but if any man will be so perverse as to understand this question , as you now do , not of the communion of a church which for other reasons we are bound to communicate ordinarily with , but of any church with which i may lawfully communicate as occasion serves , it makes it an absurd and senseless proposition , to say , that constant communion ( by that meaning presential and personal communion ) is always a duty , where occasional communion is lawful . for at this rate , if occasional communion with the protestant churches of france , geneva , holland , germany , be lawful , it becomes a necessary duty for me to communicate always personally and presentionally with all these churches at the same time , which no man can do , who can be present but in one place at a time . but yet thus far the proposition holds universally true , that whatever church i can occasionally communicate with without sin , i am also bound to communicate constantly with , whenever such reasons , as are necessarie to determine my communion to a particular church , make it my dutie to do so . and no man in his wits ever understood this question in any other sense . but this you think cannot be my meaning ; for accorcording to me , no man is obliged to be a member of one sound church more than another , provided the distance is not so great , but that he may communicate with both . it is wonderful to me , sir , how you should come to fasten so many absurd propositions upon me ; and i would desire of you for the future , if you have no regard to your own reputation , yet upon principles of common honesty , not to write so hastily , but to take some time to understand a book , before you undertake to confute it . where do i say , that no man is obliged to be a member of one sound church more than of another ? i assert indeed , that no baptized christian is a member of any particular church , considered meerly as particular , but is a member of the universal church , and of all sound orthodox churches , as parts of the universal church . this puts him into a state of communion with the whole church , without which he cannot be properly said to perform any act of church-communion , though he should join in all the acts and offices of christian worship : but is there no difference between being a member of the universal church , and of all particular churches , which are parts and members of the universal church , and not to be obliged to be a member of one sound church more than of another ? the first supposes , that every christian , whatever particular church he actually communicates in , is a member of the whole christian church , and of all particular sound churches ; the second supposes the quite contrary , that christians are so members of one church , as they are not of another ; that constant communion in a particular church confines their church-membership to that particular church in which they communicate . so that the question is not , what church i must be a member of ; for every christian is a member of the whole church , not meerly of this or that particular church ; but what particular church i must communicate in : now our obligation to communicate in a certain particular church , results from the place wherein we live ; the church in which we were born and baptized , and have our ordinary abode and residence , the church which is incorporated into the state of which we are natural subjects , if it be a true and sound christian church , challenges our communion and obedience . now in the same place , there never can be any competition between two churches , because there must be but one church in the same place , and therefore there can be no dispute in what church we must constantly communicate , which must be the church in which we live . but is there not a french , and a dutch , as well as an english church in london , and since distance of place does not hinder , may we not choose , which of these we will ordinarily communicate with ? i answer no , we have onely the church of england in england . the french church is in france , and the dutch church is in holland , though there is a french and dutch congregation allowed in london . these congregations belong to their own original churches , and are under their government and censures ; but there is no church-power and authority in england , but only of the church of england , and therefore though we may occasionally communicate with the french congregation , our obligation to constant communion is with the church of england , which alone has authority and jurisdiction in england to require our communion and obedience : one particular church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate communion , which is schismatical , but by distinct power and jurisdiction ; and that church within whose jurisdiction we live , can onely challenge our communion ; and i suppose no man will say , that in this sence , we live in the french or dutch church , because there is a french and dutch church allowed among us . 5. your next query is , whether a true christian , though not visibly admitted into church-communion , where he wants the means , has not a virtual baptism in the answer of a good conscience towards god , according to 1. peter , 2. 21. ans. what this concerns me , i cannot tell . i speak onely of the necessity of visible communion in visible members , you put a question , whether the want of visible admission by baptism , when it can't be had , may not be supplied with the answer of a good conscience towards god. i hope in some cases it may , though i do not hope this from what st. peter saies , who onely speaks of that answer of a good conscience , which is made at baptism , not of that , which is made without it . but what god will accept of in this case , is not my business to determine ; unbaptized persons are no visible members of the church , and therefore not capable of visible communion , and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute . 6. query , why a profest atheist , who has been baptized , and out of secular interest continues a communicant with this church , is more a member of the catholick church than such as are above described . ans. neither atheists nor schismaticks are members of the catholick church . but this is a vile insinuation against the governours and government of our church , as if profest atheists were admitted to communion . though possibly there may be some atheists , yet i never met yet with one , who would profess himself an atheist . if i should , i assure you , i would not admit him to communion , and i hope there is no minister of the church of england would ; and i am sure , no man , who had any kindness for the church , with which he pretends to hold communion , would ask such a question . 7. query . whether as the catholick church is compared to a body of men incorporated by one charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the charter to the whole body , by the miscarriages of any of the officers , does it likewise follow that the miscarriages of any of the officers , or the church representative , as i remember bishop sanderson calls the clergy , may forfeit the priviledges given by christ to his church , or at least may suspend them ? as suppose a protestant clergy taking their power to be as large as the church of rome claim'd , should deny the laity the sacraments , as the popish did in venice , and here in king johns time , during the interdicts , quid inde operatur ? ans. just as much as this query does , the reason of which i cannot easily guess . i asserted indeed , that as there is but one covenant on which the church is founded , so there can be but one church to which this covenant belongs ; and therefore those , who divide and separate themselves from this one body of christ , forfeit their right to this covenant , which is made onely with the one body of christ ; which i illustrated by the instance of a charter granted to a particular corporation , which no man had any interest in , who divided himself from that corporation to which this charter was granted : but what is this to forfeiting a charter by the miscarriages of officers ? i doubt sir , your head has been warmed with quo warranto's , which so affect your fancy , that you can dream of nothing else . i was almost afraid , when your hand was in , i should never have seen an end of these questions ; and i know no more reason , why you so soon left off asking questions , than why you askt any at all ; for i would undertake to ask five hundred more , as pertinent to the business as most of these . you have not indeed done yet , but have a reserve of particular queries ; but general queries are the most formidable things , because it is harder to find what they relate to , than how to answer them . you have three sets of queries relating to three several propositions , besides a parting blow of four queries relating to my text. the first proposition you are pleased to question me about is this , that our saviour made the apostles and their successors governours of his church , with promise to be with them to the end of the world. which i alledged to prove , that when the church is called the body of christ , it does not signifie a confused multitude of christians , but a regular society under order and government . now sir , is this true or false ? if it be false , then the church is not a governed society , is not a body , but a confused heap and multitude of independent individuals , which is somewhat worse than independent churches . if it be true , why do you ask all these questions , unless you have a mind to confute our saviour , and burlesque his institutions : but since i am condemned to answer questions , i will briefly consider them . 1. whether our saviours promise of divine assistance , did not extend to all the members of the church , considering every man in his respective station and capacity , as well as the apostles , as church-governours ? for which you may compare st. john with st. matthew . ans. no doubt but there are promises , which relate to the whole church , and promises which belong to particular christians , as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the apostles and governours of the church , in the exercise of their ministerial office and authority : but what then ? christ is with his church , with his ministers , with particular christians , to the end of the world , but in a different manner , and to different purposes ; and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the apostles , including their successors also ; for the apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the world , but an apostolical ministry was . 2. therefore query , whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular churches , provided there be to particular persons , such as are in charity with all men , and are ready to communicate with any church which requires no more of them , than what they conceive to be their duty ; according to the divine covenant ? ans. it seems to me to be a harder query , what this query means ; or how it concerns that authority , which our saviour has given to his apostles for the government of the church ; to which this query relates . i asserted indeed , that christ hath made no covenant with any particular , but onely with the universal church , which includes particulars as members of it ; nor has he made any promise to particular persons , but as members of the church , and in communion with it , when it may be had upon lawful terms . whoever breaks the communion of the church without necessary reason , tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man , yet he has not true christian charity , which unites all the members of the same body in one communion ; and tho the church may prescribe rules of worship , which are not expressed in the divine covenant , this will not justifie a separation , if she commands nothing which is forbid ; for the very authority christ has committed to his ministers , requires our obedience to them in things lawful ; and if men will adhere to their own private fancies in opposition to church-authority , they are guilty of schism , and had best consider , whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse . 3. whether if the promise you mention be confined to the apostles , as church-governours , it will not exclude the civil power . ans. there are peculiar promises made to church-governours , and to civil magistrates ; their authority and power is very distinct , but very consistent . 4. what was the extent of the promise , whether it was to secure the whole church , that its governours should never impose unlawful terms of communion , or that there never be a defection of all the members of the catholick church , but that there should always be some true members ? ans. the promise is , that christ will be with be them in the discharge of their ministry , and exercise of their power , and this is all i know of the matter ; our saviour gave them authority to govern the church , and this was to last to the end of the world , as long as there is any church on earth , which is all i cited it for , and so much it certainly proves . the second proposition : you raise queries on , is this . 't is absurd to gather a church out of a church of baptized christians . this i do indeed assert , that since the church is founded on a divine covenant , and to be in covenant with god , and to be members of his church , is the same thing ; therefore baptism whereby we are received into covenant with god , makes us members of the church also ; and this makes it very absurd , to gather a church out of churches of baptized christians , which supposes that they were not a church before : instead of considering the reason , whereon this is founded , as every honest writer should do , you onely put a perverse comment on it . by which ( say you ) i suppose you mean , that men ought not to separate from such , and live in a distinct church-communion from any church of baptized christians ; which i conceive needs explaining . but if this were true , it were plain enough , but the fault is , that it is not true ; for we may separate from any church of baptized christians , if their communion be sinful ; which justifies a separation from the church of rome , and answers your two first queries . but indeed the proposition , as asserted by me , does not so much as concern a separation from a church , let the cause be what it will , just or unjust . for the independents , who are the men for gathering churches , do not own , that they separate from any church , but that they form themselves into a church-state , which they had not before , and which no christians , according to their principle , have , who are not members of independent churches . baptism , they acknowledge , makes men christians at large , but not church-members , which i shewed must needs be very absurd , if the church be a body and society of men founded on a divine covenant ; for then baptism , which admits us into covenant with god , makes us members of the church ; and they may as well rebaptize christians , as form them into new church-societies . this i suppose may satisfie you , how impertinent all your queries are under this head . your two first concern the separation from the church of rome , which was not made upon independent principles , because they were no church , but because they were a corrupt church . 3. whether every bishoprick in england be not so many churches within the national . ans. every bishoprick is a distinct episcopal church , and the union of them in one national communion , makes them not so many churches , within a national , but one national church ; which you may see explained at large in the defence of dr. still . vnr. of separation . 4. and therefore independent and presbyterian churches are indeed within the national ( churches within a church , which is schismatical ) but not one national church , as bishopricks are . 5. and therefore tho we should allow them to have the external form and all the essentials of a church ( which is a very liberal grant ) yet they are not in catholick communion , because they are schismaticks . 6. and this is all i am to account for , that they are not in visible communion with that one church and body of christ to which the promises are made . but what allowances christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning men , who divide the communion of the church , i cannot determine . i can hope as charitably , as any man , but i dare not be so charitable , as to make church-communion an indifferent thing , which is the great bond of christian charity . 3dly . you take occasion for your next queries , from what i say of the independent church-covenant ; you say , i suppose , that the independents exclude themselves from catholick communion , by requiring of their members a new contract , no part of the baptismal vow . i prove indeed from their placing a church-state in a particular explicite covenant between pastor and people , that they separate themselves from the whole body of christians ; for no other christians , which are not in covenant with them , are members of their church , nor can they be members of any other church . and i proved that those are separate churches , which are not members of each other , and do not own each others members for their own . for the notion of church-communion consists in church-membership , and therefore no man is in communion with that church of which he is no member ; and if no man can be a member of a church , but by such an explicite independent covenant , then he is a member of no church but that , with which he is in covenant , and consequently is in communion with no church , but that particular independent congregation of which he is a member by a particular covenant . and if those be schismaticks and schismatical churches , which are not in communion with each other , then all independents must be schismaticks , for they are in communion with none , but their own independent congregations . let us now hear your queries . q. 1. whether any obstack to catholick communion brought in by men , may not be a means of depriving men of it , as well as covenant or contract ? ans. yes it may , but with this material difference : other things hinder communion as sinful terms of communion , this independent covenant in its own nature shuts up , encloses , and breaks christian communion into as many separate churches and communions , as there are independent congregations . sinful terms of communion are a just cause of separation ; an independent church-covenant is a state of separation in its own nature . the communion of the church may be restored by removing those sinful terms of communion , but there can be no catholick unity or communion in the church under independency . q. 2. if it may , which i suppose you will not deny , will you not then upon this account , make the church you live in more guilty than the independents ? baptism you own is the onely thing , which admits into the catholick church , but they require no new covenant at baptism , ergo , they admit into the church without any clog or hindrance of humane inventions . ans. pray what comparison is there between the church of england and independency ? whatever fault the church of england may be charged with , as to its rites and ceremonies ( which i will not now dispute with you ) yet all this is capable of a remedy ; she may give occasion to schism , if she imposes any unlawful and sinful terms of communion , but yet the frame and essential constitution of the church is not schismatical ; but independency is schism in the very notion of it , and an independent conventicle is never capable of becoming a member of the catholick church . but you say , i own that baptism is the onely thing which admits into the catholick church , i. e. which makes us members of the universal church , and all sound parts of it , and that nothing else is necessary to make a church-member . very right ! i do own this ; but what is my owning this , to the independents ? for they do not , and will not own it ; they admit into their churches , not by baptism , but by a human and voluntary covenant , and will own none for church-members but such . baptism at most gives men onely a disposition to be church-members , but does not make them members of any church . but they require no new covenant at baptism , ergo , they admit into the church without any clog or hindrance of human invention , that is , they admit to baptism without any new covenant : because baptism does not , as they believe , admit into the church , ergo , they admit into the church without any clog of human invention . and yet sir , i perceive you do not understand this matter neither : for though what their practise is now i cannot tell , yet according to their principles , and former practise , though they required no new covenant of the child to be baptized , yet they would baptize no children , but of such parents , as were in church-covenant with them , which is the same thing ; and a much greater clog to baptism , than the sign of the cross , which when i know your exceptions against , i will consider them . and now sir , nothing remains of your first letter , but some few queries relating to the meaning of my text. your three first queries come onely to this , whether every particular church may not be called the body of christ. i answer , no doubt but it may , and yet christ has but one body , and all the sound churches in the world are but one body , and must be but one communion . as you may see proved at large in the defence of dr. still . and the vindication of that defence , and thither i refer you . but what you mean by christs metaphorical body , i confess , i cannot tell , and therefore cannot answer that question . your fourth query , concerns the nature of schism , which you would not have consist in dividing communion through difference of opinions , but through want of charity , because the apostle say , that the members have the same care one of another . now methinks in the natural body , should the members divide from each other , though they should pretend to love one another dearly , they would not be thought to have such care of one another , as the members of the same body ought to have . the application is easy , and you may find this matter plainly stated in the defence to which i have so often referred you . thus sir i have honestly answered all your queries , which you sent me in your first letter , and which you challenge me , and conjure me as a protestant divine to answer categorically in your second ; whether they were so very considerable as to deserve either to be printed or answered , i leave the reader to consider . your second letter , though it be somewhat peevish , yet creates me but little trouble . it has brought forth but one query , and half of that is already answered . whether , if the nature of catholick communion requires a readiness to communicate with any sound church , and yet a church obliges us to communicate with that alone , while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent communion with others , is not that church guilty of schism in such an injunction contrary to the nature of catholick-communion ? ans. no church can be so supposed to forbid communion with any church , which is in communion with her : and as for schismatical conventicles , which you are pleased to call sound churches , it is the duty of the church to forbid all communion with them , how near soever they be . for catholick communion obliges us only to communicate in the catholick church , from whence schismaticks have withdrawn and separated themselves ; and whoever communicates with schismaticks , is in so doing a schismatick . or at least , ( as you proceed ) is it not impossible , that he who communicates sometimes with one true church , sometimes with another , can be a schismatick , or any more than an offender against a positive human law ? ans. if such true churches be schismatical , he that communicates with a schismatical church , is guilty of a schismatical act ; and how is it possible , it should be otherwise ? should a man sometimes joyn with his princes forces , and sometimes with his enemies , and fight sometimes on the one side , and sometimes on the other , were he a rebel or not ? to be sure he is a rebel when he fights against his prince , though sometimes he fight for him . we may , and ought as occasion serves to communicate with any church , which is in catholick communion ; but where there are two opposite and separate communions , to communicate with both , is like taking part on both sides ; and if one be in the right , and the other in the wrong , such a man cannot be in the right always . well but however , he is no schismatick , but only an offender against a positive human law. yes , certainly he is a schismatick , and an offender , not meerly against human positive laws , but against the unity of the church , and the evangelical laws of catholick communion . but this mention of law puts me in mind of a passage or two at the beginning of your preface . you say , perhaps it 's no absurdity to suppose , that men may as well continue members of the national church , notwithstanding their breaking many positive laws , made for the outward management and ordering of it , though not fundamental and necessary to its being ; as he who incurs the penalty of any statute of the realm about civil affairs , may however be a sound member of the state , if he keep from treason and other capital crimes . very right sir ! while men continue in the communion of the church , they are church-members , though they may be irregular , and guilty of some acts of disobedience ; but methinks it is a little absurd to say , that those continue members of the church , who separate from it : schism and separation from the church , is just what treason and rebellion is in the state , and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound members . you add , nay possibly , that there should be several religious assemblies , living by different customs and rules , and yet continuing members of the national church , is not more inconsistent , than , that particular places should have their particular customs and by-laws , differing from the common law of the land , without making a distinct government . ans. whatever variety and difference in the rules of worship in several congregations , is consistent with one communion , may be granted , when the prudence of governours sees it fit and expedient . but mr. humphry's project , which i perceive you are nibling at , of making a national church by an act of parliament , which should declare presbyterians , independants , &c. to be parts of the national church , is certainly the cunningest way of curing schism , that ever was thought on : but you may find that expedient for union at large considered in the vindication of the defence of dr. still . and thus sir i proceed to your third letter , and here you run nothing but dregs and lees ; and i hope you will not think it any neglect of you , if i do not answer you paragraph by paragraph , as i have done your first letter , there being little new in this , but only a repetition of your old queries : and though you know repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a sermon , there is no need of such arts to lengthen this answer , which is too long already . your first charge upon me is , that i only amuse people with equivocal words and terms : that i play with the words , church and schism ; which had been no fault , had i played the right way with them , that is , had i ridiculed them , as you do , who think them words only fit to be played with , who have found out a church without any government , which is , only an intreague between clergy-men on all sides , who will not allow causeless separation from a sound part of the catholick church to be schism , but place schism wholly in want of charity , and make it nothing else but some divisions and contentions between the members of the same church , who still live in communion with one another ; a true independent notion to justifie causeless separations . divisions in the church are certainly very sinful , and a degree of schism , as unnatural , as if the members of the same body should fight with each other , while they are united to the same body ; but to divide from the same body is the perfection of schism , unless a quarrel be a rent and schism , but separation be none . you desire me to define , what i mean by a church , when considered as catholick and universal , and when taken in a more restrained sense . but this , i think i have done already , if you had eyes to see it ; and you may find it done more largely in the defence of dr. still . but would not any man , who had ever seen this discourse , which you undertake to confute , wonder to hear you ask me ; whether a man has a right to be of a particular church as he is a christian ; when the whole design of that tract is to prove , that every christian by being so , is a member of the catholick church , and has a right to communicate with all sound parts of the catholick church , and bound to communicate with that part of it , in which he lives ? in the next place you attempt to prove , that the influences and operations of the holy spirit , are not confined to the visible , but invisible church : but not to examine your proof of it , which is nothing to the purpose , you may consider , that the visible and invisible church on earth are not two , but one church ; not that every member of the visible church is a member also of the invisible , that is , every profest christian is not a true believer ; but whoever is not a member of the visible church , and does not live in communion with it , when it may be had , is not , that we know of , a member of the invisible church . we have no way to prove , that any man is a member of the invisible , who is not a member of the visible church ; and what we do not , and cannot know , does not concern us ; secret things belong to god , and with him it becomes us to leave them . but this also you may find more largely discourst in the vindication of the defence . you urge the case of pope victor , who , as you say , in a council or full representative of that church , excommunicated the poor asians upon the paschal controversy . and that each church was far enough from owning each others members for their own — what should the poor lay-christians do in this divided state ? could they not communicate with both , or either , without danger of schism themselves ? ans. it is an easie matter to put hard cases , almost about any thing ; and if a particular hard case , which either may possibly happen , or has sometimes happened , is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general rule , and to confute the most plain and convincing evidence for it , there is nothing in religion can be firm and stable . in the very same manner men dispute against the being of a god , and a providence , against the necessity of baptism , and the lords supper , against the apostolical power and ministry , and all church-government , against the necessity of believing many fundamental articles of our faith , because many , otherwise very good men , from the power and prejudice of education , or through weakness of understanding , may be guilty of some damnable heresies . but must there be no standing laws or rules , because there may happen some hard and difficult cases ? does not humane power make provision against such cases by courts of chancery , or the prerogative of the prince , and yet maintain the authority and sacredness of laws ? and will we not allow god himself a power of dispensing with laws in hard cases , without destroying the authority of his laws ? is not church-communion a necessary duty , because it may so happen , that sometimes i cannot communicate with any church ? is not schism a very grievous and damning sin , because it may happen , that men may be unavoidably , innocently , and without a schismatical mind , engaged in a schism ? i have evidently proved the necessity of church-unity and communion , and the evil and danger of schism ; and if you can answer the scripture-evidence produced in this cause , i will carefully consider it ; but it is no confutation of a plain law , to urge hard cases against it , which will overthrow all laws , that ever were made . if you imagine , or can produce any real case , wherein it is almost impossible for the persons concerned to know , that they are guilty of schism , or to discover on which side the schism lies , or to avoid it without renouncing all communion with the church , which course soever they take , i leave all such cases to god , who knows , when it is fit to dispence with his own laws ; and will take care of my own duty according to scripture-rules , and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known laws by some extraordinary cases . and yet the case , which you propose , is not so unanswerable a difficulty , as you imagine . several councils in palestine , in rome , in pontus , and other places , determine the celebration of easter on the day of the resurrection , not on the fourteenth day of the month , which was the jewish passover , ( which dispute you call a mistake in arithmetick , but for what reason i know not ) the bishops of asia at the same time decree the observation of easter on the fourteenth day , whatever day of the week it fell on , according to the ancient observation of the asian churches . pope victor upon this , writes to several bishops very bitterly against them , and was very desirous to have them excommunicated , and did as much as in him lay , denounce the sentence against them . but this was ill resented by other bishops in communion with him ; and particularly ireneus wrote a letter to him about it , and earnestly disswades him from it , and did prevent it from taking effect , if we will believe eusebius . so far is it from being true , as you assert , that pope victor in a council excommunicated the poor asians ; what he did was only his own act , which was displeasing to other bishops , and which he was forc't to undo . so that here was a great deal of heat and warmth , and tendency towards a schism , but no schism followed upon it , among the catholick churches . but suppose pope victor had excommunicated the asian churches , and this excommunication had taken effect , this could not make the asian churches schismaticks : for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the communion of a church , and forsaking the communion of a church . the first is matter of censure , the second is our own choice ; the first is an ecclesiastical punishment , the second when it is causeless , is schism . so that had the church of rome excommunicated the asian churches , unless the asian churches upon this , had made a separation from the church of rome , this excommunication could not make them schismaticks , and therefore any one might safely communicate with them without partaking in a schism . nor was it a just reason for the asian churches to have renounced the communion of the church of rome , though they had been excommunicated by victor ; for this had been to do as ill a thing as victor had done , for no other reason , but because pope victor had set them an example . and therefore we find saint cyprian of another temper , when he and the african bishops were threatned in the same manner by pope stephen , upon occasion of that warm dispute about rebaptizing hereticks . at that very time , in his epistle to jubaianus , he declares his resolution , not to break communion with any church or bishops upon that account , and therefore not with pope stephen himself , notwithstanding his rash and furious censures . and concludes , that patience and forbearance was the best remedy in such cases , and therefore upon this occasion , he says , he wrote his book de bono patientiae . well , but if the asiatick churches were not schismaticks , yet pope victor had been a schismatick , had he excommunicated the churches of asia , or withdrawn communion from them . and this had made the case of the roman christians very hard : for they must either have suspended communion with both these divided churches , and lived without the comfort and advantages of christian communion ; or they must have rejected the communion of their own bishop , and churches , or have rejected the communion of the churches of asia , or have maintained communion with them both , that is , with two separate churches , which according to my principles , is to communicate in a schism . if they communicate with their own schismatical bishop , this is to communicate in a schism , by communicating with a schismatick ; if they renounce his communion , when he imposes no new unlawful terms of communion upon them , this is to separate from a sound and orthodox church , for the sake of a schismatical bishop . if they communicate with the churches of asia , this is to break communion with their own bishop , who has excommunicated them ▪ if they separate from the churches of asia for no other reason , but because they are unjustly excommunicated , this is to separate for an unjust cause , which is a schism ; if they communicate with both , they communicate with two separate churches , and therefore must be schismaticks on one side or other . if you can find any more difficulties in this matter , you may . and yet after all this , i do believe the christians of rome might have communicated both with the roman and asian churches without schism ; and this i believe upon these principles , which i shall briefly explain , and confirm . 1. that the personal miscarriage of the bishop in the exercise of ecclesiastical censures , cannot involve his whole church in the guilt of schism , though it may make him a schismatick : and certainly since bishops are but men , and subject to the like passions and infirmities , that other men are , it would be a very hard case , if his personal schism should be imputed to the whole church . though the bishop have the chief authority in the church , yet it is hard to say , that every abuse of his authority is the act of the whole church ; and therefore the church may not be schismatical , when the bishop is ; and it is possible to communicate with a church , whose bishop is a schismatick , without communicating in the schism . and therefore though victor had schismatically excommunicated the asian churches , the christians of rome at that time might have communicated with the church of rome without partaking in victors schism . for , tho a particular church-society consists in that relation , which is between the bishop and his clergy and people , yet it is possible , that the bishop in the exercise of his authority may violate the fundamental laws of communion , on which the christians of such a church unite into one body and society : and when he does so , it being an abuse of his episcopal authority , it is his personal fault , which cannot affect the whole church . the case is very plain , where there is an established constitution in a church ( as it is in the church of england ) which obliges the bishops as well as people . for should any english bishop require any thing of his clergy or people , which is contrary to the establish't laws and canons of the church , or should exercise any authority in censures and excommunications , which is not allowed him by those canons , this can in no sense be called the act of the church , nor is any one bound to obey him in it ; and though such a bishop should do any schismatical act , the church is not schismatical , because he did not pursue the laws of the church , in what he did , but gratified his own humour and passion . if the church indeed unites upon schismatical principles , as the novatians and donatists did , whatever the bishops do in pursuance of such principles is the act of the church , and if the bishops be schismaticks , the church is so too ; but when there is nothing schismatical in the constitution of the church , the personal schism of bishops cannot make their churches schismatical . and though the primitive churches before the empire turned christian had not such a firm and legal constitution , as the church of england now has , yet a constitution they had , which consisted either of apostolical rules handed down by tradition , and confirmed by long custom and usage , or the canons of particular councils , which in ordinary cases made standing laws of discipline and government , and in extraordinary cases provided for new emergent difficulties ; and antecedently to all these positive constitutions , they were all under the obligation of that great law of catholick communion . so that the government of the church since the apostles days , was never so intirely in the bishops breast , that what he did , should be thought the act of the church , any farther than as he complied with those laws , by which the church was to be governed : and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the act of the bishop and the act of the church . as to shew you this particularly in the case before us . the church of rome from the time of the apostles had observed easter on the day of the resurrection , which is the first day of the week , or the lords day , the asian churches on the 14th day of the month ; and therefore the bishop of rome , according to the laws of that church , might require all the members of his church , to observe easter according to the usage of the church of rome , and might regularly inflict church-censures upon the obstinate and refractory ; and this would be accounted the act of the church , because it was in pursuance of the laws and constitutions of it . but there was no canon , nor custom in the church of rome , to deny communion to foreign churches , who observed their own customs in this matter , and would not conform to the custom of the church of rome . nay , there was the practise and example of former times against it ; for anicetus bishop of rome received polycarp , an asian bishop , to communion , though they could not agree about this matter . and therefore when victor schismatically excommunicated the asian churches for this different observation of easter , it was his personal act , not the act of the church of rome , which had no such law , and owned no such custom : and therefore though this might make pope victor a schismatick , it could not make the church of rome schismatical ; the guilt went no farther than victors person , unless other persons voluntarily made themselves guilty , by abetting and espousing the quarrel . so that had victor persisted in his excommunication of the asiatick churches , none had been guilty of schism but himself , and such as approved , and consented to it , but the body of the clergy and people , who had not consented unto it , had been innocent , and therefore any catholick peaceable christian , who lived in rome in those days , might have communicated with the church of rome without schism . the like may be said of the quarrels and controversies of particular bishops , which have sometimes ended in formal schisms , and denouncing excommunication against each other ; which cannot make their churches schismatical , any further than they take part with their respective bishops . for this is rather a personal schism and separation , than a church schism : neither of them separate from the communion of the church , under the notion of such a church , though they separate from each others communion upon some personal quarrels . this was the case of st. chrysostom and epiphanius , and some other bishops in those days , which were catholick bishops , and maintained communion with the catholick church , but yet separated from each other , which is a very great fault , as all contentions and divisions in the church are , but has not the evil and destructive nature of a church schism . but you will say , can we communicate with a church without communicating with its bishop ? or can we communicate with a schismatical bishop , without communicating in his schism ? i answer , yes , we may communicate with a schismatical bishop , without communicating in his schism . when schism is his personal fault , our communion with him makes us no more guilty of it , than of any other personal fault , our bishop is guilty of . while we take care to communicate with him in no schismatical act , no man is bound to forsake the communion of the church for the personal faults of his bishop . so that the roman christians might communicate with the church of rome without schism , notwithstanding pope victors schismatical excommunication of the asian churches . and now the only difficulty that remains is , whether the christians of rome might have communicated with the asiatick churches notwithstanding victor had excommunicated them , for if they could not , then they must inevitably partake in victors schism , if his sentence obliged them to deny communion to the asian churches . and in answer to this we may consider . 2. that those , who condemned the excommunication of the asian churches , did in so doing own their communion , which is one way , and the principal way of maintaining communion , between churches at a distance , who cannot actually communicate with each other . 3. that victor being the bishop of rome , who had the supreme authority of receiving in , or shutting out of the communion of that church , if any persons of the asian communion had come to rome , private christians could not receive them into the communion of the church without the bishops authority , and therefore could not actually communicate with them in the publick offices of religion , though they owned their communion ; but this is no more their fault , than the excommunication of the asian churches was ; they communicate with their own church , and would be very glad that the asians , that are among them , might be received into communion , but they have no authority to do it , and therefore the fault is not theirs , for this is not to renounce the communion of the asian christians , but is only a forc't suspension of communion . 4. if the christians of rome should travel into asia , i doubt not , but that they might very lawfully communicate with the asian churches , notwithstanding they were excommunicated by the bishop of rome . for the bishop of rome had no just cause to excommunicate the bishops and churches of asia , and therefore the sentence is void of it self ; and the roman christians when they are in asia , are not under the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop of rome , and therefore must not forbear nor suspend communion with the asian churches , unless they will justifie this schismatical excommunication . the jurisdiction of a particular bishop is confined within the bounds of his own church , and every christian is subject to the authority of the church where he is ; and therefore though the roman christians at rome cannot receive the excommunicated asians to their communion without the authority of their bishop , yet when they are in asia , where the bishop of rome has no authority over them , they may and ought to joyn themselves to the communion of the asian churches , during their abode among them , if the asians would receive them without commendatory letters from their bishop , which they could not have in such a case as this . thus sir , i have considered the case you put about pope victors excommunicating the asian churches , which is not a real , but a feigned case , for there was no actual schism upon it , as i perceive some body had told you , there was . and yet supposing it had been so , i have shewn you , how the roman and asian churches might have maintained communion with each other , and that the case of private christians was not so desperate , as you represent it . your following exceptions concerning national communion , and national churches , and the possibility that there should be several sound and orthodox parts of the church at the same place , have been sufficiently considered already : and you twit me so often with my repetitions , that though i find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sence , yet i will for my readers sake and my own , correct that fault . your attempt to prove congregational churches from 1 cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the presbyterian as well as episcopal divines , that to save my self the labour of transcribing , i shall refer you to them , and particularly to the defence of dr. still . vnr. of separ . p. 392. &c. where you may find this matter largely debated , in answer to dr. owen's original of churches . you say , it is evident that one of these ( separate churches ) must needs be cut off from christs body . i readily grant it ; for christ has but one body , which is one communion ; and therefore two churches , which are not in communion with each other , cannot both belong to the same body , or the one catholick church ; but the church which is the schismatick , according to the language of the primitive times , is out of the catholick church , extra ecclesiam foris , as is discourst at large in the vindication of the defence . in the next place you endeavour to make me contradict my self , in talking of occasional communion and occasional membership , and different relations , when else-where i assert , that the communion of the church does not make us members of any particular church . but pray sir , where do i assert this ? i am sure i assert the quite contrary , that church-communion consists in church-membership . i say indeed , that church-communion primarily and principally refers to the vniversal church , not to any particular church or society of christians . that a member is a member of the whole body , not meerly of any part of it . that baptism , which is the sacrament of our admission into the covenant of god , and the communion of the church , does not make us members of any particular church , as such , but of the vniversal church . and i do as plainly assert , that every true catholick christian is a member of the vniversal church , and as such is a member of every particular church , which is a sound part of the vniversal church . that no man can properly be said to communicate with any church , whatever acts of communion he may perform in it , who does not communicate with it as a member , and that therefore to talk of occasional communion , in the sense of our dissenters , is as absurd as to talk of an occasional membership ; these are the very principles on which i dispute against those absurd distinctions of constant and occasional communion , which i confess to be absurd , and a contradiction to all the principles of catholick communion , and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity , not i. i have charged this absurdity upon our occasional communicants , and let any man take it off , that can . but are you not sir , admirably qualified to answer books , without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the book you answer , without knowing what makes for you or against you ? as for your next question , how does it appear ? that it is necessary to communion with the catholick church , that we must perform the constant acts of communion in that part of the catholick church , where we constantly live . you ought instead of asking this question , to have shown , that what proofs i have alleadged for this are not conclusive , or do not sufficiently prove the thing ; but your question insinuates , that i have said nothing at all about it , or at least that you do not know , that i have , though it be the principal design of that discourse , and then i am a very careless writer , or you a very careless reader . but the answer to it in short is this , that every christian is bound to live in communion with the catholick church , no man lives in communion with the church , who does not perform the external visible acts of communion , when he may do it without sin ; the whole catholick church being but one communion , whoever communicates with any sound part of it , communicates with the whole ; no man can ordinarily communicate in a church , in which he does not ordinarily live , and therefore if he be bound at all to the external and visible acts of communion , he must perform them in the church wherein he lives , and in so doing , if it be a true catholick church , he lives in communion with the whole catholick church . but you attempt to prove , that you are not bound to communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of the catholick church , because you live where there is such an one . and this you prove from mr. chillingworth's authority , who says , that if you ( speaking to the papists ) require the belief of any error among the conditions of your communion , our obligation to communion with you ceaseth . now is not this an admirable proof , that we are not bound to communicate with a sound part of the church , where we live , because we are not bound to communicate with an erroneous church , which imposes the belief of her errours as terms of communion ? is not this a wonderful sound church ? and are not you a very subtil arguer ? you produce another passage of mr. chillingworth , by which i cannot tell what you intend to prove , unless it be , that there is no need , there should be any external or visible church-society , so men do but profess the faith of christ ; which seems to be the sence of your foregoing paragraph . but the words are these ; i believe our saviour ever since his ascension , hath had in some place or other a visible true church on earth , i mean , a company of men , that profest at least so much as was necessary to salvation ; and i believe there will be some where or other such a church to the worlds end . this is his answer to that popish question about the perpetuity of the visible church ; whereby it appears , that this company of men he speaks of , are not single and scattered individuals , which are no visible church , but he means a formed and visible church-society : and his answer is true , though there were never a sound church in the world. for a corrupt church , which retains all the essentials of faith and worship , is a true visible church , and this is the meaning of mr. chillingworth's answer ; but how this proves , that there is no need there should be any visible church at all , or that christians are not bound to actual communion with the sound and orthodox church wherein they live , is past my understanding . at the same rate you defend your self against me in your preface , by the authority of those two excellent persons , the dean of canterbury , and the dean of saint pauls . dr. stillingfleet had asserted , that all things necessary to salvation , are plain in scripture , to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them ; hence s. c. infers , that the governours of our church have no authority to teach truth , or to condemn errours , and all the people are become prophets , and all their articles , constitutions , and ordinances , have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped authority ; and if he had added , as he might have done with the same reason , and all church-communion is needless , it had been exactly what you aim at in this citation . the dr. vindicates his doctrine from such a wild fanatical inference . 1. by shewing the intention of those principles , which was plainly to lay down the foundations of a christian faith , living in the communion of our church . and if this was his design , as he says , it was , certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing , which should overthrow the necessity of church-communion ; and then he can say nothing against me , nor for you . 2. he distinguishes between the necessaries to salvation , and to the government of the church : that is , what is necessary for every christian , considered in a private capacity to know and believe , to make him capable of salvation ; and what care the church must take to instruct the ignorant , to satisfie the doubting , to direct the unskilful , and to help the weak ; and not barely to provide for necessity but safety , and not barely the safety of particular persons , but of it self ; which cannot be done without prudent orders , setting the bounds of mens employments , &c. i. e. though it is possible for a private christian , who lives alone , and has the use of the bible in a language which he understands , by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth , as is absolutely necessary to salvation , yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled ministry , and a regular authority in the church ; all this i firmly assent to , and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of church-communion , when it may be had upon lawful terms , and so does this reverend person also : and therefore i cannot look upon your alleadging his authority against me , to have any other design than to affront the dean for his excellent pains in vindicating the communion of our church , and shewing people the evil and danger of separation . he has sufficiently declared what his judgment is about separation , and therefore i need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my adversary in this cause . at the same rate you deal with that great man ( as you deservedly call him ) dr. tillotson , who says , i had much rather perswade any one to be a good man , than to be of any party and denomination of christians whatsoever ; for i doubt not but the belief of the ancient creed , provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it , together with a good life , will certainly save a man ; and without this , no man can have reasonable hopes of salvation , no not in an infallible church , if there were any such to be found in the world. how does this oppose me , who assert the necessity of church-communion ? is the catholick church then , and the communion of saints , no part of our creed ? and is not schism destructive to these great articles of our faith ? or is schism , which is the breach of christian charity properly so called ( which is the love and charity , which the members of the same body , ought to have for each other , and consists in unity and communion ) consistent with a good life , if by that we understand an universal goodness , of which charity is the most vital and essential part ? but do you indeed think , sir , that the dean believes a man may be saved without communion with any church , when it may be had without sin ? when in the very next paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to communion with the church of england ? i can easily forgive your usage of me , since i find you cannot read the best books without perverting them , and that you never spare any mans reputation to serve your designes : for your reproaches and your commendations are but different ways of abuse , though i confess , i should rather chuse to be reproached by you . your last consideration is , whether it be a good way to convert schismaticks , to prove that schism is as damning a sin , as murder or adultery . truly sir , st. cyprian and st. austin , and all the ancient fathers of the church , thought this a very good way , for they insisted very much upon this argument ; and if men will not forsake their schism , though the salvation of their souls be endangered by it , i am apt to think , that no other arguments will perswade them . and if this be true ( as i verily believe it is , and shall believe so , till i see the third chapter of the vindication of the defence of dr. still . fairly answered ) i think it the greatest charity in the world , to warn men of it ; and if it should prove by their perverseness no charity to them , it is charity to my own soul , and delivers me from the guilt of their bloud , whether such doctrine preach men into , or out of , the church . and now for your parting blow . certainly if our church required conformity to its rites and ceremonies as necessary to salvation , it could not blame men for dividing from it . yes certainly upon such a supposition , the church could and would blame men for their separation , though it may be , they might not deserve to be blamed : for no doubt , the more necessary the church judges her constitutions , the more she will blame dissenters . but he , who tells us , or he saies nothing , that the divine spirit confines his influences and operations to the vnity of the church in such conformity , not only makes such conformity necessary to salvation , but imputes to the church the damnation of many thousands of souls , who might expect to be saved upon other terms . that the divine spirit confines his influences ( ordinarily ) to the unity of the church i do assert , but that this is in conformity to the church of england , i do not assert . for conformity to the church of england is not essential to the unity of the catholick church : for every church has authority to prescribe its own rites and ceremonies of worship , in conformity to the general rules of the gospel . and therefore though the unity of the church is necessary to intitle men to the ordinary influences of gods grace , and consequently is necessary to salvation , yet conformity to the church of england is not necessary to the unity of the church , because christians who live under the government and jurisdiction of other churches , may and do preserve the unity of the church without conformity to the church of england . obedience indeed , and subjection to church-authority in all lawful things , is necessary to the unity of the church , and necessary to salvation , and consequently it is a necessary duty to conform to all the lawful and innocent customs of the church wherein we live ; but this does not make the particular laws of conformity , which are different in different churches , to be necessary to salvation , unless you will say the church has no authority but only in things absolutely necessary to salvation ; which destroys all the external order and discipline of the church , and charges all the churches in the world , with destroying mens souls , if any persons be so humorsom and peevish as to break communion with them for such reasons . but such kind of cavils as these , you may find answered at large in the vindication of the defence ; and thither i refer you , if you desire to see any more of it . thus sir , i have with great patience answered your questions , not that they needed or deserved any answer , but that you might not think your self too much despised , nor other weak people think your questions unanswered . and now i have given you an answer , i shall take the confidence to give you a little ghostly counsel too , which you need a great deal more than an answer . i have not troubled my head to inquire scrupulously , who you are , nor do i use to trust common fame in such matters : but though i know not you , yet i perceive you know me ; and if as you say , you have often heard me with great satisfaction , and as you hope not without edifying thereby , i think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more civility than you have done , if it be in your nature to be civil to a clergy-man . and i wish more for your own sake , than for mine , you had done so ; for i thank god i have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great master , but by frequent tryals , to go through good report and evil report , and to bear the most invidious and spightful reflections with an equal mind . but as contemptible as a clergy-man is now , these things will be accounted for another day . for it is very evident , that you have a great spight at the whole order , whatever personal kindness you may have for some men ; they are but a herd of clergy-men , and you know no other use of a bishop , but to oversee , admonish , and censure those , who are apt to go beyond their due bounds . i confess this way of railery is grown very fashionable , and i perceive you are resolved to be in the mode , and to be an accomplisht gentleman ; but i never knew a man that was seriously religious , who durst affront the servants for their masters sake . but you sir , are in the very height of the fashion , and think their office as contemptible , as their persons generally are thought to be : you hope to be saved without understanding the notion of church-government as 't is intreagued by clergy-men of all sides . and i hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides church-government , or else i doubt your salvation may be hazardous . but this is too plain a contempt of all church-authority ; for though the church of rome has usurpt an unlimited and tyrannical power under the notion of church-government , yet what has the sound church of england ( as you own it ) done ? what occasion did i give for this censure ? who have expresly confined the exercise of church-authority to church-communion , to receiving in , and putting out of the church . and if the church be no society , i would desire to know what it is ; and if it be a society , how can any society subsist without authority in some persons to receive in and to shut out of the society ? but the truth is , tho you pretend to be in communion with the church of england , you make the church it self a very needless and insignificant thing , for you know no necessity of communicating with any church , you will not allow it to be schism to separate from the church , you think it a pretty indifferent thing , whether men be baptized or not , or by whom they are baptized : what your opinion is about the sacrament of the lords supper i do not know , though if you are consistent with your self , i doubt that is a very indifferent ceremony too . truly to deal plainly with you , i think you have more need to be taught your catechism than to set up for a writer of books ; and let me in time warn you , what the consequence of this way you are in , is likely to be , which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and instituted religion , and consequently of christianity . natural religion may subsist without any positive institutions , but revealed religion never did , and never can ; for when god transacts with mankind in the way of a visible covenant , there must be some visible ministers , and visible sacraments of this covenant . and when the evangelical ministers and sacraments fall into contempt , men must think meanly of christianity , and return to what they call natural religion , which is a religion without a priest and without a sacrifice ; which cannot save a sinner , but by uncovenanted grace and mercy ; which no man can be sure of , and which no man shall find , who rejects a priest and sacrifice of gods providing . and to convince you of this , you may observe , that the contempt of the notion of a church , of the evangelical priesthood and sacraments , is originally owing to deists and socinians , to those who profess to believe in god , and to worship him according to the laws of natural religion , but believe nothing at all of christ ; or to those , who profess to believe in christ , but believe him only to be a meer man , and a great reformer of natural religion , but make nothing at all of his priesthood and sacrifice . if christ be our great high priest , and we must hope for salvation only in vertue of his sacrifice , there must be some way appointed to apply his merits and salvation to us , and this will convince us of the necessity of church-communion , and a visible confederation by sacraments of divine appointment : but if christ came only as a great prophet to instruct us more perfectly in the rules of vertue , and to give us more certain hopes of a future state , there can be no more necessity of a church now , than there was in a state of nature . christians may associate , if they please , for acts of publick worship , and they may break company , when they please , without any danger ; and the evangelical sacraments can be only significant ceremonies , which may be used or let alone , as every one likes best . at this rate you every where discourse ; and i believe so well of our dissenters , that though they would be glad to be excused from the guilt of schism , yet they will not thank you , for excusing them upon such principles , as tend to undermine christianity ; and i believe so well of you , that though you affect to talk in the modish way , yet you do not understand whither it tends : and i hope this timely caution may prevent your embracing those principles , whereon your conclusions are naturally built . another thing i would warn you of , is , that these loose principles of church-communion do not tempt you to schism , and state-factions , which usually go together . you pretend indeed to be in constant communion with the church of england ; but according to the principles of your letters no church in the world can have any hold of you , every man is a communicant at his own pleasure who thinks he may part without sin ; and it is much to be suspected , that no man , who is a hearty lover of the church of england , can make such a zealous defence for dissenters , who has not some private reasons for his zeal : and when men are not endeared to each other by one communion , it is to be feared they are linked together by some other common interest . now should you prove a schismatick , to say no worse , it will not excuse you , how many fine questions soever you can ask about it . and that which will greatly endanger you , is that great opinion you have of your self : for some men are so wanton as to espouse a schism or faction only to shew their wit in defending it , and to make themselves considerable by espousing a party . i will not so much wrong you , as to say that you have shewn any great wit or judgment in this cause ; but it is evident to every impartial man , who reads your letters , that you have betrayed too great a conceit of both , and that is a great deal the more dangerous of the two ; for true wit and judgment will secure men from those mischiefs , which a vain conceit of it betrays them to . and now sir , all that i shall add , concerns your way of writing , which neither becomes a wise man , nor a fair disputant ; you have not offered any argument to disprove any one thing i have said , you have no where shewn the weakness of my arguments to prove what i undertook , but have at all adventures askt a great many questions , and generally nothing to the purpose . now it had been easie to have askt you as many cross questions , which had been as good an answer to your questions , as your questions are to my discourse ; and thus people might have gazed on us , and have been never the wiser . for to raise a great many difficulties onely tends to scepticism , and will never end a dispute . i am loth to mind you of the proverb , because i do not think the application belongs to you ; but yet it should make any man of wit ashamed of such methods of dispute , wherein he may be out-done by a man of no wit. i confess i have with some regret stole time from better employment to answer your letters , but do not think my self bound to do so , as often as you think fit to give a publick challenge . this controversie , if you had pleased , might have been ended more privately ; which had been less trouble to me , though it may be you thought it might have been less glorious to your self , which i presume was your reason of first spreading your letter in writing , and then of printing it . i shall not envy your glory ; i had rather continue mean and obscure in a humble obedience to church and state , than to raise the most glorious triumphs and trophees to my memory , by giving the least disturbance to either . and that you and all sober christians may be of the same mind , is the hearty prayer of , sir , your very humble servant . w. s. finis . books printed for fincham gardiner . a continuation and vindication of the defence of dr. stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of separation , in answer to mr. baxter and mr. lob , &c. considerations of present use , considering the danger resulting from the change of our church-government . 1. a perswasive to communion with the church of england . 2. a resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion . 3. the case of indifferent things used in the worship of god , proposed and stated , by considering these questions , &c. 4. a discourse about edification . 5. the resolution of this case of conscience , whether the church of englands symbolizing so far as it doth with the church of rome , makes it unlawful to hold communion with the church of england ? 6. a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . 7. certain cases of conscience resolved , concerning the lawfulness of joyning with forms of prayer in publick worship . in two parts . 8. the case of mixt communion : whether it be lawful to separate from a church upon the account of promiscuous congregations and mixt communions ? 9. an answer to the dissenters objections against the common prayers , and some other parts of divine service prescribed in the liturgy of the church of england . 10. the case of kneeling at the holy sacrament stated and resolved , &c. the first part. 11. certain cases of conscience , &c. the second part. 12. a discourse of profiting by sermons , and of going to hear where men think they can profit most . 13. a serious exhortation , with some important advices , relating to the late cases about conformity , recommended to the present dissenters from the church of england . 14. an argument for union ; taken from the true interest of those dissenters in england who profess and call themselves protestants . 16. some considerations about the case of scandal , or giving offence to weak brethren . 17. the case of infant-baptism , in five questions , &c. 1. a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? 2. a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . 3. the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . 4. the protestant resolution of faith , &c. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a71019-e100 p. 4. resolut . of cases , p. 5. vindicat. p. 64. &c. resol . of cases , p. 8. p. 10. p. 19. p. 20. p. 21. resol . of cases , p. 10. p. 13. resol . of cases , p. 8. &c. resol . of cases . p. 10. 32. letters 3. p. 16. p. 12. p. 17. p. 18. p. 19. p. 21. euseb. b. 5. cap. 23. ●●p . 24. latters 3. p. 22. p. 24. p. 26. resol . of cases . p. 13 , p. 30. ibid. answer to several treatises , p. 272. &c. p. 275. p. 276. preface . letter 3. p. 29. p. 1. preface . resol . of cases , p. 39. see vindic. of the def. cap. 3. a resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion viz. i. whether to communicate with some church, especially in such a divided state of the church, be a necessary duty incumbent on all christians, ii. whether constant communion be a necessary duty where occasional communion is lawful, iii. whether it be lawful to communicate with two churches, which are in a state of separation from each other. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1683 approx. 91 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 27 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59866 wing s3336 estc r18449 12438638 ocm 12438638 62060 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59866) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 62060) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 298:1) a resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion viz. i. whether to communicate with some church, especially in such a divided state of the church, be a necessary duty incumbent on all christians, ii. whether constant communion be a necessary duty where occasional communion is lawful, iii. whether it be lawful to communicate with two churches, which are in a state of separation from each other. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 50 p. printed by henry hills, jun. for fincham gardiner ..., london : 1682/3 [i.e. 1683] written by william sherlock. cf. halkett & laing, dnb, bm. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church membership -early works to 1800. christian union -early works to 1800. lord's supper -early works to 1800. lord's supper -church of england -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion . viz. i. whether to communicate with some church , especially in such a divided state of the church , be a necessary duty , incumbent on all christians . ii. whether constant communion be a necessary duty , where occasional communion is lawful . iii. whether it be lawful to communicate with two churches , which are in a state of separation from each other . london , printed by henry hills , jun. for fincham gardiner at the white horse in ludgate-street . 1682 / 3. a resolution of some cases of conscience , which respect church-communion . in order to state such cases as particularly relate to church-communion with all possible clearness , it will be necessary to premise a brief explication of some words , which must be used in questions of this nature , but are not so commonly understood . as , 1. what is meant by a church , and a christian church . 2. what church communion is . 3. what is meant by fix't communion and by occasional communion . first , what is meant by a church . now the plainest description i can give of a church is this , that the church is a body or society of men separated from the rest of the world , and vnited to god , and to themselves by a divine covenant . i shall briefly explain this description to fit it to the meanest understanding . 1. then a church is a body or society of men , for i speak only of the church in this world , and therefore shall not enter into that dispute , in what sense angels belong to the church . and when i call the church a body or society of men , i oppose a body to single individuals , or particular men , and to a confused multitude , without any order or union among themselves . for tho the church consists of particular men , and when their numbers are encreased , of great multitudes , yet the church consists of such particular men , not considered in a private and separate capacity , but as united into a regular society , which is called a body , in allusion to the natural body , in which all the parts and members are united in an exact order , eph. 4. 16. 1 cor. 12. 15 , 16 , &c. for god is not the author of confusion , but of peace , as in all the churches of the saints . and if the meanest societies cannot subsist without order , wherein their strength and beauty and usefulness consist , much less the church of god , which is a society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends. and therefore we find , that god ordained a most exact order and government in the jewish church , which for the greater strength and unity he formed into a religious common-wealth : and our blessed saviour ordained the apostles , and committed the government of his church to them , and their successors , with a promise to be with them to the end of the world. and the christian church with respect to the firm and close union and orderly disposition of all its parts , is not only called a body , but a spiritual building , and holy temple , and the house of god. but then the church is a body , or one body , in opposition to many bodies , for christ has but one body , and one church , and he is the saviour of this body . the jewish church was but one , and therefore the christian church is but one , which is not a new distinct church , but is grafted into the jewish stock or root . believing jews , and christians being united into one church , built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets , jesus christ himself being the chief corner stone : who unites jews and gentiles into one church , as the corner stone unites both sides of the house , and holds them together . upon the same account the church is called the building , the house , the temple of god , and we know the temple was but one , and was to be but one , by the express command and institution of god. and for the same reason christ tells us , that there should be but one fold under one shepherd . and indeed it is extreemly absurd and unreasonable to say , that the christian church , which is built upon the same foundation , which worships the same god and saviour , which professes the same faith , are heirs to the same promises , and enjoy all priviledges in common , should be divided into as distinct and separate bodies , tho of the same kind and nature , as peter , james , and john , are distinct persons , tho they partake of the same common nature . that is , it is very absurd to say , that where every thing is common , there is not one community . peter , and james , and john , tho they partake of the same common nature , yet each of them have a distinct essence and subsistence of their own ( as it must be in natural beings , otherwise there could be but one man in the world ) and this makes them distinct persons : but where the very nature and essence of a body or society consists in having all things common , there can be but one body ; and therefore if one lord , one faith , one baptism , one god and father of all , be common to the whole christian church , if there be no peculiar priviledges , which belong to some christians and not to all , to one part of the church , and not to another , then by the institution of christ , there is but one church , one body , one communion , one household and family : for where there is nothing to distinguish and separate , no enclosures or partitions of divine appointment , there can be , by divine institution , but one body . 2. i add , that the church is a body or society of men separated from the rest of the world , or called out of the world , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from whence ecclesia is derived , may signifie , and is so expounded by many divines , upon which account the christians are so often called , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the called and chosen or elect people of god , which signifies , that the church is distinguished from the rest of the world by a peculiar and appropriate faith , by peculiar laws , by peculiar rites of worship , and peculiar promises and priviledges , which are not common to the whole world , but only to those , who are received into the communion of the church . but there is no controversie about this matter , and therefore i need add no more about it . 3. the church is a body of men united to god and to themselves by a divine covenant : the church is united to god , for it is a religious society , instituted for the worship of god ; and they are united among themselves , and to each other , because it is but one body , which requires a union of all its parts ; as i have already shewed , and shall discourse more presently . but the chief thing to be observed here is this , that this union with god , and to each other , which constitutes a church , is made by a divine covenant . thus it was in the jewish church . god entered into covenant with abraham , and chose him and his posterity for his church and peculiar people , and gave him circumcision for a sign and seal of this covenant . and under the gospel god hath made a new covenant with mankind , in and by his son jesus christ , who is the mediator of a better covenant , founded upon better promises ; and this gospel covenant is the foundation of the christian church . for the christian church is nothing else , but such a society of men , as is in covenant with god through christ. i suppose all men will grant , that god only can make or constitute a church . for such persons , if there were any so absurd , are not worth disputing with , who dare affirm the church to be a human creature , or the invention of men. and i think it is as plain , that the only visible way god has of forming a church ( for i do not now speak of the invisible operations of the divine spirit ) is by granting a church-covenant , which is the divine charter , whereon the church is founded , and investing some persons with power and authority , to receive others into this covenant , according to the terms and conditions of the covenant , and by such covenant rites and forms of admission , as he is pleased to institute , which under the gospel is baptism , as under the law it was circumcision . to be taken into covenant with god , and to be received into the church , is the very same thing . for the church is a society of men , who are in covenant with god. that can be no church , which is not in covenant with god , he is no member of the church , who is not at least visibly admitted into gods covenant , and whoever is in covenant with god , is made a member of the church , by being admitted into covenant . now before i proceed , i shall briefly observe some few things , which are so plain and evident , if these principles be true , that i need only name them , and yet are of great use for the resolution of some following cases . as 1. that a covenant-state and church-state is the same thing . 2. that every profest christian , who is received into covenant , as such , is a church member . 3. that nothing else is necessary to make us members of the christan church but only baptism , which is the sacrament of our admission into the christian covenant . for if baptism , which gives us right to all the priviledges of the covenant , does not make us church members , then a church-state is no part of the covenant ; then a man may be in covenant with god through christ , and yet be no member of christ ; or he may be a member of christ and no member of his body , which is the church . 4. that no church-state can depend upon human contracts and covenants , for then a church would be a human creature , and a human constitution ; whereas a church can be founded only upon a divine covenant . it is true , no man , who is at age , can be admitted to baptism till he profess his faith in christ , and voluntarily undertake the baptismal vow ; but the independent church-covenant betwixt pastor and people , is of a very different nature from this , unless any man will say , that the voluntary contract and covenant , which the independents exact from their members , and wherein they place a church-state be part of the baptismal vow . if it be not , then they found the church upon a human covenant , for christ hath made but one covenant with mankind , which is contained in the vow of baptism . if it be , then no man is a christian , but an independent , and then they would do well to shew , how the baptismal vow , which is but one and the same for all mankind , determines one man to be a fixt member of dr. owens church , another of mr. griffiths , or any other independent pastors ; and if they could get over this difficulty , there is another still , why they exact this church-covenant of baptized christians , before they will admit them to their communion , if baptism makes them members of their church . this i think makes it plain , that the independent church-covenant is no part of the baptismal vow , and then it is no part of the christian covenant ; and if there be no true church-state , but what depends on such human contracts , then the church owes its being to the will of men , not to the covenant of god. 5. i observe farther , how absurd it is to gather churches out of churches , which already consist of baptized christians . christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the world , but surely it does not separate christians from each other . the apostles only undertook to convert jews and heathens to the christian faith , and to make them members of the christian church , which is a state of separation from the world ; but these men convert christians from common christianity , and the communion of the universal church , to independency . if the church be founded on a divine covenant , we know no church but what all christians are made members of by baptism , which is the universal church , the one body and spouse of christ. and to argue from the apostles gathering churches from among jews and heathens , to prove the gathering churches out of a christian and national church , must either conclude , that a church , and church-state is a very indifferent and arbitrary thing , and that men may be very good christians , and in a safe condition without it ; or that baptized christians , who are not members of a particular independent church , are no better than jews and heathens , that is , that baptism it self , though a divine sacrament and seal of the covenant , is of no value , till it be confirmed and ratified by a human independent covenant . 6. i observe , that if the christian church be founded on a divine covenant , on that new covenant , which god hath made with mankind in christ , then there is but one church of which all christians are members , as there is but one covenant into which we are all admitted by baptism . for the church and the covenant must be of an equal extent . there can be but one church founded upon one covenant , and all who have an interest in the same covenant , are members of the same church . and therefore , tho the distance of place , and the necessities and conveniences of worship and discipline , may , and has divided the church into several parts and members , and particular churches , yet the church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate churches , for that destroyes the unity of the church : and unless they could divide the covenant also , two churches , which are not members of each other , cannot partake in the same covenant , but the guilty divider forfeits his interest in the covenant without a new grant . a prince indeed may grant the same charter to several distinct cities and corporations , but then tho the matter of the charter be the same , their right to it depends upon distinct grants . but if he grant a charter for the erecting of such a corporation , and confine his charter to the members of that corporation , those who wilfully separate themselves from this corporation to which this charter was granted , forfeit their interest in the charter , and must not think to erect a new distinct corporation by the same charter . thus it is here , god hath made a covenant of grace with mankind in christ , and declares that by this one covenant , he unites all the disciples of christ into one body and christian church , who shall all pertake of the blessings of this covenant . by baptism we are all received into this covenant , and admitted members of this one church ; now while we continue in the unity of this body , it is evident , that we have a right to all the blessings of the covenant , which are promised to this body , and to every member of it . but if we divide our selves from this body , and set up distinct and separate societies , which we call churches , but which are not members , nor live in communion with the one catholick church , we cannot carry our right and title to the covenant out of the church with us . the gospel-covenant is the common charter of the christian-church , and if we are not contented to enjoy these blessings in common with other christians we must be contented to go without them . for it is not a particular covenant , which god makes with particular separate churches , but a general covenant made with the whole body of christians , as united in one communion , and therefore that , which no particular church has any interest in , but as it is a member of the universal church . god hath not made any covenant in particular with the church of geneva , of france or england , but with the one body and church of christ , all the world over ; and therefore the only thing , that can give us in particular a right to the blessings of the covenant , is , that we observe the conditions of this covenant , and live in unity and communion with all true christian churches in the world , which makes us members of the catholick church , to whom the promises are made . secondly , the next thing to be explained is , what is meant by church-communion . now church-communion signifies no more then church-fellowship and society , and to be in communion with the church is to be a member of the church ; and this is called communion , because all church members have a common right to church priviledges , and a common obligation to all those duties and offices , which a church relation exacts from them . i know this word communion is commonly used to signifie a personal and presential communion in religious offices : as when men pray , and hear , and receive the sacrament of the lords supper together , they are said to be in communion with one another and to live in communion with that church , with which they joyn in all acts of worship . now we must acknowledge , that publick acts of worship performed in the communion of the church , are an exercise of christian communion , but church-communion is something antecedent to all the acts and offices of communion . for no man has a right to any act of christian communion , but he , who is in a state of communion with the christian church . what natural union is in natural bodies , that communion is in bodies politick , whether civil or religious societies ; a member must be vitally united to the body , before it can perform any natural action or office of a member ; before the eye can see , or the feet can walk , or the ears can hear ; and the union of the eye , or foot , to the body , does not consist in seeing or walking , but seeing and walking are the effects of this union . thus in a body politick , when men by any common charter are united into one society , they become one common body , or one communion ; and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that body , and obliges them to all the duties and offices , which their charter requires of them ; but should any man , who is not regularly admitted into this society , pretend to the same priviledges , or do such things , as are required of those , who are members of this body , this would be so far from being thought an act of communion with them , that it would be censured as an unjust usurpation . should a man , who is no citizen of london , open his shop , and drive a trade as other citizens do , or give his vote at a common-hall , and in all other cases act like a citizen , this would not make him a citizen , but an intruder . he is a foreigner still , and his presuming to act like a citizen , when he is none , is no act of communion with that body , of which he is no member , but justly exposes him to censure and punishment . thus it is in the christian church , which is one body and society united by a divine covenant . our communion with the church consists in being members of the church , which we are made by baptism : the exercise of this communion consists in all those offices and duties , which all the members of the church are obliged to , and which none have any right to perform , but they ; such as praying and receiving the lords supper together , &c. now should any man who is no member of the church , nor owns himself to be so , intrude into the church , and communicate in all holy offices , this can be no more called an act of communion , then it can be said to make him a member of the church , of which he is no member , and resolved not to be : prayers , and receiving the sacraments , &c. are acts of communion , when performed by church-members in the communion of the church ; but they are no acts of communion , when performed by those , who are no church-members , tho to serve a turn , they thrust themselves into the society of the church . as for instance , suppose a member of a presbyterian , or independent conventicle , should , for reasons best known to himself , at some critical time , come to his parish church , and there hear the common-prayer , and sermon , and receive the lords supper , according to the order of the church of england , does this make this man a member of the church of england , with which he never communicated before , and it is likely , will never do again ? if it does not , all this is no act of communion , which can be only between the members of the same body . so that to be in church-communion , does not signifie , meerly to perform some such acts , which are acts of communion in the members of the church , but since the decay of church discipline , may sometimes be performed by those , who are not members , which is such an abuse , as would not have been allowed in the primitive church , who denyed their communion to schismaticks , as well as to the excommunicate upon other accounts : but to be in church-communion signifies to be a member of the church , to be embodyed and incorporated with it , and i suppose ▪ what that means , every one knows , who understands what it is to be a member of any society , of a city , or any inferior corporation ; which consists of priviledge and duty , and requires all those , who will enjoy the benefits of such a society , to discharge their respective trusts and obligations . to be in communion with , or to be a member of the church , includes a right and title to all those blessings , which god hath promised to his church , and an obligation to all the duties and offices of church society ; as subjection to the authority , instructions , censures of the church ; a communion in prayers , and sacraments , and other religious offices , and he who despises the authority , or destroys the unity of the church , renounces his membership and communion with it . these things are extemely plain , and though men may cavil for disputes sake , yet must needs convince them , that no man is in communion with a church , which he is not a member of , tho through the defect of discipline , he should sometimes be admitted to some act of communion with it , and i shall observe some few things from hence of great use . 1. that church-communion primarily and principally respects the universal church , not any particular church or society of christians . for to be in church-communion signifies to be a member of the church , or body of christ , which is but one all the world over . church-communion does not consist in particular acts of communion , which can be performed only among those , who are present , and neighbours to each other , but in membership : now a member is a member of the whole body ( not meerly of any part of it , ) how large soever the body be . all the subjects of england , those , who live at st. davids , and those at yarmouth , who never saw , nor converst with each other , are all members of the same kingdom , and by the same reason , this membership may extend to the remotest part of the world , if the body , whereof we are members , reach so far . and therefore we may observe , that baptism , which is the sacrament of our admission into the covenant of god , and the communion of the church , does not make us members of any particular church , as such , but of the universal church ; and i observed before , that a church-state , which is the same thing , with church-communion , is founded only on a divine covenant ; and therefore since there is no other divine covenant to make us members of particular churches , as distinguisht from the universal church , such particular church-membership is at best but a human invention , and indeed nothing else but a schism from the universal church : which alone , if well considered , is a sufficient confutation of independency which is a particular church-state , as distinguisht from all other churches and societies of christians . 2. i observe further , that tho the exercise of church communion , as to most of the particular duties and offices of it , must be confined to a particular church and congregation ( for we cannot actually joyn in the communion of prayers and sacraments , &c. but with some particular church ) yet every act of christian communion , though performed in some particular church , is and must be an act of communion with the whole catholick church , praying , and hearing , and receiving the lords supper together , does not make us more in communion with the church of england , then with any other true and orthodox part of the church , tho in the remotest parts of the world. the exercise of true christian communion in a particular church , is nothing else but the exercise of catholick communion in a particular church , which the necessity of affairs requires , since all the christians in the world cannot meet together for acts of worship ; but there is nothing in all these acts of communion , which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular church , than to the whole christian church . when we pray together to god ▪ we pray to him as the common father of all christians , and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him , as members of such a particular church , but as members of the whole body of christ : when we pray in the name of christ , we consider him as the great high priest , and saviour of the body , who powerfully interceeds for the whole church , and for us as members of the universal church . and we offer up our prayers and thanksgivings , not only for our selves and those , who are present , but for all christians all the world over , as our fellow-members ; and praying for one another is the truest notion of communion of prayers ; for praying with one another , is only in order to praying for one another . and thus our prayers are an exercise of christian communion , when we pray to the same common father , through the merits and mediation of the same common saviour and redeemer , for the same common blessings , for our selves , and the whole christian church . thus when we meet together to celebrate the supper of our lord , we do not meet as at a private supper , but as at the common feast of christians ; and therefore it is not an act of particular church fellowship , but of catholick communion . the supper of our lord does not signifie any other kind of union and confederation between those neighbour christians , who receive together in the same church , than with the whole body of christ. the sacramental bread signifies and represents all those , for whom christ died , that one mystical body , for which he offered his natural body , which is the universal church ; and our eating of this bread signifies our union to this body of christ , and therefore is considered , as an act of true catholick , not of a particular church-communion . and the sacramental cup is the blood of the new testament , and therefore represents our communion in all the blessings of the covenant , and with all those , who are thus in covenant with god. so that there is nothing particular in this feast , to make it a private feast , or an act of communion with a particular church , considered as particular , but it is the common feast of christians , and an act of catholick communion . which by the way plainly shews , how groundless that scruple is against mixt communions , that men think themselves defiled by receiving the lords supper with men , who are vicious . for tho it is a great defect in discipline , and a great reproach to the christian profession , when wicked men are not censured , and removed from christian communion , yet they may as well pretend , that their communion is defiled by bad men , who communicate in any other part of the church , or any other congregation , as in that , in which they live and communicate : for this holy feast signifies no other communion between them , who receive at the same time , and in the same company , then it does with all sincere parts of the christian church . it is not a communion with any persons considered as present , but it is a communion with the body of christ and all true members of it , whether present or absent . those who separate from a national church for the sake of corrupt professors , though they could form a society as pure and holy , as they seem to desire , yet are schismaticks in it , because they confine their communion to their own select company , and exclude the whole body of christians all the world over , out of it ; their communion is no larger than their gathered church , for if it be , then they must still communicate with those churches , which have corrupt members , as all visible churches on earth have , ( unless we will except independents , because they have the confidence to except themselves ) and then their separation does not answer its end , which is to avoid such corrupt communions ; and yet if they do confine their communion to their own gathered churches , they are schismaticks in dividing themselves from the body of christians ; and all their prayers and sacraments are not acts of christian communion , but a schismatical combination . this does not prove indeed , that particular churches are not bound to reform themselves , and to preserve their own communion pure from corrupt members , unless all the churches in the world , will do so too ; because every particular church , whether diocesan , or national , has power to reform its own members , and is accountable to god for such neglects of discipline : but it does prove , that no church without the guilt of schism , can renounce communion with other christian churches , or set up a distinct and separate communion of its own , for the sake of such corrupt members ; which was the pretence of the novatian and danatist schism of old , and is so of the independent schism , at this day . 3. i observe further , that our obligation to maintain communion with a particular church , wholly results from our obligation to catholick communion . the only reason , why i am bound to live in communion with any particular church , is because i am a member of the whole christian church , which is the body of christ , and therefore must live in communion with the christian church ; and yet it is impossible to live in communion with the whole christian church , without actual communion with some part of it ; when i am in such a place , where there is a visible christian church ; as no member can be united to the natural body , without its being united to some part of the body ; for the union and communion of the whole body , consists in the union of all its parts to each other . every act of christian communion , though performed in a particular church , or congregation , is not properly an act of particular church-communion , but is the exercise of communion with the whole church and body of christ , as i have already proved ; but it can be no act of communion at all , if it be not performed in the communion of the church , which it cannot be , unless it be performed in the communion of some particular church . and this is the only obligation , i know of , to communion with any particular church , that as i am a christian , i am a member of the body and church of christ , and in a state of communion , and therefore am bound to maintain actual communion with the christian church , where-ever i find it , and by communicating with the church , wherein i live , if it be a found and orthodox member of the christian church , i maintain communion with the whole catholick church , which is but one body . so that here is no choice , what church we will communicate with , for there is but one church all the world over , with which we must communicate ; and therefore we have nothing else to do , but to judge , whether that part of the church , wherein we live , be so sound and orthodox , that we may communicate with it according to the principles of catholick communion ; and if it be , we are bound to communicate with it , under peril of schism from the catholick church , if we do not . 4. from hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a separate communion , and separate church . for some men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of schism and separation , but then they use great art , so to confound the notion of separation , as that neither they themselves , nor any one else , shall ever be able to understand what it is , whereas if they will allow , that there is , or ever can be , any such thing as separation from the church , it is as easie to understand , what separation is , as what it is for a member to be divided from the body . for if there be but one church , and one communion , of which all true christians , and christian churches , are , or ought to be members , then those churches , which are not members of each other , are separate churches . it is not enough indeed to prove a separation , that two congregations meet in several places for worship , for this is done by all the parish-churches of england , who are in the same communion , but yet hold distinct and separate assemblies , as to local separation . nor is it sufficient to prove , that there is no separation , because these differing churches agree in all the articles of faith , and essentials of worship ; for thus the novatians and donatists did , who yet were schismaticks from the catholick church . but where there are two churches , which are not members of each other , there is a schism , tho they agree in every thing else , but in one communion ; and where churches own each others communion , as members of the same body , there is no schism , though they are as distant from each other in place , as east and west . and it is as easie to understand , what it is for two churches to be members of each other ; but to make this as plain , as i can , and as far , as it is possible , to prevent all evasions , and subterfuges , i shall lay down some few rules according to the principles of catholick communion , whereby we may certainly know , what churches are in communion with each other , and which are separate and schismatical conventicles . 1. there must be but one church , in one place , according to that ancient rule of the catholick church , that there must be but one bishop in a city ; and this was observed in the apostolical times , that in the greatest and most populous cities , and where there were the greatest number of converts , yet there was but one church , such as jerusalem , antioch , ephesus , &c. this is acknowledged by the independents themselves , who endeavour hence to prove , that there were no more christians in any of those cities , than could meet together in one place for acts of worship , which is a mighty groundless surmise , and not much for the credit of the christian church , as has been often shewn by learned men , both episcopal and presbyterian divines . and there is an evident reason , why this should be so , because there is no other rule of catholick communion for private christians , but to communicate in all religious offices , and all acts of government and discipline , with those christians , with whom they live ; for to renounce the ordinary communion of any christians , or true christian church , is to divide the unity and communion of the church , and to withdraw our selves from ordinary communion with the church , in which we live , into distinct and separate societies for worship , is to renounce their communion ; and when there is not a necessary cause for it , is a schismatical separation . so that distinct and particular churches , which are in communion with each other , must have their distinct bounds and limits , as every member has its natural and proper place and situation in the body . but when there is one church within the bowels of another , a new church gathered out of a church already constituted ; and formed into a distinct and separate society , this divides christian communion , and is a notorious schism . these churches cannot be members of each other , because they ought to be but one church , and therefore to form and gather a new church , is to divide and separate the members of the same church from each other . this is the plain case of the presbyterian and independent churches , and those other conventicles of sectaries , which are among us ; they are churches in a church , churches formed out of the national church , by which means ohristians , who live together , refuse to worship god in the same assemblies , and have bitter envyings and contentions , for the honour and purity of their several churches . if all christians are members of the one body of christ , nothing can justifie the distinction of christians into several churches , but only such a distance of place , as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the conduct and government of several bishops , for the greater edification of the church , in the more easie and regular administration of discipline , and all holy offices ; and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a church out of a christian church , and dividing neighbour christians into distinct communions . churches at a distance may be distinct churches under their distinct bishops , but yet in the same communion ; but distinct churches in the same place can never be of the same communion , for then they would naturally unite and cement into one . there must either be antibishops , or schismatical presbyters , set up in opposition to their bishops , under different and opposite rules of worship and discipline , which makes them rival and opposite churches , not members of each other . from hence i think , it plainly appears , that all separation from a church , wherein we live , unless there be necessary reasons for it , is schism ; and we cannot justifie such distinct churches within one another , from the examples of other distinct churches , whose bounds , and limits , and jurisdiction also , are distinct and separate . 2. it is plain , those are separate churches , which divide from the communion of any church , from any dislike of its doctrine , government , or worship , for in this case , it is plain , they leave the church , and form themselves into a new church , out of the communion of the church , from whence they went , because they did not think it safe to continue one body with it . this has often made me wonder , what those men mean , who take all occasions to quarrel at our constitution , and assign a great many reasons , why they cannot communicate with us , and yet at the same time will not own , that they have made any separation from us . what middle state now shall we find for these men , who will neither continue in the church , nor allow themselves to be out of it ? it is possible for two particular churches to be in communion with each other , and yet not actually to communicate together , because distance of place will not permit it ; but for two churches to renounce each others communion , or at least to withdraw ordinary communion from each other , from a professed dislike , and yet still to continue in a state of communion with one another , is a down right contradiction . to be in communion is to be members of the same body and society , and he that can prove , and he that can believe , two opposite societies , founded upon contrary principles , and acting by contrary rules , and pursuing contrary ends , to the ruin and subversion of each other , to be the same body , and the same society , are very wonderful men to me . 3. those are separate churches , who do not own each others members , as their own . actual communion during our residence in any certain place , must be confined to that particular church , in which we live , if it be a sound part of the christian church ; but church-membership is not confined to any particular church . i am no otherwise a member of any particular church , then i am of the universal church , which gives me a right of membership and communion in all the particular churches of the world. now i would ask whether every baptized christian , who by baptism is made a member of the catholick church , and has not forfeited this right by a scandalous life , be ipso facto a member of an independent church ; if he be not , ( as it is plain , by the constitution of independency , he is not , for independent church-membership is not founded on baptism , but on a particular church-covenant ; ) then independency is a separate communion from the catholick church ; for the members of the catholick church are not by being so , made the members of an independent church , and therefore an independent church is a distinct and separate body from the catholick-church . nay i would know whether a member of one independent church by being so , becomes a member of another independent church ; if he does not , as it is plain , he do'nt , ( for every independent church is founded upon a particular church-covenant between such a particular pastor and particular members ) then every independent church is a distinct and separate body from all other independent churches , and so they are all schismaticks to each other , as not preserving the unity of the body . and tho independent churches should be so civil to each other , as to admit each others members to some acts of communion , yet this is matter of courtesie , not of right , and therefore their constitution is schismatical . it is like two neighbour families , which hold good correspondence with each other , and often visit one another , and eat , and drink together , but yet remain very distinct families , and have all their concerns apart and separate . but the christian church is but one houshold and family , and whoever makes two families of it , is a schismatick . thus let me ask , whether the episcopal , and presbyterian churches in the same christian kingdom , be one church , and members of each other , and own each others members , as such , to be members of their own body and church ; if they do not , as it is evident they don't , from their holding distinct and separate assemblies , under a distinct kind and species of government , which both of them assert to be instituted by christ , and to be essential to the constitution of the church , from their forming themselves into distinct bodies , under different governors , which have no communion , as such , with each other , ( which yet is essential to the communion of particular churches , that their governors should be in communion with each other ) from their condemning each others constitution , and particular modes of worship , and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other ; which necessarily supposes , that they do not look upon each others members , as their own . i say , if from these considerations it appears , that they are not , and do not think themselves to be , one body , nor members of each other , then they are two separate churches , and the church , which makes the separation is the schismatick . and indeed we may as well say , that a monarchy , and aristocracy , and democracy in the same nation , with their distinct governours , and distinct subjects , and distinct laws , that are always at enmity and war with each other , are but one kingdom , as to assert , that the episcopal and presbyterian churches in england , are but one church . 3. the last thing to be explained , is , what is meant by fixt or constant , and by occasional communion . now this is a question , which would grievously have puzl'd st. cyprian and st. austin and other ancient fathers , who never heard but of one sort of communion . for indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional communion , according to the principles of catholick communion . to be in communion with the church , is to be a member of the church , and i take it for granted , that a member signifies a fixt and constant , not an occasional member ; not a member , which is one day a member , and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member , which is a member or no member , just as occasion serves . and if church-membership be a fixt and constant relation in it self considered , then the duties of this relation are fixt and constant also . and therefore for the understanding of these terms , which were unknown to antiquity , we must consult the meaning of our modern authors , who were the first inventors of them . now by fixt communion they mean an actual and constant communicating with some one particular church , as fixt members of it ; occasional communion is to pray , and hear , and receive the sacrament , at some other church , ( of which they do not own themselves to be members ) as occasion serves ; that is , either to gratifie their own curiosity , or to serve some secular end , or to avoid the imputation of schism . now this distinction is owing to such principles , as i have evidently proved to be very great mistakes . for if to be in communion with the church signifie to be a member of it , and that not of any particular church , as distinguisht from the whole catholick church , but to be a member of the one body of christ , and of every sound part of it ; then our communion with the church is as fixt , as our relation and membership is , and i think no man , who understands himself , will talk of an occasional member . if no man can perform any act of communion with a church , of which he is no member ( since all acts of communion have a necessary relation to a state of communion , and that , which is an act of communion in a member , is no act of communion , when performed by him , who is no member , as i have already proved ) then it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of communion , as of occasional membership ; and there can be no place for occasional communion with a church , of which we are no members , unless we will say , that a man , who is not in communion , may exercise acts of communion with the church . if all the acts of christian communion , which respect christian worship , such as prayer , receiving the lords supper , &c. tho performed in a particular church , be not acts meerly of a particular church-communion , but of catholick communion , with the whole christian church , and every sound part of it , then every true catholick christian , is not only in a fixt state of communion with the catholick church , but lives in as constant an exercise of christian communion with all sound and orthodox churches , as he does with that church , in which he lives ; for every act of worship , which is an act of communion with that particular church , in which it is performed ( if that church be in catholick communion ) is an act of communion with the whole catholick church , and therefore the very exercise of christian communion , is equally fixt and constant , or equally occasional with the whole catholick church . there is a sense indeed , wherein we may be said to be members of one particular church considered as distinct from all other particular churches , but that principally consists in government and discipline : every christian is a member of the whole christian church , and in communion with it , but he is under the immediate instruction and government of his own bishop , and presbyters , and is bound to personal communion with them ; and this constitutes a particular church , in which all acts of worship , and all acts of discipline and government are under the direction and conduct of a particular bishop . and when neighbour bishops unite into one body , and agree upon some common rules of government , and the administration of religious offices , this makes them a patriarchal or national church , and thus by submitting to the government and discipline of such particular or united bishops , we become members of a diocesan or national church , considered as distinct from other diocesan or national churches ; but this does not confine our church-membership and communion to such a particular church , tho it strictly oblige us to conform to the worship , and discipline , and government of that church , wherein we live , while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the principles of catholick communion . but tho particular christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the rites and usages , and to submit to the government and discipline of the church , wherein they live , and to maintain personal communion with it , ( and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that church ) yet every act of communion performed in this particular church is an act of catholick communion ; and an exercise of christian communion with the whole church , and every sound part of it . baptism makes us members of the whole church , and gives us a right to communion with every sound part of it ; every act of christian communion in a particular church is a vertual communion with the whole church , with all particular churches , which live in communion with each other ; and notwithstanding my relation to a particular church , by my constant abode and habitation in it , when ever i travel into any other church , i communicate with them as a member ; so that wherever i communicate , whether in that church , in which i usually live , or in any other particular church , where i am accidentally present , my communion is of the same nature , that is , i communicate as a member of the church , and it is impossible , i should communicate otherwise ; for i have no right to communion , but as a member , and nothing i can do , can be an act of communion , if i be not , and do not own my self to be a member . and yet this is the occasion of this mistake about fixt and occasional communion ; that according to the laws of our church , which are founded on great and wise reasons , and indeed according to the laws of catholick communion , every christian is bound to communicate with that part of the church , wherein he lives ; now men may have houses in different parishes , or distinct diocesses , or may travel into other parts of the country , and communicate with the churches , which they find in those places , where they are , or they may sometimes go to prayers , or hear a sermon , or receive the lords supper at another parish-church ; now our ordinary communion with those churches , where our constant abode is , may be called constant communion , and our communion with those churches , which we accidentally visit , and communicate with , may be called occasional communion ; and all this without schism , because we still communicate , either with the same national church , or ( which is often the case of travellers ) with some other sound part of the catholick church , of which we are also members , and so still keep in the same communion , and communicate with no churches , but those , of which we own our selves members ; as being all in the same communion ; as being either sincere members of the national or catholick church . from hence our dissenters conclude , that their communion with an independent , or presbyterian , church , of which they profess themselves fixt members , is as consistent with their occasional communion with the church of england , when to serve some present turn , they hear the prayers , and receive the sacraments with us ; as our fixt communion with our parish-churches is , with our occasional communion , with other parish-churches ; which no body accounts schism , tho when it is too frequent and causeless , it is a great disorder . but the difference between these two is vastly great , for in the first case , we only communicate with such churches , which are all in communion with each other , and therefore he , who is a member of one , is a member of them all , and communicates with them , wherever he is , as a member . but he , who is a fixt member of a presbyterian , or independent church , cannot communicate so much as occasionally , with the church of england , as a member , because he is a member not only of another particular , but of a separate church ; and it is impossible for any man , who is one with himself , to be a member of two separate churches , and whatever acts of worship we joyn in with other churches , of which we are no members , they are not properly acts of communion . having thus premised the explication of these terms , what is meant by church , and what is meant by church-communion , and what is meant by fixt or constant , and occasional communion , the right understanding of these things , will make it very easie to resolve those cases , which immediately respect church-communion , and i shall instance in these three . 1. whether communion with some church or other , especially when the church is divided into so many sects and parties , be a necessary duty , incumbent on all christians . 2. whether constant communion with that church , with which occasional communion is lawful , be a necessary duty . 3. whether it be lawful for the same person , to communicate with two separate churches . case 1. whether communion with some church or other , especially when the church is divided into so many sects and parties , be a necessary duty incumbent on all christians . now methinks the resolution of this is as plain , as whether it be necessary for every man to be a christian . for every christian is baptized into the communion of the church , and must continue a member of the church , till he renounce his membership by schism , or infidelity , or be cast out of the church by ecclesiastical censures . baptism incorporates us into the christian church , that is , makes us members of the body of christ , which is his church and is frequently so called in scripture . for there is but one body and one spirit . eph. 4. 4. one christian church , which is animated and governed by the one spirit of christ. and we are all baptized into this one body . for as the body is one , and hath many members , and all the members of that one body , being many , are one body , so also is christ , that is , the christian church , which is the body of christ , of which he is the head ; for by one spirit we are all baptized into one body , whether we be jews or gentiles , whether we be bond or free , and are all made to drink into one spirit ; for the body is not one member , but many . now i have already proved , that church communion is nothing else , but church-membership , to be in communion with the church , and to be a member of the church , signifying the same thing . and i think , i need not prove , that to be in a state of communion contains both a right ; and an obligation to actual communion . he , who is a member of the church , may challenge all the priviledges of a member , among which actual communion is none of the least ; to be admitted to all the acts and offices of christian-communion , to the communion of prayers and sacraments , and all other christian duties , which no man who is not a member of the church , has any right to . and he who is a member , is bound to perform all those duties and offices , which are essential to church-communion , and therefore is bound to communicate with the church in religious assemblies , to joyn in prayers and sacraments , to attend publick instructions , and to live like a member of the church . but to put this past all boudt , that external and actual communion is an essential duty of a church-member , i shall offer these plain proofs of it . 1. that baptism makes us members of the visible church of christ , but there can be no visible church without visible communion , and therefore every visible member , by vertue of his membership , is bound to external and visible communion , when it may be had . 2. this is essential to the notion of a church , as it is a body and society of christians . for all bodies and societies of men are instituted for the sake of some common duties and offices to be performed by the members of it . a body of men is a community , and it is a strange kind of community , in which every member may act by it self , without any communication with other members of the same body . and yet such a kind of body as this , the christian church is , if it be not an essential duty of every member , to live in the exercise of visible communion with the church , when he can . for there is the same law for all members , and either all or none , are bound to actual communion . but this is more absurd still , when we consider , that the church is such a body , as consists of variety of members , of different offices and officers , which are of no use without actual and visible communion of all its members . to what purpose did christ appoint such variety of ministers in his church , apostles , prophets , evangelists , pastors , and teachers , for the perfecting of the saints , for the work of the ministry , for the edifying of the body of christ ; to what purpose has he instituted a standing ministry in his church , to offer up the prayers of the faithful to god , to instruct , exhort , reprove , and administer the christian sacraments , if private christians are not bound to maintain communion with them , in all religious offices ? 3. nay the nature of christian worship obliges us to church-communion . i suppose , no man will deny , but that every christian is bound to worship god according to our saviours institution : and what that is , we cannot learn better , than from the example of the primitive christians , of whom st. luke gives us this account , that they continued stedfast in the apostles doctrine , and worship , and in breaking of bread , and in prayers . that which makes any thing in a strict sense , an act of church-communion is , that it is performed in the fellowship of the apostles , or in communion with the bishops and ministers of the church ; they are appointed to offer up the prayers of christians to god in his name ; and therefore tho the private devotions of christians are acceptable to god , as the prayers of church-members , yet none but publick prayers , which are offered up by men who have their authority from christ , to offer these spiritual sacrifices to god , are properly the prayers of the church , and acts of church-communion . if then we must offer up our prayers to god according to christ's institution , that is , by the hands of persons authorized and set apart for that purpose ; we must of necessity joyn in the actual and visible communion of the church . the sacrament of the lords supper is the principal part of christian worship , and we cannot celebrate this feast ; but in church-communion ; for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common supper , or communion-feast , which in all ages of the church , has been administred by consecrated persons , and in church-communion ; for it loses its nature and signification , when it is turned into a private mass , so that if every christian is bound to the actual performance of true christian worship , he is bound to an actual communion with the christian church . 4. we may observe further ; that church authority is exercised only about church-communion , which necessarily supposes , that all christians , who are church-members and in a state of communion , are bound to all the acts of external and visible communion with the church . the exercise of church authority consists in receiving in , or shutting out of the church . to receive into the church , is to admit them to all external acts of communion , to shut , or cast , out of the church , is to deny them the external and visible communion of the church ; not to allow them to pray , or receive the lords supper , or perform any religious offices in the publick assemblies of the church . now all this church authority would signifie nothing , were not external and actual communion , both the priviledge and duty of every christian ; and yet this is all the authority christ hath given to his church . 5. and to confirm all this , nothing is more plain in scripture , than that separation from a church , is to withdraw from the visible communion of it , and there can be no notion of separation without this ; now if separation from religious assemblies be to break communion , then to live in communion with the church requires our actual communicating with the church in all religious duties . and that this is the true notion of separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies ; 2 cor. 6. 17. wherefore come out from among them , and be ye separate , saith the lord , and touch no unclean thing , and i will receive you : where , come out from among them , and be ye separate , plainly signifies , to forsake the assemblies of idolaters , not to communicate with them in their idolatrous worship ; so that not to joyn with any men or church in their idolatrous worship , is to separate from their communion , which is a very godly separation , when the worship is idolatrous and sinful , but a schismatical separation , when it is not . thus st. john tells us of the ancient hereticks , they went out from us because they were not of us , for if they had been of us , they would , no doubt , have continued with us , but they went out , that they might be made manifest , that they were not all of us . where their going out from them , plainly signifies , their forsaking christian assemblies , upon which account the author of the epistle to the hebrews admonishes the christians , not to forsake the assembling of themselves together , as the manner of some is , in which he refers to the separation of those ancient hereticks . and thus accordingly to have fellowship or communion with any , is to partake with them in their religious mysteries . by this argument st. paul disswades the corinthians from eating of the idols feast ; because they were sacrifices to evil spirits , and by partaking of those sacrifices they had communion with them . but i say , that the things , which the gentiles sacrifice , they sacrifice to devils , and not to god , and i would not that you should have fellowship with devils . ye cannot drink the cup of the lord , and the cup of devils , ye cannot be partakers of the lords table , and of the table of devils . so that , tho we must first be in a state of communion with christ , and his church , must first be received into covenant , and by baptism be incorporated into the christian church , before we have any right to communicate with this church ; yet no man can preserve his church-state without actual communion , no man has communion with christ , or his church , but he , who actually communicates in all religious offices , and christian institutions ; a state of communion confers a right to communicate , but actual communion consists in the exercise of communion , and a right to communicate without actual communion is worth nothing , as no right or priviledge is without the exercise of it ; for enjoyment consists in acts , and all the blessings of the gospel , all the blessings of christian communion , are conveyed to us by actual communion . so that if we would partake in the blessings of christ , if we would reap the advantages of church-communion , we must live in actual communion , and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right , which we never bring into act. this is sufficient to prove , the necessity of actual communion with the christian church , when it may be had , for where it cannot be had , non-communion is no sin , for we are not obliged to impossibilities ; he who lives in a country , or travels through any country , where there is no true christian church to communicate with , cannot enjoy actual communion ; the right and duty of communion continues , tho necessity may suspend the act. but the greater difficulty is , whether it be not lawful , to suspend our communion with any particular churches , when we see the church divided into a great many parties and factions , which refuse communion with each other , which is the deplorable state of the church at this day among us , presbyterians , independents , anabaptists , quakers , all separate from the church of england , and from each other , and from hence some conclude it lawful to suspend communion with all these divided parties , which is just such a reason for a total suspension of church-communion , as the different and contrary opinions in religion are for scepticism and infidelity . because there are a great many kinds of religions in the world , and a great many divided sects of the christian religion , therefore some men will be of no religion ; and because the christian church is divided into a great many opposite and separate communions , therefore others will be of no church ; and the reason is as strong in one case , as it is in the other , that is , indeed it holds in neither : for it is possible to discover , which is the true religion , notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it , and it is equally possible to find out , which of these divided communions is a true and sound member of the catholick church , and when we know that , we are bound to maintain communion with it . indeed if such divisions and separations , excuse us from actual communion with the church , actual communion never was , and is never likely to be a duty long together ; for there never was any state of the church so happy long together , as to be without divisions : even in the apostles times , there were those , who separated from the communion of the apostles , and set up private conventicles of their own , and so it has been in all succeeding ages of the church , and so it is likely to continue , and if we are not bound to communicate with the church , while there are any hereticks , or schismaticks , who divide from the church , farewell to all church communion in this world. should any man indeed travel into a strange country , and there find a schism in the christian church , it were very fitting for him to suspend communion with either party , till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the controversie , so as to judge , which party is the schismatick ; and then he is bound ( if he understand their language ) to communicate with the sound and orthodox part of the catholick church , which he finds in that place . but this does not reach the case of those , who are constant inhabitants of the place , where the schism is ; for they must not live in a sceptical suspension of communion all their days . and there is one plain rule to direct all men in this inquiry ; that wherever there is a church establisht by publick authority , if there be nothing sinful in its constitution and worship , we are bound to communicate with that church , and to reject the communion of all other parties and sects of christians . for the advantage always lies on the side of authority , no publick establishment can justifie a sinful communion , but if there be nothing sinful in the communion of the national church , which is establisht by publick authority , to separate from such a church is both disobedience to the supreme authority in the state , and a schism from the church . but it will be convenient to consider , what these men mean by suspending communion . for is it lawful for an english man during these church divisions among us , never to worship god in any publick and religious assemblies ? never to pray , nor hear , nor receive the lords supper together ? if this were so , it were the most effectual way in the world to thrust out all religion . but this they will not , they dare not say , and therefore by suspending communion they mean , that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and setled members of any church , but communicate occasionally with them all . but i have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional communion is . for no act of religion is an act of communion ( not so much as of occasional communion ) which is not performed in the communion of the church ; and no man is in communion with the church , who is not a member of it , and whoever is a member of the church is a fixt and not an occasional member ; and whatever church he communicates with , tho it may be , it is but once in a year , or once in his life , as he occasionally travels that way , yet he communicates as a fixt member of the catholick church , and of every sound part of the catholick church ; for a fixt member does not signifie our fixt abode , or constant acts of communion in any particular church , but our state of communion , and fixt and permanent relation to the whole christian church , and every part of it , and therefore tho a particular act of communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular church , yet it is not an act of occasional , but of fixt communion , because tho i communicate but once and that occasionally , yet i communicate as a member of the church , which is not an occasional but a fixt relation . so that when men communicate occasionally , as they speak , with all the different parties of christians in a divided church , they either communicate with none , or communicate with all of them . if they perform these acts of communion , without owning their relation to them , as members , then they are in communion with none of them , notwithstanding all these pretended acts of occasional commmunion , and so they live in communion with no church , which yet i hope , i have made it appear to be the duty of every christin to do ; if they communicate with all these divided parties , as members , then they are in communion with many separate churches , are members of separate and opposite bodies , that is , they are contrary to themselves , and on one side or other , are certain to be schismaticks , but this will appear further from considering the two following cases . case 2. the second case is this ; whether constant communion be a duty , where occasional communion is lawful . i have already made it appear , that the very notion of constant and occasional communion is absurd , and a contradiction to all the principles of catholick communion , and therefore there is no place for this distinction , nor for this question , every christian , as a christian , is a fixt member of the whole christian church , and of every sound part of it , and for men to talk of being members of any one particular church , in distinction from all other particular churches , of which they will not own themselves members , is a schismatical notion of church-membership , because it divides the christian church into distinct memberships , and therefore into distinct bodies , which makes the one church and one body of christ , not one , but many bodies : for if every particular church has such a number of members , which are members only of that particular church , wherein they are fixt , and are not members of any other particular church , then every particular church is a distinct and entire body by it self , which has particular members of its own , which belong to no other body ; just as every particular man has his own body , which consists of such a number of members , united to each other , and distinct from all other bodies . the plain state of the case in short is this : every true christian is in communion with the whole christian church , that is , is a member of the whole church ; but he must perform the acts of communion in some particular church , and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional communion is this ; that we must perform the constant acts of communion in that part of the catholick church , in which we constantly live , and communicate occasionally with that part of the church , in which we are occasionally present ; and therefore there never can be any competition between constant and occasional communion in the same place . i cannot communicate constantly with that church in which i communicate occasionally , unless i remove my habitation , and turn an occasional presence into a constant and setled abode ; nor can i without sin communicate only occasionally with that church , with which i may and ought to communicate constantly , as being constantly present there , for this is only to do that sometimes , which i ought to do always . this is like a mans living occasionally in his own house , which signifies , that for the most part he is a stranger at home . there cannot be two distinct churches in the same place , one for occasional , and another for constant communion , without schism , for it is evident , these are two distinct communions , and that our relation to them is as different , as it is to a house we live in , and to an inn , where we lodge for a night . so that there is no foundation for this inquiry among men , who understand the true principles of catholick-communion ; it never can be a case of conscience , whether i should communicate constantly or occasionally with such a church , unless it be a case of conscience , whether i should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a church ; for where my constant abode is , there my constant communion must be , if there be a true and sincere part of the catholick-church in that place , and where i am only occasionally , there i can only communicate occasionally also . but to meet with the distempers of this age , and to remove those apologies some men make for their schism , it is necessary to make this a question . for in this divided state of the church , there are a great many among us , who think , they cannot maintain constant communion with the church of england , as constant and fixt members , who yet upon some occasions think , they may communicate with us in all parts of worship , and actually do so . now when these men , who are fixt members , as they call it , of separate churches , think fit sometimes to communicate in all parts of worship with the church of england , we charitably suppose , that men , who pretend to so much tenderness of conscience , and care of their souls , will do nothing , not so much as once , which they believe , or suspect , to be sinful , at the time , when they do it ; and therefore we conclude , that those , who communicate occasionally with the church of england , do thereby declare , that they believe , there is nothing sinful in our communion ; and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our church , and earnestly desire to know , how they can justifie their ordinary separation from such a church , as requires no sinful terms of communion . if any thing less than sinful terms of communion can justifie a separation , then there can be no end of separations , and catholick-communion is an impossible and impracticable notion , that is , the church of christ neither is one body , nor ever can be . for if men are not bound to communicate with a church , which observes our saviours institutions , without any such corrupt mixtures , as make its communion sinful , then there is no bounds to be set to the fancies of men , but they may new model churches , and divide and subdivide without any end . is that a sound and orthodox part of the catholick-church , which has nothing sinful in its communion ? if it be not , pray what is it , that makes any church sound and orthodox ? if it be , upon what account is it lawful , to separate from a sound and orthodox church ? and may we not by the same reason separate from the whole catholick church , as from any sound part of it ? nay does not that man separate from the whole catholick church , who separates from any sound part of it ? for the communion of the church is but one , and he , that divides and breaks this union , separates himself from the whole body . excepting the independency of churches ( which i have proved above to be schism in the very notion of it ) the great pleas for separation from a church , which has nothing sinful in its communion , are the pretence of greater edification , and purer ordinances . but these are such pleas , as must expose the church to eternal schisms , because there are no certain rules to judge of these matters , but the various and uncertain fancies of men. what they like best , that shall be most for their edification , and these shall be purer ordinances , and till men can agree these matters among themselves , which they are never likely to do , till they can all agree in the same diet ; or in their judgment and opinion about beauty , decency , fitness , convenience , they may and will divide without end ; and if the peace and unity of the church be so necessary a duty , it is certain , these principles , which are so destructive to peace and unity , must be false , as to consider these things particularly , but very briefly . what purer administrations and ordinances would men have , than those of our saviours own institution , without any corrupt and sinful mixtures , to spoil their vertue and efficacy ? ( as we suppose is acknowledged by those , who occasionally communicate in all parts of our worship , that there is nothing sinful in it ) the purity of divine adminstrations must consist in their agreement with the institution , that there is neither any such defect or addition , as alters their nature and destroys their vertue . for the efficacy of gospel ordinances depends upon their institution , not upon particular modes of administration , which are not expresly commanded in the gospel ; and he , who desires greater purity of ordinances than their conformity to their institution , who thinks , that baptism and the lords supper lose their efficacy , unless they be administred in that way , which they themselves best like , are guilty of gross superstition , and attribute the vertue of sacraments to the manner of their administration , not to their divine institution . and what men talk of greater edification is generally as little understood as the other ; for edification is building up , and is applied to the church , considered as gods house and temple , and it is an odd way of building up the temple of god , by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other . this one thing well considered , viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edification or building , according to the scripture notion of it , does always primarily refer to , or at least include , church-unity and communion , is sufficient to convince any man , what an ill way it is , to seek for greater edification in breaking the communion of the church by schism and separation ; and therefore i shall make it plainly appear , that this is the true scripture notion of edification ; and to that end shall consider the most material places , where this word is used . now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which our translators render by edification , is a house or building , and this is the proper sense , wherein it belongs to the christian church , ye are gods husbandry , ye are gods building , that is , the church is gods house or building , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . thus the same apostle tells us , that in christ , the whole building ( i. e. the whole christian church ) fitly framed together , groweth unto an holy temple in the lord. hence the governours of the church are called builders , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the apostles are called labourers together with god , in erecting this spiritual building , and st. paul calls himself a master builder . hence the increase , growth and advances towards perfection in the church , is called the building , or edification of it . for this reason st. paul commends prophesie , or expounding the scriptures , before speaking in unknown tongues without an interpreter , because by this the church receives building or edification . all these spiritual gifts , which were bestowed on the christians , were for the building and edifying of the church . the apostolical power in church censures was for edification , not for destruction , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to build , and not to pull down , that is , to preserve the unity of the church intire , and its communion pure . and we may observe that this edification is primarily applied to the church , that the church may receive edifying : that ye may excell to the edifying of the church : for the edifying of the body of christ , and it is very observable : wherein the apostle places the edification of the body of christ , viz. in unity and love. till we all come in the unity of the faith , and of the knowledge of the son of god , to a perfect man , unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ. till we are united by one faith into one body , and perfect man. and speaking the truth in love , may grow up in him into all things , which is the head , even christ from whom the whole body fitly joyned together , and compacted by that , which every joynt supplieth , according to the effectual working in the measure of every part , maketh increase of the body , unto the edifying it self in love . this is an admirable description of the unity of the church , in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together , as stones and timber are to make one house ; and thus they grow into one body , and increase in mutual love , and charity , which is the very building and edification of the church , which is edifyed and built up in love , as the apostle adds , that knowledge puffeth up , but charity edifieth , this builds up the church of christ ; and that not such a common charity as we have for all mankind ; but such a love and sympathy , as is peculiar to the members of the same body , and which none but members can have for each other , and now methinks i need not prove , that schism and separation is the not for edification of the church ; to separate for edification is to pull down instead of building up . but these men do not seem to have any great regard to the edification of the church , but only to their own particular edification , and we must grant , that edification is sometimes applied to particular christians in scripture , according to st. pauls exhortation , comfort your selves together , and edifie one another , even as also ye do . and this edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all christian graces and vertues : and so the building and edification of the church , signifies the growth and improvement of the church in all spiritual wisdom and knowledge , and christian graces , the edification of the church consists in the edification of particular christians , but then this is called edification or building , because this growth and improvement is in the unity and communion of the church , and makes them one spiritual house and temple . thus the church is called the temple of god , and every particular christian is gods temple , wherein the holy spirit dwells , and yet god has but one temple , and the holy spirit dwells only in the church of christ ; but particular christians are gods temple , and the holy spirit dwells in them , as living members of the christian church ; and thus by the same reason , the church is edified and built up , as it grows into a spiritual house and holy temple by a firm and close union and communion of all its parts ; and every christian is edified , as he grows up in all christian graces and vertues in the unity of the church . and therefore whatever extraordinary means of edification men may fancy to themselves in a separation , the apostle knew no edification , but in the communion of the church ; and indeed if our growth and increase in all grace and vertue , be more owing to the internal assistances of the divine spirit , than to the external administrations , as st. paul tells us , i have planted , and apollos watered , but god gave the increase : so then , neither is he , that planteth any thing , nor he that watereth ; but god that gave the increase : and the divine spirit confine his influences and operations to the unity of the church ( as the same apostle tells us , that there is but one body and one spirit , ( which plainly signifies , that the operations of this one spirit , are appropriated to this one body , as the soul is to the body it animates ) then it does not seem a very likely way for edification to cut our selves off from the unity of christs body . 3. the third and last case still remains , which will be resolved in a few words , according to the principles now laid down , which is this : whether it be lawful to communicate with two distinct and separate churches . for this is thought of late days , not only a very innocent and lawful thing , but the true catholick-spirit , and catholick-communion , to communicate with churches of all communions , unless perhaps they may except the papists , and quakers . it is thought a schismatical principle , to refuse to communicate with those churches , which withdraw communion from us . and thus some , who communicate ordinarily with the church of england , make no scruple to communicate in prayers and sacraments with presbyterian and independent churches , and presbyterians can communicate with the church of england , and with independents , whom formerly they charged with down-right schism ; and some think it very indifferent , whom they communicate with , and therefore take their turns in all . but this is as contrary to all the principles of church-communion , as any thing can possibly be . to be in communion with the church is to be a member of it , and to be a member of two separate and opposite churches , is to be as contrary to our selves , as those separate churches , are to each other . christ hath but one church , and one body , and therefore where there are two churches divided from each other by separate communions , there is a schism and rent in the body , and whoever communicates with both these churches , on one side or other , communicates in a schism . that the presbyterian and independent churches , have made an actual separation from the church of england , i have evidently proved already ; and therefore if the communion of the church of england be lawful ( as those , who can , and ordinarily do communicate with the church of england , must be presumed to acknowledge ) then they are schismaticks , and to communicate with them is to partake in their schism . now if schism be an innocent thing , and the true catholick spirit , i have no more to say , but that the whole christian church , ever since the apostles times , has been in a very great mistake ; but if schism be a very great sin , and that which will damn us , as soon as adultery and murder , then it must needs be a dangerous thing to communicate with schismaticks . the sum of all in short is this . besides these men , who justifie their separation from the church of england , by charging her with requiring sinful terms of communion , ( which is the only thing , that can justifie their separation , if it could be proved ) there are others , who separate lightly and wantonly , for want of a due sense of the nature of church-communion , and our obligations to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace . they have no notion at all of a church , or no notion of one church , or know not , wherein the unity and communion of this church consists ; and these men think , it is indifferent , whether they communicate with any church at all , or that they secure themselves from schism by communicating sometimes with one church , and sometimes with another ; that they may choose their church according to their own fancies , and change again , when ever their humor alters . but i hope , who ever considers carefully , what i have now writ , and attends to those passionate exhortations of the gospel to peace , and unity , and brotherly love , which cannot be preserved but in one communion , which is the unity of the body of christ , and the peace and love of fellow members , will not only heartily pray to the god of peace , to restore peace and unity to his church , but will be careful , how he divides the church himself , and will use his utmost endeavours to heal the present schisms and divisions of the church of christ. the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59866-e150 eph. 2. 21 , 22. 1 tim. 3. 15. rom. 11. 17 , 18. john 10. 16. case 1. eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. col. 1. 18. 1 cor 12. 12 , 13. eph. 4. 11 , 12. acts 2. 41. 1 john 2. 19 heb. 10. 25. 1 cor. 10. 20 , 21. case 2. 1 cor. 3. 9. 10. eph. 2. ●1 . matth. 21 , 42. acts 4 11. 1 cor 3. 9. 1 cor. 14. 9. v. 12. 2 cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 1 cor. 14. 5. 12. eph. 4. 12. 13. 15 , 16. 1 cor. 8. 1. 1 thes. 5. 11. 1 cor. 3. 6 , 7. eph. 4. 4. case 3. an answer to a late scandalous pamphlet entituled a friendly debate between satan and sherlock, written by thomas danson by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1677 approx. 117 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 36 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59788 wing s3262 estc r31818 12264138 ocm 12264138 57922 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59788) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 57922) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1514:12) an answer to a late scandalous pamphlet entituled a friendly debate between satan and sherlock, written by thomas danson by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 70 p. printed by a.c. for walter kettilby ..., london : 1677. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng danson, thomas, ca. 1624-1694. -friendly debate between satan and sherlock. mystical union. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-07 rachel losh sampled and proofread 2004-07 rachel losh text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a late scandalous pamphlet , entituled , a friendly debate between satan and sherlock , written by thomas danson . by william sherlock , rector of s. george buttolph-lane , london . london : printed by a. c. for walter kettilby , at the bishops head in s. paul's church-yard . 1677. an answer to the preface . our author was conscious to himself , that the very title and design of this pamphlet would be so offensive to all sober christians , that he durst not venture it abroad in the world without making some apology for it , and had he deferred his apology a little longer , he might have been informed of some more material things to have exercised his faculty of making excuses . but he conceives himself obliged to make an apology for three things , which , he conceives , an intelligent reader may fault in them , according to his new mode of speaking . first , that they came out so late , when many persons of ability have foiled the adversary , and when he hath mollified the harshness of many expressions here repeated , in a second discourse . to the former he answers , that none had dealt with mr. sherlock upon the medium here suggested , and that the world had had these sheets sooner , if this medium they contain , had come sooner into his thoughts . this is a very satisfactory answer , and i know nothing to be said to it , for it is unreasonable any man should write before he thinks , though i doubt after all , it will appear , that our author has done so . but what an unmerciful man is this , to set so furiously upon a foiled adversary , only for the sake of a new medium , which is like running a man through with a rapier , who was killed before with a bullet , because forsooth he had not been yet killed with a sword , and he must needs try the strength of his arm and the metal of his sword. but this is a plain argument , that though our author is resolved to huff , and like the dutch , appoint public thanksgivings and bonfires , when they are beat , to keep up their reputation ( which well enough becomes such dutch divines ) yet he did not think in his heart , that the adversary was foiled , nor is he ever likely to be foiled by twenty such new medium's as this . but i would fain hear what he has to say to the latter , why he should repeat those expressions , the harshness of which had been mollified in a second discourse ; without so much as giving notice to the devil of any such thing , which i am apt to think , he would have been so ingenuous as to have acknowledged , had he been duly informed : if he have not put a cheat upon the devil in this , i am sure he has upon his credulous readers . but to this he answers , that he finds not in m. sherlock ' s second discourse any retraction of his unsound tenets . but he finds a defence of the soundness of them , and such as has silenc'd his adversaries , and it had been done more like a man and a scholar , to have assaulted the second discourse , than to have gloried in the repetition of the old baffled calumnies ; unless he thought it would give more reputation and credit to them , that they are repeated and owned by the devil . but he proceeds : though he seems upon second thoughts , not so well pleased with his own phraseology , as giving cause to every man , whose addition is christian , to suspect , that under a pretence of rectifying mistakes , he designed to expose all religion ( which not without cause he intimates his fear of , pref. p. 3. of his first discourse : ) who , that reads these words , would not imagine , that in the preface to my first book , i had intimated my fears , lest my phraseology , as he calls it , should expose all religion , and that this was the reason , why i altered it in my second : whereas that passage he refers to in the preface , concerns quite another matter , as appears from viewing the whole sentence : i have taken care , not only to unteach men , what was amiss , but to explain and confirm the true notions of religion , lest any man should suspect , that under a pretence of rectifying mistakes , i designed to expose all religion : and the reason i assigned in the second , for changing some phrases is quite different : for there is an euphemia due from us when we speak of sacred things , and it is not fit always to represent such doctrines in their true and proper colours : whether this be a good reason i cannot tell , but it was the best i had , and i never thought to have been called to an account for such a piece of ingenuity , as our author will never be guilty of : i sufficiently signifie , that i still believe those expressions to be a proper and natural representation of their doctrines , but their doctrines are so horrid , that it is not fit to represent them in their proper language , as it is not fit to describe obscene and filthy things in proper terms . here we have the first tast of our authors ingenuity and honesty , which shows him to be a man well qualified to write a dialogue for the devil . the second thing he fears may be blamed is , that mr. sh. principles are represented under the form of a dialogue , and with so odious a choice of a dialogist . as for the form of a dialogue i like it very well , when it is honestly managed , and whether this be so or no , shall be presently examined . though i wonder he was not afraid to mention those dialogues , which have given such a baffle to their cause , that satan himself cannot help them . but he has started one objection , which he had better spared because he cannot answer it , viz. that mr. sh. is brought in ex professo designing to give the devil hopes of salvation , which yet he no where does throughout his whole book : which he attempts to justifie from my own practice and apology : the sum of which is this , that i charge some mens doctrines with such consequences , which they do not own , and plainly acknowledg , that they do not own them in such express words ; but if they will be consistent with themselves , upon their principles they must own them ; which is a plain way of reasoning , which all men allow of , to convince men of the unsoundness of their doctrines , by the evil consequences , which attend them : but is there no difference between this and bringing in a man industriously owning and proving those consequences , which he does not own ; as to give a plain instance or two of it : suppose the friendly debate , which he mentions , had brought in a non-conformist industriously disputing against all order and government in the church , because this is the natural consequence of their loose principles : or should have brought in a calvinist owning and proving , that god is the author of sin , and that he damns his creatures , only to show his almighty power , and to sport himself in their miseries , or that there is no need of living a holy life , but that god can love us as dearly with all our sins , as when we are holy ; would not t. danson have thought this hard usage to be made to own that , and plead for it , which he pretends to disown . what is the meaning of a dialogue , but to represent two persons talking together ? and therefore if we will deal honestly , we must make neither of them say that , which we know , they would not say , if they were present : we may charge any man with the ill consequences of his doctrine , but we must not make him own them , unless he pleases ; at this rate of writing dialogues , i could quickly make t. danson appear the greatest fop in nature . as for the choice of a dialogist , which he confesses to be odious enough , he pretends he could not avoid it in regard of the medium he insists upon : for who can be imagined a fitter person to debate the point with him , whether there be any hope of the devils salvation , than the person concerned , satan himself . he has concealed the true reason , which is , because it was odious , and did gratifie a fanatic rage , and malice ; for what necessity was there of a dialogue ? why could not t. d. have fairly debated the case upon my principles , and left me to answer for my self ? he who will observe the rules of dialogues , ought not to bring in two persons talking together , who can never be supposed to do so ; and there never was yet any dialogue framed between a man and the devil , but upon a designed abuse ; and let mr. danson consider , whether this be a fit representation to make of a christian and a minister : for my part i heartily forgive the injury , pitty his folly , and despise his malice , and would seriously advise him to have a care , lest while he intends merrily , and , as he thinks , wittily , to dispute the devil into heaven , he do not dispute himself into a worse place : i had rather ten thousand times be represented , as disputing with the devil , than so much to partake of his nature and qualities . let any man judg , whether this be not a readier way to expose all religion to contempt than some harsh and ill sounding phrases : their fantastic divinity has already made a great many half-witted men atheists , who had wit enough to see the folly of their religion , but not to discover the true notions of things , and what a confirmation will it be to such men to hear the fundamental principles of religion , the love of god to his creatures , and the necessity of holiness to recommend us to god , burlesqued by a fanatic devil ? but indeed his friends the non-conformists have most reason to be angry with him for this , for it seems their cause is at a very low ebb , when they are forced to call the devil in to their assistance . flectere si nequeo superos , acheronta movebo . like saul , who went to the witch at endor , when god would not hear him ? and i have so good an opinion of them , ( as much as i am thought their enemy , for no other reason , than the galathians thought s. paul so , because i have told them the truth , and charitably designed to rescue them from those mistakes , which are great hinderances of piety , and dangerous snares and temptations to weak doubting christians ) yet i say , i believe so well of them , that they are not willing to have the devil of their party , nor represented as their patron and advocate . and yet throughout this friendly debate , the devil is brought in as pleading their cause , and going to conventicles , and mightily admiring dr. owen , and some other of his brethren : and this t. danson was so conscious of , that when in his preface in vindication of this dialogue , he produces the instance of the friendly debate , he durst not add [ between a conformist , and a non-conformist , ] because that makes it too plain , which side the devil took , that the friendly debate between satan and sherl . was equivalent to a friendly debate between a non-conformist and a conformist . though i must needs say this for t. danson , that he has chose the most proper dialogist , that possibly he could for such a design : for the whole dialogue consists of nothing else , but lies and calumnies , and who so proper a person to bear that part , as the devil , who is the father of lies , and the accuser of the brethren ? and indeed i am more beholden to this author , than to any of my adversaries , that he will let the world know who is my grand adversary ; i have been assaulted all along with no other weapons , but lies and slanders , and malitious insinuations , but then it was done with a demure pretence of religion , and zeal for god , but m. danson has dealt honestly , and drawn aside the curtain , and showed the world , that satan stood behind to prompt them ; but to return to our author , he proceeds thus . the last thing , that some readers may fault , is , that the dialogue detracts from the devils abilities of managing a controversie , for he is commonly introduced , as acquiescing in mr. sherl . grounds , which are liable enough to exception . it is well for him , if this be the last thing , his readers will find fault with , which if it be , will as much detract from their understandings , as the other does from the devils skill in controversie . to this he answers , that there is a fitness , and necessity for it . the fitness in short is this , that the devil is contented to appear a fool , so he may do mischief ; and indeed this is the only reason i can think of , that should make him contented to bear his part in so silly a dialogue as this ; and i fear , it will be found at last , that as great a fool as the devil seems to be , he has out-witted our author in this undertaking . the necessity is in regard of the deficiency of m. sh. book , ( to which the dialogue is confined ) which affords not answers to multitude of exceptions ( which might have been put into satans mouth ) against the principles therein contained . truly i cannot help that , for i never thought of disputing with the devil , and therefore might not be so well provided for him : but he , who help'd the devil to so much , without any just occasion from any thing in that book , might have help'd him to more , if there had not been some other defect ; and i doubt not , but the devil would have argued more craftily , had he been left to his own natural wit , or had a better disputant to put words into his mouth ; the lying malicious part could not have been done better by the devil himself , and if that had not made him some satisfaction for the other defects , i know not how m. danson could ever have repaired the injury he has done him . i should much have wondered , if after the last fault , there had not been some other found out ; and now he suspects , that some may find a fourth fault , that the author brings in satan as playing upon m. sherlock . but hath not m. sh. taken the same liberty with his antagonists : i am sorry our author should give himself the trouble to excuse his wit , for he has as little reason for it , as any man i know : but i see the devil is their very good friend , and must revenge their quarrel on me , and play upon me , because as our author says , i have plaid upon them ; well if it must be so , i cannot help it , only i would advise them not to look behind , lest they should see the devil laughing more heartily at them behind their backs . and i perceive the devil has very much be-fooled , if he does not laugh at our author , that he should see no difference between representing a minister of christ jesus disputing with the devil , and the devil playing and drolling on him ; and making a little innocent mirth with some absurd and foolish propositions , such a man is a very fit tool for the devils use , who has lost all manner of sense , of what is fit and comly . and now the author gives us leave to go into the house it self , and though i perceive it is a haunted house , yet i think there is no danger in it , for it is such a silly devil , as will be easily conjured out . an answer to a scandalous pamphlet , entituled , a friendly debate between satan and sherlock . the question under debate is , whether those principles owned by me in a discourse of the knowledge of jesus christ , afford the devi the same grounds for his hope of salvation , that they do mankind ? thus our author tells us in his title-page , which he says , subverts the gospel , and transforms christianity into mahumetanism . this mahumetism is placed here only as an invidious term , for that gives no more hope of salvation to the devil , than t. danson does , unless he will say , that an absolute fate and irrespective decrees , which is the doctrin of mahumetanism gives the devil as much hope of salvation , as mankind : and if he did say so , some think he would come much nearer the truth ; for if these absolute decrees give no hope to the devil , no more do they to mankind : for he will not say , that the elect are all mankind , and it is plain , that the reprobate , who are far the greatest part of mankind , can have no more reasonable hope of salvation , than the devils have , and the elect themselves can have no hope of salvation by virtue of these principles ; but must either have a particular revelation for it , or live in perpetual doubt , or abuse themselves by a warm and enthusiastic fansie : and if there were any necessity of chusing one , methinks every man out of love to himself and to human nature , should rather espouse those principles , which afford all mankind reasonable hopes of salvation , though the devil himself should conceive some reason to hope well too ; than such principles as will give no man , not the elect themselves any sure foundation for hope . but let us consider , what those principles are , which as our author says , give the devil as great hope of salvation as mankind . and the first is , gods love to all his creatures ; as he cites my words , the light of nature , and works of creation and providence assure us , that god is so good , that he designs and desires the happiness of all his creatures according to the capacity of their natures . [ knowledge of christ , p. 42. ed. 1. ] and therefore either the devil is none of gods creatures , or his nature is uncapable of happiness , or god designs and desires his happiness , as well as of other of his creatures . i see our author begins , as he intends to hold on , for it is his constant practice to take part of a sentence , which he thinks will serve his turn , and leave out what will not ; for my words are these : the light of nature and the works of creation and providence , and those manifold revelations god hath made of himself to the world , especially that last and most perfect revelation by jesus christ our lord , assure us , &c. so that i joyn the light of nature with the revelation of the gospel , which is the most certain discovery of the will of god , and therefore can be understood of no other creatures , than those to whom the gospel gives hopes of salvation . but the force of his argument consists in the word creature ; but does not the scripture use that word peculiarly for all mankind ? when our saviour commands his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature , mark xvi . 15. does that signifie , that they must preach the gospel to devils , as well as men ? when the psalmist tells us , that the lord is good to all , and his tender mercies are over all his works , psal. cxlv . 9. which is as large an expression as all creatures , must the devil , who is one of gods works be included or not ? if not , then it seems god may be good all his works , and all his creatures according to the scripture phrase , without being good to the devil . but why did not our author from hence conclude the salvation of birds and beasts and fishes , and in a fanatic phrensie , like another s. francis , and s. antony , go and preach to lambs and sheep and fish ? for they are creatures too , and if we will believe the experience of these saints , very capable of devotion ; and indeed it would have been a much more innocent imploiment , and more suited to his abilities , than writing dialogues for the devil . but let me seriously ask our author , whether god be good to all his creatures or not ? if he be ( as i hope , he will not dare to say otherwise , whatever he thinks , ) then according to his principles , the devil has the same hope of salvation , that mankind has ; or if he have not , then he must find out some way to reconcile gods love to all his creatures , with the irrevocable damnation of the devil , and that will serve my turn as well as his . but to bring this to an issue , i will only ask him one question more , whether from gods goodness to all his creatures , he thinks , it may be proved , that all men shall to all eternity be in the same capacity for salvation , that they are in while they live in this world ? if not , then it seems , god may be very good to all his creatures , and yet allot such a time for the exercise of his patience and long suffering , beyond which the obstinate and incorrigible shall be utterly uncapable of mercy and salvation : and this god expresly tells us , that his spirit shall not always strive with man , gen. vi . 3. and our saviour wept over jerusalem , because she had out-stood the day of grace and salvation , luke xix . 41 , 42. and when he was come near , he beheld the city , and wept over it , saying , if thou hadst known , even thou at least in this thy day , the things which belong unto thy peace , but now they are hid from thine eyes . the like we may see in matth. xxiii . 37 , 38 , 39. and the apostle to the hebrews dissuades from the delays of their repentance , by the example of gods severity upon the israelites . heb. iii. 7 , 8 , 9 , &c. to day if you will hear his voice , harden not your hearts , as in the provocation , as in the day of temptation in the wilderness , when your fathers tempted me , proved me , and saw my works forty years , wherefore i was grieved with that generation , and said , they do always err in their hearts , and have not known my ways , so i sware in my wrath , they shall not enter into my rest : take heed brethren , lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living god ; but exhort one another daily , while it is called to day , lest any of you be hardned through the deceitfulness of sin . and in heb. xii . 15 , 16 , 17. he presses the same exhortation from the example of esau , who for one morsel of bread sold his birth-right , for ye know , how that afterward , when he would have inherited the blessing , he was rejected : for he found no place for repentance , though he sought it earnestly with tears . and our saviour gives us the same account in the parable of the foolish virgins , who were not prepared to entertain the bridegroom , when he came , matth. xxv . 1 , 2 , &c. which he concludes with this inference , watch therefore , for you know neither the day nor the hour , wherein the son of man cometh v. 13. from all which it evidently appears , that though god be very good to all his creatures , yet he has limited a time to the exercise of his grace and mercy , beyond which he will not extend his goodness to those , who neglect their day , and proper season of grace : the longest period , that any christians own , is the day of our life , though some of the most zealous patrons of the divine goodness , think it no reproach to the goodness of god to make it shorter , and to assert , that some men may out-sin the day of grace even in this life , and some of those places , i have now mentioned , seem very strongly to insinuate some such thing ; which is a very powerful argument against the delays of our repentance , and should make us very cautious of contracting such habits of vice , as may make the grace of god ineffectual to us . so that though god be very good to all his creatures , that is not sufficient to prove the devil to be in as good a capacity of salvation as mankind , unless he can withal prove , that the devils day of grace and salvation is not yet past , and when he does that , he shall hear more from me . i have insisted the longer on this , because it is a sufficient answer to this whole pamphlet , and whoever can but carry this in his mind , will easily discover the sophistry of all the rest , for if the devils time be past , his condition is equally hopeless and desperate , let the terms of salvation be what they will. and since our author has put me in mind of an old maxim , frustra fit per plura , quod fieri potest per pauciora , i shall not trace the devil through all his turnings and labyrinths , but taking that account , which he gives of his hope of salvation from my principles , and supposing it at the present to be a true account ( which as you shall hear more afterwards is far from being so ) shall show you what a silly devil this is , and that his doctrine of signs and evidences is much more foolish and absurd , than ever the wildest fanatic preached to a doubting soul : we find all his grounds to hope for salvation put together at the end of this pamphlet , p. 43. &c. as first , that god is so good , that he designs and desires the happiness of all his creatures ( and therefore mine , ) this i have already answered , and that answer will answer all the rest . ii. that gods will in that design is not arbitrary , having no reason but it self , for such a will would destroy all the perfections of gods nature . answ. but his will is governed by the laws of wisdom and justice and holiness , and that will serve to condemn bad men and evil spirits , and to pass an irrevocable sentence on them : and it seems our author thinks , and that very right , that an arbitrary will , which acts for no other reason , but because it will , would give the devil more hopes of salvation : for if god have no reason to damn the devil , but because he will , it is possible he may alter his mind when there is no reason , why he should not , and as well save , as damn them without any reason . iii. that holiness in the creature is the reason of the determination of his love to any particular persons . answ. what comfort is this to the devil ? who is a very wicked and impure spirit , and therefore cannot expect , that god should love him for this reason , if god could love him without holiness , he would have more reason to hope well . iv. that this holiness is not an effect of an omnipotent power , but of powerful motives and arguments , ( and so by the use of my free will , i may be holy if i will. ) answ. if he call this my principle , it is a very great calumny , though it is not the first lie the devil has told , but at present suppose it to be true , what powerful motive can the devil have to be holy , when a final and irrevocable sentence is past on him ? there can be no motive to repentance powerful , without hope of pardon , and that he has none . but does our author imagine it impossible for men or devils to sink into such a degenerate state , that the most powerful motives cannot work on them ? what does the apostle mean then by being hardened through the deceitfulness of sin , having a reprobate sense , and being past feeling , and their consciences seared as with a hot iron ? and if men may by repeated acts of sin grow so hard and incurable , what shall we think of the devils ? what can powerful motives do on them ? if god would make any creatures holy by an omnipotent and irresistible grace , there is some hope for the devil , that he might be holy , when god pleases to make him so : but the most powerful arguments will signifie nothing to such degenerate creatures : and so far as we can understand the nature of gods judgments from the examples of scripture ( for in executing judgments god reserves a soveraignty to himself , and punishes some sooner and others later , and when men have made themselves ripe for judgment , defers the execution of it , and endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction , ) yet the most usual method is to harden those , who have first hardened themselves , and when men shut their eyes , and stop their ears , and resist all the powerful methods of his grace , he gives them up to their wilful blindness and impenitency ; as an indulgent father casts off a son , who continues obstinate and incorrigible , after all the most probable ways of reclaiming him . there are a great many , who not without reason deny , that we are wholly passive in our conversion , as a man naturally dead is passive in his being restored to life again , and assert , that our natural impotency and inability to good , which we contracted by the fall of adam , is curable by gospel grace , by these powerful motives and arguments of the gospel , and the internal assistances of the holy spirit , which yet do not work irresistibly , but require the concurrence of our endeavours , we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling , because god works in us both to will and to do according to his own good pleasure , as the apostle speaks . but i never in my life yet met with any man , who was not distracted , who durst affirm , that no man could so harden himself in sin , as to be incurable by all the methods of gospel grace ; and if men may sin themselves into such an incurable state , we have some reason to think the devil may and has . and therefore our author did not observe a good decorum , when he brings in the devil hoping that he may hereafter govern his life by the revelations of the gospel , for the devil scorns any such hopes , or he is so mean a spirited devil , that many of our town hectors will scorn him : but i wonder our author did not consider , that he has by this spoiled one very considerable sign of grace , which is the desire of grace , for if the devil may hope for grace , which always includes a desire of grace , it can give no great comfort to doubting christians . and by the way , he has spoiled another very good sign of grace too , when he brings in the devil going to conventicles , what recompence he will be able to make the brethren for taking away two such good signs , and thereby spoiling so many good sermons , let him consider . but to proceed . v. that though this holinesse be not perfect , yet god will accept it , if sincere : this is the current doctrine of the gospel , that god will accept our sincere but imperfect obedience for the sake of christ , but what is this to the devil , who is not concerned in it , as you have already heard ; whose final doom is past , and neither can , nor will be holy ? but let all good christians consider , whether this be not to expose the gospel of our saviour , by making the plain and undeniable doctrines of it to give as much incouragement to the devil , as to mankind , and by that goodly medium to prove that they are unfound and false , if this be not the doctrine of the gospel , i will burn my bible , and never preach more ; and if it be , i suppose , no body will thank m. danson for this but the devil , not that he is so silly , as to hope for salvation upon these terms , but he knows it is the ready way to make men despise holiness , and thereby bring them under the same condemnation with himself ; for that he is more concerned for , that mankind may be damned with him , than that he may be saved with them . vi. this acceptance of my sincere holiness i have reason to believe and hope for , though i have no promise , for , vii . gods gracious nature obliges him to reward all sincerely ( though imperfectly ) good actions . god is merciful to all , whose creator he is , and affords them all possible means of salvation without a saviour , or any knowledg of one , and accordingly viii . de facto , abel , enoch , and abraham , are saved without a faith in christ , because no man could believe in christ , till he come . answ. our author must account for these calumnies , and many others , before we part : but for the present let us suppose these to be my principles , and see what incouragement they give to the devil . for though mankind had reason to hope for acceptance without any promise , or any other assurance , than gods gracious nature , though they might be saved without a saviour , and though abel , enoch , and abraham were , what is this to the devil , whose sentence of damnation is irrevocable ? is there no difference between those who are in a state of probation , and those who are actually condemned ? may not a servant , who is diligent in his business , and does the best he can , more reasonably expect to be accepted and rewarded , by a kind and good natured master , without any promise from him , than one who for his past villanies is already actually condemned to the gallies , to continue there for his whole life ? he who sees no difference between these two cases , may give the devil some hope of salvation , but in the mean time gives very little to mankind . ix . though god hates me now , yet he may love me hereafter , for gods love and hatred are not immutable , nor does the immutability of them consist in loving or hating always the same person , but for the same reason , because they are either good or bad . answ , this is very foolishly represented , and so as to contradict it self ; but what he intends in it is certainly true , that though god be unchangeable in his love , yet he does not always love and hate the same individual persons , but he always loves and hates for the same reason , that is , he always loves good men , and hates the wicked , but what comfort is this to the devil , whose nature is incurably wicked , and therefore must eternally continue the object of gods hatred ? as you heard above : but then , though gods love and hatred in it self considered is not immutably fix'd upon particular persons , upon a supposition that they may change and alter , yet gods just and righteous decrees of executing judgment upon particular persons , may be and often are immutable and irreversible ; and this is the devils case , that he is under an irreversible decree , whereby he is reserved in chains of darkness to the judgment of the last day , and this certainly gives him no great hope of salvation . x. god never designed the glory of mercy and justice in saving some and not others , in the permission of his creatures sins . answ. this is such a horrid piece of knavery , as i thought the devil himself would have blush'd to be the author of : for who ever said , that god did not design the glory of his justice in the damnation of men ? nor the glory of his mercy in the salvation of true penitent believers ? who ever said , that god does not permit sins ? or that he does not serve his own glory by it ? and yet our author has worded it so on purpose , as to bear this sense , and if this be not the sense of it , it cannot serve the devils turn : whoever understands the nature of god , which is infinite goodness , or the gospel of christ , which makes such glorious discoveries of the divine love , can never believe , that god from all eternity did decree to make angels and men , and to damn some and save others , without any respect to the good or evil , they should do , for no other reason but to glorifie his justice in the damnation of some , and his mercy in the salvation of others , and that he might make a fairer show of justice and mercy , should not only permit , but decree and by irresistible methods bring to pass the fall and sin of his creatures : but when men or angels wilfully apostatize from god , it is a glorious act of justice to punish the incorrigible , and to shew mercy to the true penitents , especially in such a stupendious way , as by the incarnation and sufferings of his son , and what consolation does this give to the devil ? xi . though a saviour was brought into the world after it was about four thousand years old , yet he was not of absolute necessity , for the only knowledg absolutely necessary to the purposes of religion ( whereof salvation is not the least ) is such a knowledg of gods nature and will , as is sufficient to direct our actions and incourage our obedience . and hence , xii . the wisdom of god was not discovered in sending a saviour , if there were no other way of redeeming the world ; for wisdom consists in the choice of the best and fittest means to attain an end , when there are more ways than one of doing it . answ. well , we will at present be still so good-natured as to grant him all he would have , what then ? suppose christ was not absolutely necessary , suppose there were more ways than one of saving sinners , what comfort is this to the devil , who is excluded from all ways of salvation , though there were five hundred more ? when a man is already dead of an ague or a fever , though an able doctor should demonstrate , that there are a thousand infallible cures for it , what advantage is this to the dead man , who cannot be recovered to life again ? xiii . this saviour being the eternal son of god , we may reasonably conclude , he came upon no less design than universal goodness , for he can have no temptation to partiality , as being equally concerned in the happiness of all men , and we cannot imagine , why he should lay a narrower design of love in the redemption , than in the creation of man-kind ( all which fits my case ; the eternal son of god , being my creator , hath no temptation to partiality , being equally concerned in my happiness and mans , as we are his rational creatures . ) answ. the force of this argument , if it may be called so , consists in this , that there was no difference at all between the case of man-kind and of the devil ; and no more reason why god should take pity on fallen man , than on fallen angels ; and when our author has made good that , i shall own his consequence ; though this will be a very bold attempt , considering how little we know of the sin and fall of angels , or of their condition before or since . no divines hitherto ever argued at this rate , but have rather employed their wit and their pens , to shew the difference between the state of men and angels , and how much more pitiable the fall of men was , than the fall of angels . as that the angels were all in actual being , and every one sinned for himself , that they had no tempter , but their own pride , or whatever other lust it was , that occasioned their fall , that they had a great perfection of knowledge , &c. whereas there was but one man and woman in the world , that were actually in the transgression , and they were tempted by the devil , and cheated by him , which makes their case vastly different from that of the fallen angels . though our author quite mistakes the design of my argument , if it may be called mine ( for i propose it in my first discourse only as an instance of a probable way of arguing from the person of christ , in imitation of their scheme of divinity , which is founded on a pretended acquaintance with christs person , with no other design , than to shew them how much safer it is to adhere to the plain revelations of the gospel , than to indulge our selves in such uncertain reasonings ) the intention of which was not to prove that christ must be the redeemer of all those whose creator he is , but that , since we see by his appearing in the world in our nature , that he looked upon the condition of fallen man so pitiable , that he came to redeem them , we have reason to believe , that he came upon a design of universal love and goodness to mankind ; because the case of all mankind is equally pittiable , and he being the creator of all , is equally concerned for the happiness of all . xiv . the sum of this paragraph which is too long to be transcribed , and shall be particularly accounted for hereafter , is this , that i make a saviour wholly useless now he is come , that whatever according to my principles christ has done , might have been done without him ; now this is no more than what we have met with already , for what if men might have been saved without christ , how does this prove that the devils may be saved , who are out of all capacity of salvation ? xv. that whoever was or shall be justified , were and shall be justified without any righteousness at all : if this indeed were true , it would give great comfort to the devil , as it does at this day to many fanatics , but sure i never said so ; yet i affirm , that god accepts of a sincere though imperfect obedience , and he learnedly proves , that sincerity is no righteousness at all ; well then i hope they will never charge me again with preaching up justification by our own righteousness , for if sincerity be no righteousness at all , it is not worth quarreling about ; but till he can prove , that the devil is , or may be sincere , i know not what comfort it is to the devil ; for though sincerity be no righteousness at all , i am sure many fanatics ( and our author brings in the devil in personating a fanatic ) do as much abhor the test of sincerity , and care as little for hearing of sincere obedience , as of perfect righteousness . xvi . a saviour is the less needful because gods justice is not natural , though his mercy is , and the fears of sinful men ( and so of angels ) of gods justice are but the workings of heated fancy , and religious distraction . answ. this is every word false and if it were true , is nothing to the purpose ; for if justice were not natural to god , yet if he has decreed the eternal damnation of devils and bad men , it comes much to one , as to this case , and then let them forbear fearing and trembling too if they can . xvii . how our author quarrels at my notion of faith in christ , which is such a belief of the revelations of the gospel , as governs our lives and actions ; and makes the devil take comfort in this , that he already believes all the articles of faith , and so his faith is of the same kind with mine , and he hopes in time , that he may govern his life by them also , can any christian hear this with patience ? we must not believe the articles of the christian faith , for fear of having such a faith , as the devil has : but does the devil believe all the articles of faith ? does he belive that god will forgive his sins , and bestow on him eternal happiness ? then he is a perfect fanatic in his faith , for he believes without any reason , unless our author can show , that the gospel promises of forgiveness of sin and eternal life , which are two great articles of our faith , do as much belong to the devil as to men : and i am sure without the belief these , the belief of all the other articles of our creed can , neither better his life , nor administer any comfort to him . xviii . the last ground of the devils hope of salvation is the nature of our union to christ by faith , which is not mystical , that is , analogical to a natural union between vine and branches , nor therefore are we passive in the reception of grace to believe and live accordingly : but a mediator is only a minister of grace , i. e. one who by powerful motives persuades us to be gracious , ( come by grace as we can ) and so it is not impossible , but i may get grace , though i be not united to christ. now if all this were true , it is only a repetition of what was said in his fourth ground of hope , and there you may find the answer : but he proceeds . the union made by faith , is political , consisting in a belief of christs revelations , ( which i have already ) though you have now heard , that he neither has , nor can have that faith ; and government of our actions , ( which i am in hopes of in time , for christ is the minister of this grace , by proposing powerful arguments to it ) this has been already answered , and if he have no more to say for himself , he is like to be a devil still : but we may observe how hard the devil is put to it to make out his evidences , sometimes he hopes he may be saved without being united to christ , and sometimes he begins to hope that he is united to christ in part already , and may be perfectly united to him hereafter . thus you see , that though we liberally grant m. danson , whatever he asks , and suffer him to represent my principles just as he pleases , which , as he represents them , are so unlike to mine , that i should never have known them , had he not said so , yet no such thing can follow , as he pretends , that the devil has the same grounds to hope for salvation , that mankind has . but indeed this is not m. dansons talent , to reason and argue , and draw consequences , he knows much better , how to imitate the devil , than to defend him , lies and slanders and misrepresentations are the best weapons he has , and therefore having got rid of the devil , i shall now come to danson , and take him to task for that abuse and cheat he has put upon his credulous readers , and that great injury he has done to me in perverting my words , and sense . and to make this as short and useful as i can , i shall reduce it to certain heads , which may offer some occasion for profitable discourse . first then , one great artifice of our authors is to represent me , as attributing that knowledg wholly to the light of nature , and the works of creation and providence , which i expresly ascribe to revelation also , as the most certain and infallible means of knowing the nature and will of god , this we had one instance of in the very beginning concerning gods goodness to all his creatures , which he often repeats without the least mention of revelation . thus p. 29. the light of nature assures sinners , that god is so good , that he hath a natural love for all good men , and will not fail to reward them , though he never made them a promise . knowledg of christ , p. 42. 43. as he cites the place , though whoever looks there shall find no such thing , that last clause , though he never made them a promise , being his own addition , though printed in a different character as my words . thus p. 10. the light of nature and the works of creation and providence assure us , that god is so holy that he hath a natural love for good men , and will not fail to reward them , and had christ never appeared in the world , yet we had reason to believe , that god is thus good and holy and merciful — the appearance of christ did not first discover the nature of god to us ; but confirms us in the belief of what we had learn'd before from nature , pag. 42 , 43. god is as ready to pardon the worst of men , ( and why not the worst of angels ? ) when they return to their duty , as a kind father is to receive an humble and penitent prodigal . pag. 43. now any one who reads this , might conclude , that i very much slight the revelations of the gospel , and resolve all our faith into the light of nature , and therefore to discover the gross knavery of this , ( for i know not what gentler term to give it ) i shall transcribe that whole paragraph , which runs thus : the light of nature and the works of creation and providence , and those manifold revelations god hath made of himself to the world , especially that last and most perfect revelation by jesus christ our lord , assure us , that god is infinite in all perfections , that he is so powerful , that he can do whatever he pleases ; so wise , that he knows how to order every thing for the best ; so good , that he desires and designs the happiness of all his creatures , according to the capacity of their natures ; so holy , that he hath a natural love for all good men , and will not fail to reward them , but hates all sin and wickedness , and will as certainly punish all obstinate and incorrigible sinners ; but yet that he is very patient and long-suffering towards the worst of men , and useth various methods of kindness and severity to reclaim them , and is as ready to pardon them , when they return to their duty , as a kind father is to receive an humble and penitent prodigal : these properties of god are plainly revealed in the scripture , without any further acquaintance with the person of christ ( that is , without reasoning from a pretended acquaintance with the person of christ , which is dr. owen's way of discovering those gospel-mysteries , which cannot be learn'd from revelation only , against which this whole discourse was levelled , and which you may see fully stated and explained in pag. 38. of my defence , but to proceed , ) and had christ never appeared in the world , yet we had reason to believe , that god is thus wise and good and holy and merciful , because not only the works of creation and providence , but the word of god assures us , that he is so : the appearance of christ did not first discover the nature of god to us , but only gave us a greater expression of gods goodness , than ever we had before ; confirms us in the belief of what we had learn'd before from nature and revelation , just as his resurrection , which is an ocular demonstration of another life , confirms us in the belief of that blessed immortality he had promised , and yet we could not have learned this neither from the person of christ , had he not told us for what ends he came into the world ; as will appear more anon . where the reader may observe , that all those expressions which refer to revelation , and are here printed in a different character , are every where left out by our author , though they were the very next in course , and he was forced to break off in the middle of a sentence , to avoid them , which could not be done by mistake , but out of a bad design to represent me as no friend to revelations ; and those words ( why not the worst of angels ) which are printed as mine , and are not , though he has given notice of the mistake among the errata : yet now knowing the man so well , i have reason to think it was done upon a design ; for he knew very well few of his readers would consult the errata , and it had been no great matter to have corrected that fault with a pen in such a pamphlet . and now i dare venture this paragraph with any man in his wits : for does not the light of nature and the works of creation and providence assure us , that god is good and merciful and holy , &c. and does not revelation give us a more perfect discovery of the nature and will of god , than nature does ? and is it any disparagement to the revelations made by christ , to say , that the world did understand something of god before christs appearance , though not so perfectly and certainly as we now do ? must we then deny , that the heathens or jews knew any thing of god or of another world , for fear of making christ useless , who , notwithstanding what the world knew before , is said to make known god to us , to reveal him to us in s. johns phrase , and to bring life and immortality to light by the gospel ? and yet p. 9. he quarrels at my notion of a natural faith , that is a belief ( or assent , as i expresly call it in the same place ) of those principles of religion , which are discoverable by the light of nature , as that god is , and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him , which was the faith of enoch and abel : now let this be science or opinion , or what he pleases to call it , i desire our author to tell me , how he will prove the being of god , but by natural or moral arguments . i suppose he is so wise , as to prove the being of god from scripture , though we must first believe the being of a god , before we can believe the scriptures to be the word of god , or prove any thing from their authority : and s. paul proves the being of god from his works , the invisible things of god from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made , even his eternal power and godhead , so that they are without excuse . rom. i. 20. the same arguments the apostle uses acts xvii . 24. &c. and acts xiv . 17. nevertheless he left not himself without witness , in that he did good , and gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons , filling our hearts with food and gladness . what then is my fault ? is it that i say , that the belief of the being and providence of god are the first principles of all religion ? and will our author deny that they are so ? let him then name what is before them : or that i assert , that god required no more of those good men , who had no other particular revelations of his will ? and will he say , that god required they should believe more than he had revealed to them ? or can he prove that they had any more particular revelations from god ? it is not impossible but they might have , considering how familiarly god was pleased to converse with good men in those days : but there is no more recorded , and the author to the hebrews , when he designedly gives an account of the faith of these good men , whereby they were accepted by god , takes notice of no more , and therefore is as obnoxtious to the peevish censures of our author , as my self . to the same purpose he alledges another passage of my book , p. 21. that the only knowledge necessary to the purposes of religion is such a knowledge of gods nature and will , as is sufficient to direct our actions and encourage our obedience . [ knowledge of christ , pag. 33. ] by which he would insinuate , that i make nothing more necessary to religion , than a natural knowledge of gods nature and will. let us then consult the place , where we have these words : the result of all is this , that god is the last and highest object of religious and saving knowledge , i. e. that the only knowledge necessary to the purposes of religion is such a knowledge of gods nature and will , as is sufficient to direct our actions and encourage our obedience ; and whereas god was formerly known by the light of nature , &c. now the only true medium of knowing god is the knowledge of christ , who came into the world to declare god to us . so that i expresly assert , that we must now fetch the knowledge of gods nature and will , which comprises the whole of religion , from that perfect revelation which christ hath made . to the same purpose he quarrels with me , p. 13. for saying , that when god chose the posterity of abraham to be his peculiar people , he did not design to exclude the rest of the world from his care and providence , and all possible means of salvation . the interpretation of which he says , is this , that the gentiles before the preaching of the gospel , as well as since , had all possible means of salvation , and that as he elsewhere expresses it , without a saviour . god deliver me from such commentators , who cannot understand the difference between not being excluded from all possible means of salvation , and having all possible means of salvation . as if i should say , that m. danson is not free from all the signs and suspicions of knavery in writing his debate ; and others should expound this , that he has all the signs and suspicions of knavery : he who has any one possible means of salvation , is not excluded from all , and yet cannot truly be said to have all , when he has but one . another exception of the like nature is , that i say , no man could believe in christ till he came , that is , could not believe any thing upon his authority , which is the true notion of believing in him . now pray what is the fault of this proposition ? does not the gospel represent believing in christ , by believing his divine authority , that he came from god and declared the will of god to the world , which infers a belief of the whole gospel ? and could any man do this , before christ came , and preached in person , and confirmed his authority , by those many miracles , which he wrought ? but our author , for satan and he are all one , cannot understand why they could not do this , ( that is , believe upon christs authority before he came to preach ) if he was the eternal son of god , by whom the world was made . for then he was praeexistent , and being god , they that lived before he came in the flesh wanted not the ratio formalis of divine faith , the authority of god revealing : pag. 24. and this he is so fond of , because it contains so foul an insinuation , that i deny the godhead of our saviour , that he repeats it again in his postscript . but it is very happy , that malice is blind and foolish : is there no difference then between considering christ as the eternal son of god , and considering him as the messias , who was incarnate in time , and came to preach the glad tidings of salvation to us ? no difference between gods speaking to the fathers by the prophets , and his speaking to us in these last days by his son ? heb. i. 1. no difference between believing in god , and believing in christ , though our saviour makes a difference between them , ye believe in god , believe also in me , john xiv . 1. all the prophesies of the old testament go in the name of god , not of christ : and though believing in god contain a virtual belief in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or eternal word , and in the holy ghost also , as being all one god ; yet will any man say , that this is any where in scripture called believing in christ ? i perceive now , who a late author meant by his uncatechized upstarts , for had our author ever learnt his catechism , we cannot imagine but he must have had more wit. thus p. 21. he quarrels that i say , that god in former ages attempted various ways for the recovery of mankind , but with little success ; at last god sent his own jesus , christ our lord to be the great shepherd and bishop of souls , to seek and to save that which was lost , p. 89. god hath now committed unto christ all the secret purposes of his counsel concerning the salvation of mankind , which were concealed from ages , p. 30. certainly our author is mad or possessed , that he should quarrel at such great truths as these are , which are so evident to every one who has read the bible . did not god use various methods for the recovery of mankind before the appearance of christ in the world ? what signified then his methods of judgment and severity , of clemency and mercy ? all the apparitions of angels , the giving of the law , and exhortations of the prophets ? and had all this that success which might have been expected ? did not the world , even the jewish church , continue very wicked ? does not god complain of the unfruitfulness of his vineyard ? isaiah v. what could have been done more to my vineyard , that i have not done to it : did not god in these last days send his son into the world ? has not he made a more perfect revelation of gods will , than ever the world had before ? has he not discovered those mysteries which were concealed from ages ? does not s. john tell us ? that no man hath seen god at any time , the only begotten son , which is in the bosom of the father , he hath revealed him , john i. 18. does not our saviour himself tell us , all things are delivered unto me of my father , no man knoweth the son but the father , neither knoweth any man the father but the son , and he , to whomsoever the son will reveal him , matth. xi . 27. and must christians be forced to prove to christians , that our saviour christ hath discovered those secret counsels of god concerning the salvation of mankind , which the world was not acquainted with before ? and yet nothing will satisfie our author , unless we will acknowledg that , which is contrary to the express testimony of scripture , and to the records of all former ages , viz , that the world was as well acquainted with the gospel before our saviour preached it , as we are since ; for thus he argues , i understand you not unless you mean , that the knowledge of a saviour was concealed from the world till christ came in the flesh , and the reason of that concealment was because the knowledg of a saviour was not absolutely necessary to the purposes of religion ( whereof eternal salvation was not the least considerable ) and if the knowledg of a saviour was not absolutely necessary , then not a saviour himself ; for he gives salvation by giving the knowledg of salvation , and it is eternal life to know jesus christ. and if the world were saved for so long a time without a saviour , why may it not for the remainder of its duration , be it more or less ? if our author would but accustom himself to read whole sentences , he could never talk at this extravagant rate : those very places he alludes to , would have convinced him of his mistake : for not to take notice , that giving knowledg of salvation , luke i. 77. does not refer to christ but to john the baptist , who was to prepare the way for christ by giving knowledg of salvation to his people , the next verses would have satisfied him , what state the world was in before the appearing of christ. through the tender mercy of our god , whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us , to give light to them that sit in darkness , and in the shadow of death , to guide our feet into the way of peace ; and that other place , john xvii . 3. this is life eternal to know thee the only true god , and jesus christ whom thou hast sent , plainly speaks of such a knowledg of christ , as was consequent to his being sent , to his coming into the world : this is that knowledg , which christ gave them , and which they had not before . for i have given to them the words which thou gavest me , and they have received them , and have known truly that i came out from thee , and have believed that thou didst send me , v. 8. but to make this discourse as useful as may be , i shall briefly state this matter , and consider what the condition of mankind was in the several ages of the world before the incarnation of our saviour , with respect to their acceptance with god , and hopes of a better life . first then , i lay this down as the foundation of all , that ever since the fall , god was reconciled to man only in christ ; in that promised seed of the woman , that in due time should break the serpents head ; and therefore he is said to be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world , revel . xiii . 8. not only with respect to the decree of god , but to the extent and merit of his sacrifice . for christ is the head of all mankind who are saved ; as adam was the head of all men , who descend from him by carnal generation , so is christ the head of the new and spiritual birth , that is , of all good men in all ages of the world , who are all united into one church and one body . secondly , the knowledge of christ in former ages was more or less obscure according to the different revelations , which god made to the world , as it must necessarily be . it was but little that adam understood from that promise , the seed of the woman shall break the serpents head ; nor could that promise made to abraham , in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed , instruct him , who this seed was , or what he should do , or by what means he should bless the world , as i shewed particularly in my first discourse , to which i shall refer my reader . the promise made to david of a great prince , that should come of his race , and sit upon his throne , and those other magnificent descriptions of the kingdom of the messias by the prophets , betrayed the jews into an expectation of a temporal prince , which was the reason , why they rejected christ when he came . and though the prophesies of isaiah and daniel concerning the sufferings of the messiah seem very plain to us , now the event has expounded them ; yet it is as evident , that the jews did not understand them ; and must we be forced now , to please mr. danson , to say , that adam and enoch and abraham , and the whole jewish nation did understand , that their promised messiah was to be no less person than a god incarnate , that he was to live in a mean condition , to preach the gospel , to suffer death upon the cross , to rise again from the dead , and ascend up into heaven , there to intercede for us , and that we are to be saved by a fiducial relyance and recumbency on the merits and righteousness of his life and death ? truly i would do something to gain his favour , but i cannot renounce my senses , and assert that to be , which is so plain never was . i believe , that the true light of the gospel never shone upon the world , till the day-spring from on high visited us : but this is no hindrance to gods accepting and rewarding good men for the sake of christ ; for why may not god accept us for reasons which at present he thinks sit to conceal from us ? the vertue of christs death to procure our pardon and reward , does not depend upon our knowing , but gods accepting it , and why may not god , if he pleases , accept it unknown to us ? thirdly , the terms and conditions of salvation were always the same , viz. such a sincere and hearty faith as governs our lives and actions . the objects of this faith alter according to the different degrees of revelation : the belief of the being and providence of god was all that could be required of those , who had no more revealed to them , but every new revelation god made , enlarged the objects of their faith , till it grew up to the perfection of the gospel revelation : and now our faith in christ , whereby we are justified , is of the same kind with the faith of abel and enoch and abraham , but enlarged and perfected by a more perfect revelation : as those good men believed whatever discoveries god made to them , and governed their lives accordingly ; so must we believe all the revelations christ hath made to us of the will of god ; and the way to salvation , and govern our lives by them , and this is the righteousness of faith , as i have at large proved in the knowledge of christ , pag. 252. &c. were the only condition of our justification a fiducial reliance and recumbency on christ , a rowling and resting our souls on him , and a fancyful application of his merits and righteousness to our selves ; these good men could never have been saved by christ , because this requires a particular knowledge of what christ was to do and suffer , which they had not ; but such a faith in god , as teaches us to love and serve him , is of the same kind with the christian faith whereby we are now justified , such a faith in christ , as makes us obedient to the gospel . this our adversaries are very sensible of , and therefore nothing will serve them but to assert , that abraham and other good men before christ had an explicite knowledge of christ , and were saved by resting on christ for salvation , as they hope to be ; but it is evident , that this is false , and therefore it is as evident , that their notion of justification is false ; or else they must say , that these good men were not saved by christ. fourthly , the evidence these good men had of their acceptance with god did vary also , according to the different dispensations they were under : that natural knowledge we have of god from the natural impreffions on our minds , or from the works of creation and providence , give us some assurance of gods love to good men , and of his readiness to pardon and reward those who are sincere worshippers of him ; but this knowledge is not certain , as that which is founded upon an express promise , confirmed by our saviour christ himself : the arguments from nature without the help of revelation are sufficient to incline honest minds , though they are not without all possibility of a mistake ; as it was in the belief of a future state , we see mankind did generally agree in it , though the evidence was not so great , but that it needed a farther confirmation : and therefore notwithstanding that evidence the world had of it , yet christ is said to have brought life and immortality to light by the gospel ; because he has given us such assurance of it , as the world never had in former ages . and therefore till the appearance of christ in the world , god gave them some additional confirmation of his acceptance of good men , above what the light of nature afforded , as the frequent apparitions of angels , who possibly might make some greater discoveries to them , than are recorded ; and the peculiar expressions of his goodness to abraham , isaac , and jacob , and to all their posterity for their sakes ; all the promises of the law of moses , which though according to the letter were but temporal , yet were designed to typifie and represent spiritual and future blessings , and were understood so by good men . and since god for wise reasons reserved to himself , was pleased to make but an imperfect revelation to these good men , he accepted also of a more imperfect obedience , than the gospel of our saviour requires of us , according to our saviours known rule , to whom much is given , of them shall be much required . and since god was pleased to accept of good men for the sake of a saviour , whom they did not know with a distinct and explicite knowledge , and to accept of meaner attainments , when they wanted those powerful motives and assistances , which were necessary to raise them to the evangelical heights of goodness , it brings it to such an equal balance , that we cannot say , that god was wanting to these good men . but yet fifthly , it was necessary that christ should actually come into the world , and suffer and dye , because these good men were accepted upon account of that atonement , which christ was to make in the fulness of time for the sins of men ; and it was becoming the divine wisdom and goodness , that the world should have a more perfect revelation of the will of god , than till then it had . we may observe , that god communicated the knowledge of himself to the world by several steps and gradations , as we instruct children proportionably to their age and capacity ; and the time , when our saviour appeared , is called the fulness of time , as if it were the ripe and manly age of the world , and fitted for that perfect dispensation of the gospel . but for what reasons soever god deferred the coming of our saviour for so long a time , it is sufficiently evident , what advantages we now enjoy by the publication of the gospel : that we have a greater confirmation of our faith , more perfect rules of life , more perswasive arguments , and more powerful assistances of the holy spirit ; and if we be not better than other men , all our counterfeit and hypocritical relyances on christ will avail us nothing : which i would desire our debate writer to consider , who has not yet attained to the moral honesty of a heathen ; as may appear from his whole pamphlet , which is nothing else but a malicious design to pervert my words or sense ; but i shall at present only set down one paragraph , which needs no other confutation , than what has been already said : for thus he makes the devil to argue ( which is a true fanatick trick to lay all their faults , lyes , and calumnies upon the devil . ) is not this to make christ useless , and to reduce religion to its first natural state , when you make no other duty necessary to happiness , than what the light of nature suggests , and no other ground needful to the hopes of it , than the goodness of god , which had been known as fully ( as now it is ) if christ had never appeared in the world ? but this is enough to shew , how impiously i am traduced by this author , as asserting , that good men were not saved by christ till he came , and that we may still be saved by the guidance of the light of nature without supernatural revelation , nay as he would insinuate , that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth , so he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature . for so he brings in the devil charging me with contradicting the church of england in this , and i profess i could never have thought that any one but the devil would have invented such a charge against me . but secondly his next charge is , that i make christ wholly useless , because i will not assert , that god could not have found out any other possible way for the salvation of mankind , but only by christ ; now though i do not think this author a sit person to dispute with , ( for there are two sorts of men who will never understand better ; great fools and great knaves ) and because i perceive our author is of the devils mind , rather to be accounted a knave than a fool , ( let him have his choice ) yet for the satisfaction of more teachable minds , i shall briefly represent the difference between us . these men found the necessity of satisfaction upon such a natural vindictive justice , as makes it impossible that gods anger should be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a propitiation ; and because this anger and revenge in god is infinite like himself , therefore there must be an infinite sacrifice to appease it , and that can be no other than the eternal son of god incarnate , or made man , who must dye to satisfie a natural and unappeasable revenge and fury . this makes a representation of a good and merciful god , too like that which some do of the devil ; and i do not wonder , that mr. danson's devil pleads for it , since it is so natural to draw the picture of god like our selves ; and it represents the justice of god not to be the justice of a wise governour , which must always serve a publick good , and punishes for no other reason ; but more to resemble a private revenge , which gluts it self with blood , as i phrased it in my first book , but retracted it for the harshness of the expression in my second , though our author is so ingenuous , as to repeat it again in this pamphlet . this is such an account of the end of christs death , as the scripture no where gives , as is incredible in it self and irreconcileable with the other perfections of the divine nature : the scripture has assured us , that christ died for our sins , that he died for us , that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world , that we are reconciled to god by the death of his son , that his blood is the blood of the covenant , that he hath redeemed his church with his own blood , and hath purchased and ratified the new testament in his blood , and several such expressions we meet with , but we are not so expresly told , wherein the vertue of christs death consists , how it makes an atonement for our sins , and i should rather guess at five hundred reasons , than pitch upon this , that the beloved son of god , who was infinitely dear to his father , even when he hung upon the cross , should dye on purpose to satisfie a revenge , which would be satisfied with no meaner sacrifice . we may understand how the death of christ satisfied the justice of god considered as the wise and holy governour of the world ; as it secured the authority of his laws and the glory of his government , and vindicated the holiness of his nature that god may now forgive sin without injuring any of his attributes , or giving any encouragement to sinners to continue wicked , which seems to be the proper satisfaction of a governing justice ; but wherein soever the nature of this atonement consists , it is sufficient to us to know , that god accepts of the death of christ , as an atonement for our sins , which seals to us the pardon of our sins , and the promise of eternal happiness upon the conditions of faith and repentance and a new life . and does it become such silly creatures as we are to limit infinite wisdom , and to assert , that god could not possibly have found out any other way for the redemption of mankind ? let those say so , who dare pretend to comprehend infinite wisdom ; for without an infinite understanding , none can tell what is possible to an infinite mind . but does this make christ useless , or argue , that we may be saved without him , now god has pitched upon this way for the salvation of sinners , because it is possible god might have chose some other way of salvation ? when god has rejected all other ways , and chose one , that one becomes absolutely necessary , as if there were no other possible way ; for we must be saved in such a way as god has appointed , not in such ways as god might have appointed , but has not . this is a sufficient answer to those several quotations out of my book against the satisfaction of a natural-vindictive justice and revenge , and he who would see more of it , may find it in my defence , pag. 523 , &c. and though our author has played his old tricks in his quotations , i shall only take notice of that representation he has made of this doctrine , pag. 47. a saviour is the less needful , because gods justice is not natural , though his mercy is , and the fears of sinful men ( and so of angels ) of gods justice are but the workings of a heated fancy , and religious distraction . but where did i ever affirm , that justice is not as natural to god , as holiness and goodness ? indeed i reject such a notion of a vindictive justice , as imposes a necessity of nature upon god to punish the least sin with eternal miseries without an atonement and propitiation ; but still i acknowledge , that god is an irreconcileable enemy to all wickedness , and that he will certainly punish all incorrigible sinners , that the atonement of christ himself cannot reconcile him to bad men , while they continue so ; and therefore that he is as naturally just as he is holy : and where did i ever affirm , that the fears of sinful men of gods justice are but the workings of a heated fancy , and religious distraction ? the place he refers to he transcribes , p. 42. the workings of the law , the amazing terrors of gods wrath , the raging despair of damned spirits , are the workings of a heated fancy , and religious distraction : which he quotes from pag. 95. of knowledge of christ. let us then turn to the place , and behold our authors most shameful dishonesty . i was there discoursing of the method of a sinners recovery by christ , and add these words : if our faith in christ have reformed our lives , and rectified the temper and disposition of our minds , and made us sincere lovers of god and goodness , though we are not acquainted with these artificial methods of repentance ; have not felt the workings of the law , nor the amazing terrors of gods wrath , nor the raging despair of damned spirits , and then all on a sudden ( as if we had never heard of any such thing before ) have had christ offered to us to be our saviour , and heard the wooings and beseechings of christ to accept him , and upon this have made a formal contract and espousal with christ , and such like workings of a heated fancy , and a religious distraction ( which you see does not refer to the workings of the law , and the terrors of gods wrath , but to what immediately goes before , which is all the work of fancy ) though our conversion be not managed with so much art and method , and by so many steps and gradations , we are never the worse christians for want of it , &c. now can any man from these words honestly accuse me of asserting , that sinners ought not to be afraid of gods justice , because i say , that if men be really converted , as they may be , without feeling those amazing terrors , they are never the worse christians for it : whereas my adversaries assert , that let a man be never so holy in his life , he is an unregenerate man , unless he has first been under the law , and a spirit of bondage , as they speak , and ready to run mad with despair . thirdly , at the same rate he proves , that i make christ useless now he is come ; because i deny the imputation of christs personal righteousness to us , as the formal cause of our justification ; that i deny , that christ was such a surety for saints , as acts wholly in our stead , that whatever he did and suffered is accounted as done and suffered by us , and that he is not such a mediator , as performs all the conditions of the covenant for us , and leaves nothing for us to do , but to cleave to the person of christ , and apply his personal righteousness to our selves . the sum of which charge is , that christ is wholly useless , if he have left any thing for us to do in order to our salvation : and so far i acknowledge i do make christ useless ; for i believe , that notwithstanding all that christ hath done and suffered , no man shall be saved by him , but upon the condition of such a sincere faith as changes and renews his nature , and governs his life and actions . i shall not go to dispute these matters now with t. danson , for that is not his talent ; i have already sufficiently explained and vindicated these notions in my defence , in answer to dr. owen and mr. ferguson , and there , whoever pleases may find an answer to whatever this whifler has suggested , and a great deal more , p. 120 , &c. p. 459 , &c. p. 488. his last accusation is concerning the nature of our union to christ and the influences of grace derived from christ , where he talks like a man , who neither understands me , nor himself ; and the truth is , as he says well , it was a disparagement to domitian to catch flies : and therefore to rid my hands of such an idle employment , and yet to do right to my self and a good cause , i shall give the world once more a short abstract of the doctrine of my first book , which i drew up in the first chapter of my defence , and shall reprint it here , for the sake of those who will read such a short pamphlet as this , but will not look into a bigger book . a short account of the design and doctrine of the discourse concerning the knowledge of christ , &c. taken out of the defence and continuation . ch. 1. p. 15. the design i proposed to my self in that discourse , was to reconcile that love and honour and adoration , trust and affiance , which all christians owe to their lord and saviour , with the necessity of obeying his laws , and being conformed to his example ; that esteem and reverence we owe to the person of christ , with a reverence for his laws ; that no man might expect to be saved by christ , though he be infinitely gracious and compassionate , and inherit all the boundless perfections of the deity , without the practice of an universal righteousness . and therefore i showed that all those considerations which did naturally result from the contemplation of the person of christ , as he is the eternal son of god , who was made man , and sent into the world to accomplish the work of our redemption , did necessarily engage us to obey his laws , but gave us no encouragement to expect any thing more from him upon his personal account , than what he hath promised in his gospel . this ( i observed ) was a plain demonstration of gods love to mankind , that he sent so great and so dear a person as his only begotten son , to save sinners : — no man can doubt of gods good will to sinners , who sees the son of god cloathed with our flesh , and dying as a sacrifice for our sins ; and this gives relief to our guilty fears , and encourages us to retrieve our past follies by new obedience . no man will return to his duty without some hope of pardon and forgiveness for his past sins ; and the proper use of gods love in sending christ into the world , is to conquer our obstinacy , and to encourage our hopes . thus the greatness of christs person gives great reverence and authority to his gospel , and an inviolable sanction to his laws , as the apostle argues ; if the word spoken by angels was stedfast , and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward , how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation , which at first began to be spoken by the lord , 2 heb. 1 , 2 , 3. and this gives great authority to his example , and lays forcible obligations on us to imitate him , who was not only our saviour but god incarnate . and this assures us of the infinite value of his sacrifice , and of the power of his intercession : god cannot but be pleased , when his own son undertakes to be a ransom , and to make atonement for sinners , which is so great a vindication of gods dominion and soveraignty , of the authority of his laws , and the wisdom and justice of his providence , that he may securely pardon humble and penitent sinners without reproaching any of his attributes ; and we can desire no greater security for the performance of this gospel-covenant , than that it was sealed with the blood of the son of god. and this is a great encouragement to return to god , when we have such a powerful advocate and mediator to intercede for us . but then we must expect no more from christ , upon account of his personal excellencies and perfections , than what he hath promised in his gospel . christ is the object of our faith and hope , only as he is our saviour ; and he is our saviour in no other sense , than as he is our mediator ; and he mediates for us as our priest , that is , in vertue of that covenant , which he hath sealed with his blood ; and therefore we have no reason to expect any thing from the person of christ which is not contained in his covenant , much less , which contradicts it ; for that would be , in effect , to renounce his mediation , and to trust to the goodness of his nature . christ will in his own person accomplish all those promises he hath made , whether they concern the present assistances of his grace , or his providence and protection in this world , or the future rewards of the next : but we must learn what christ will do for us , and upon what terms , not from the boundless perfections and excellencies of his person , but from the declarations of the gospel , though the consideration of his person , who he is , and how he lived , and what he taught , may convince any man , that he will be a saviour to none but those who live in the practise of that righteousness , of which he was a preacher and example . now to silence the clamors of some men , who upbraided those preachers who spent their greatest zeal in expounding the laws of christ , and in pressing men by all the motives and arguments of the gospel ( the sacrifice and mediation of christ , the necessity of a good life to make men happy hereafter , and the many great advantages of holiness here , &c. ) to the practice of an universal righteousness ; i say , to silence the clamors of those , who upbraided such preachers , with not preaching christ , i considered in the next place , what it is to know christ , and so consequently , what it is to preach him ; and the sum of it was this , that to know christ , is to be acquainted with that revelation which christ hath made of gods will to the world : for as in former ages god made himself known by the light of nature , and the works of creation and providence , and those partial and occasional revelations of his will , which he made to good men ; now in these last days he hath sent his son into the world , to declare his will to us : and therefore the only useful knowledge is to understand those revelations , which christ hath made of gods will , the necessary consequence of which is , that he , who expounds the laws and doctrine of the gospel , does in the most proper sense preach christ , as philip is said to preach christ to the samaritans , act. 8. 5. which in ver . 12. is called , preaching the things concerning the kingdom of god , and the name of jesus christ ; that is , the whole doctrine of the gospel . the whole christian religion is the knowledge of christ , and the laws of righteousness , and the motives to obedience as principal a part as any , because this was the ultimate design of christs coming into the world to reform mens lives , and to prepare them for the happiness of the next world , by transforming them into a divine nature : all that christ did and suffered , was only in order to this end ; and then we understand all those mysteries of the incarnation , and death , and intercession of christ , as much as is necessary to the purposes of religion , when we understand what obligations they lay on us to a holy life , and feel their power and virtue in renewing and sanctifying our minds . in the next place i observed , that the foundation of the greatest and most dangerous mistakes , was laid in a wrong notion of our union to christ , of which some men discourse in such uncouth and cabbalistical terms , as no body can understand , and therefore i endeavoured to state the true notion of our union to christ , and communion with him . and the sum of it is this , that those metaphors which describe our union to christ , do primarily refer to the christian church , not to every individual christian ; as christ is the head , and the church or whole society of christians his body ; a husband , and the church his spouse ; a shepherd , and the church his flock ; a rock , whereon his church is built ; the chief corner stone , and the church a holy temple . but as for particular christians , their union to christ is by means of their union to the christian church : that is , no man can be united to christ , till he be a christian ; and no man is in the scripture account a christian , till he make a publick profession of his faith , and be solemnly admitted into the christian church , which is the body of christ , for which he died , and to which all the promises of the gospel are made . a secret and private faith in christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a christian ; but faith in the heart , and the confession of the mouth are both necessary : rom. 10. 9 , 10. christ himself hath appointed the publick sacrament of our initiation , and our church teaches her children , that in their baptism ( which is their solemn admission into the christian church ) they are made members of christ , the children of god , and the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven . but i have abundantly confirmed this notion in my former discourse , and those who would be more fully satisfied in it , may have recourse thither . the next thing to be considered is , what is the true nature of this union betwixt christ and his church , and the most general and comprehensive notion is , that it is a political , not a natural union : the union between christ and his church consists in their mutual relations to each other ; now those relations whereby the scripture represents this union , signifie power and authority on christs part , and inferiority and subjection in the church : christ is the head and husband , which signifies rule and government ; and the church is his spouse and body ; and therefore as the wife is subject to the husband , and the body to the head , so the church must be subject to christ ; and the like may be said of all those other relations , whereby this union is described . only when i call it a political union , you must not imagine , that it is only such an external relation , as is between a prince and his subjects ; because christ is a spiritual king , and his authority reaches to the heart and spirit , which no humane power can : no man is in a proper sence a subject of christs kingdom , but he who governs his heart and spirit , as well as his external actions , by the laws of the gospel ; and though an external and visible profession of the gospel entitles men to an external communion with the christian church , because the external government of the church is committed to men , who cannot discern hearts and thoughts ; yet whoever does not heartily obey christ , is not really united to him ; for the subjection of the mind and spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the subjects of a spiritual king : and therefore this may be called a spiritual-political union , which principally respects the subjection of our minds and spirits to christ , and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him , and a mutual and reciprocal love : it is a political union because it consists in the authority and govern ment of christ as a head and husband , and in the subjection and obedience of the church , as his body and spouse : and it is spiritual , because the authority of christ does not only teach our outward actions , as the government of earthly princes does , but extends it self to our minds and spirits : and if you will put it into other words , our union to christ consists in a hearty belief of his revelations , in obedience to his laws , and subjection to his authority , this makes us the church the temple of god , wherein he dwells , as he formerly did in the temple at jerusalem ; this is that which the scripture calls having fellowship and communion with god and christ , which signifies being of that society , which puts us into a peculiar relation to god , that god is our father , and we his children ; that christ is our head and husband , our lord and master , we his disciples and followers , his spouse and his body : this entitles us to his merits and righteousness , to his peculiar care and providence , to the influences of his grace , to the power of his intercession , to all those blessings , which he hath purchased for , and promised to his church . now besides that this notion is plain and intelligible , and very aptly agrees with all those metaphors and forms of speech , whereby the scripture represents our union to christ , there are these two great advantages we gain by it : first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of schism , a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days ; for if our union to christ as our head , necessarily requires our union to the christian church , which is his body , then to divide from the christian church , or any true and sound part of it , does not only make a rent in the body of christ , which is a very great evil , but divides us from christ ; as a member , which is separated from the body , is separated from the head too : this makes the sentence of excommunication so dreadful , because it cuts us off from the body of christ ; and this sentence every schismatick executes upon himself , and that more infallibly too than church-governours can ; for they may be mistaken in the justice of the cause , and may separate those from the external communion of the church , who are spiritually united to christ ; and then their sentence is reverst by a superior tribunal : but whoever causlesly separates from the christian church , or any part of it , does infallibly divide himself from christ , unless it be through such invincible mistakes , as may mitigate the crime , and plead his excuse ; for schism is a work of the flesh , the effect of pride , and passion , or interest , or some other carnal lust ; and it concerns those men , who make so light of schism , to consider , how they expect to be saved by christ , who is only the saviour of the body , when they have divided themselves from his body , and are no longer any part or member of it . a second advantage , which we gain by this notion , is this , that it gives a plain account of the necessity of holiness and obedience to entitle us to the merits of christ , and justification by him , and to all those promises , which christ hath made to his body and members ; whoever is in christ , and united to him , shall certainly be saved by him ; for he is the saviour of the body ; and our justification is not owing to our own merits and deserts , but to the merits of christ , for whose sake alone , god hath promised to justifie and reward those , who are united to him ; but since our union to christ consists in the subjection of our souls and bodies to him , holiness and obedience is as necessary a condition of our justification by christ , as it is essential to our union to him : we cannot be justified by christ , till we are united to him , and we are not united to him , till we obey him : this gives the glory of all to christ , because we are justified for his sake , by vertue of our union to him , and yet vindicates the necessity of a holy life , because this is essential to our union to christ. and this is the sum of whatever i asserted concerning the necessity of good works to our justification ; not that they can merit any thing of god , but that they are the necessary conditions of the covenant of grace , which was purchased and sealed by the blood of christ ; or in other words , that they are necessary to our . union with christ , and thereby to give us an interest in all those promises of pardon and grace , and eternal life , which christ hath made to his church . the righteousness of christ is our righteousness , when we speak of the foundation of the covenant , by which we are accepted ; but if we speak of the terms of the covenant , then we must have a righteousness of our own , not to merit justification or eternal life , but to entitle us to the grace and mercy of the new covenant , or which is all one , to unite us to christ , by whom and for whose sake we are justified : to say , that obedience to the laws of the gospel , a new nature , and holiness of life , are the necessary conditions of our justification by christ , and to say , that they are essential to our union to christ , by whom we are justified , are different forms of speech , but signifie the same thing ; because christ justifies none but those who are united to him , and none are united to him but by faith and obedience ; and so è converso , those who believe and obey the gospel are in so doing united to christ , and they , and none else , shall be justified by him : which gives a plain account , how the virtue and merit of all is due to christ , because we are justified by our relation to him ; and explains the meaning of those phrases of receiving christ , and coming to him for life and salvation , and believing in him ; which signifies our being united to him by a sincere faith and obedience , which is necessarily required of all those who would be justified by him . in the last chapter i give a short account of the nature of christs love to us , and of our love to christ , that no man might mistake the love of christ for a fond and easie passion , nor think to please him with some heats and raptures of fancy , instead of the substantial returns of duty and obedience : the sum of which in short is this ; that christ expressed a wonderful and stupendious love in dying for us , especially in dying for us while we were his enemies ; upon which account the scripture every where magnifies the love of christ : but though this were the greatest , yet it is not the only expression of his love , but he manifests the same good will in all the methods of his grace and providence : he is an easie and gentle governor , who rules with the natural tenderness and compassion of a shepherd , a husband , a head , a friend : he pities our weaknesses and infirmities , and is ready to help and succour us ; he is now ascended up to heaven , where he personally intercedes for us , and with his own hand dispenses all those blessings to us , which we want , and pray for in his name . and he who loved sinners so as to die for them , must needs take pleasure in good men , and dwell with them as one friend dwells with another , joh. 14. 21 , 23. christ will in a more special manner be present with such good men , who are careful in all things to obey him , and will give very sensible demonstrations of his presence with them , will manifest himself unto them , and make his abode with them . and now in return to this , we must consider that christ is our superiour , our lord , and master , and therefore our love to christ must not express it self in a fond and familiar passion , such as we have for our friends and equals , but in a great reverence and devotion . superiours must be treated with honour and respect , and therefore our love to our parents and superiours in the fifth commandment is called honour ; and the same religious affection to god , which is sometimes called love , is at other times called fear , which signifies a reverential love , or a love of honour , reverence , and devotion : and therefore the external expressions of our love to our saviour are as various , as the expressions of honour , and must bear some respect to the nature and condition of the person , and that relation we stand in to him : christ being the only begotten son of god , we must have regard to the greatness and excellency of his person : since he became man , and died for us , we must admire and praise his goodness : he being our mediator and advocate , we must trust and confide in him , and expect the returns of our prayers , and all other blessings from the prevalency of his intercession : he being our prophet and law-giver , we must express our love to him in a belief of his gospel , and a sincere obedience to his laws ; as christ requires of his disciples , if you love me , keep my commandments : and when we consider our saviour as our guide and example , the truest expression of our love and honour is to imitate him , to live as he lived in the world : and that which perfects our love , is an undaunted courage and resolution in professing the faith of christ , whatever dangers and miseries it may expose us to in this world : for there is no fear in love , but perfect love casteth out fear . these are the proper expressions of our love to christ , which are summarily comprehended in believing his gospel , and obeying it ; for to be a true lover of christ , signifies neither more nor less , than to be a good christian. this is a faithful account of the design and doctrine of my book , which hath raised so much noise and clamour , and hath sharpned the pens and tongues of so many against me ; but it is a vain attempt to think to out-face the sun ; these are such bright and glorious truths as will out-shine all the new lights of present or former ages , and command belief from all honest and inquisitive minds , by their own natural evidence . the doctrines which i designedly opposed in that discourse , are such as contradict these great truths , or at least such , as i apprehended to do so , either expresly , or in their immediate consequences ; and because this is the principal thing which has anger'd so many men , whose cause and reputation are concerned in the quarrel , i shall give some brief account , what those doctrines are , and in what sence i reject them , which i hope may silence those scandalous reports , as if i had struck at the very foundations of christianity . and first whereas i observed , that to know christ , signifies the belief and knowledge of those revelations which christ hath made to the world , which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own person , natures , mediation , and the whole will of god concerning our salvation , which must be learnt from the express declarations of the gospel , not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences , which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure revelation ; doctor owen hath advanced an acquaintance with the person of christ , as the only medium of saving knowledge ; that is , when we have from the gospel learnt , who christ is , what he hath done and suffered for us ; when we have learnt those things which concern his person , offices , and work , we may then give free scope to our fancies , and draw such conclusions , as are no where expresly contained in scripture , or could not possibly have been learnt from scripture , at least not clearly and savingly , without such an acquaintance with the person of christ , that is , without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what christ hath done and suffered . these conclusions must be formed into artificial theories and schemes of religion , and then these are the great gospel-mysteries , and the only saving knowledge of christ : and those men only preach christ , who fill peoples heads with such choice speculations , as they have learnt from this acquaintance with christ. i thought there was very great reason to oppose this principle , which gave such boundless scope to mens fancies , and allowed every man to frame and mold a religion according to his own humour ; and was the more confirmed in this , when i observed what strange mysteries the doctor himself had learn'd from this acquaintance with christ , which i am sure without this , he could never have learnt either from scripture or reason ; i gave several instances of this nature out of his own writings , which shall be made good in due time ; at present i must observe what doctrines i there reject , and in what fence . i rejected such a notion of gods justice , as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings ; such a notion of justice as disparages the satisfaction of christ , as if the whole design of it were to gratifie revenge , and to appease a furious and merciless deity ; which notion at first frighted socinus out of his wits , and made him rather chuse to deny the satisfaction of christ , than to believe any thing so unworthy of god ; though thanks be to god , that we need do neither . i reject such a notion of justice , as disparages the wisdom of god in the contrivance of our redemption by jesus christ : for if it were absolutely necessary for god to punish sin , and there were no other person in the world fit or able to bear the punishment of sin , and to make expiation for it , but only christ , there was required no great wisdom to make the choice . i reject such a notion of the mercy and patience of god , as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of revenge , which is like the tameness of an angry man , when his passion is over , which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite love and goodness of the divine nature . i reject such a notion of mercy , as represents god to be fond and easie to sinners , while they continue so ; and i think such a notion of justice and mercy very unworthy of god , which represents him more concerned to punish sin , than to reform it : and is it not hard , that a man must be scandalized with denying the satisfaction of christ , and blaspheming god , meerly for rejecting such doctrines , as are injurious to the satisfaction of christ , and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences , are down-right blasphemy against god : this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such doctrines , for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy , and whoever does so , shall himself be charged as a blasphemer . but to proceed , i reject such a notion of our union to the person of christ , as is unintelligible , such as the great patrons of it cannot explain , nor any one else understand ; for since all our hopes of salvation depend upon our union to christ , i can by no means think , that this is such a mystery , as surpasses humane knowledge ; for that on which the happiness of all men depends , ought in reason to be so plain , that it may be understood by all . i reject such a notion of our union to the person of christ , as intitles us to all the personal excellencies , fulness , beauty , and to the personal righteousness of christ , as much as marriage intitles a woman to her husbands estate : that whatever christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours , when we are united to him , as if we had done and suffered the same things our selves ; and that upon this account we are justified only by the righteousness of christ , without respect to any inherent righteousness in our selves . now i reject this , because no union can thus intitle us to christs personal excellencies and righteousness , but such a natural union as makes christ and believers one person , that they are christed with christ , which is an absurd and dangerous heresie ; but neither our marriage to christ , nor his being our surety , or mediator , can effect this ; for whatever union there may be between the person of christ and the persons of believers , while their persons remain distinct , their properties and qualifications and righteousness must be considered as distinct too ; and though we may receive great advantage by what christ hath done and suffered , yet it cannot be reckoned ours , in that strict notion , as if it had been done by us : and there is a vast difference between these two notions ; for the first only makes the righteousness of christ the meritorious cause of our pardon and reward , which makes it necessary to have a righteousness of our own to entitle us to these blessings ; but the second makes the righteousness of christ our personal righteousness , which destroys the necessity of any inherent righteousness in our selves ; but of this more hereafter . i reject such a notion of our union to christ , whereby bad men may be , ●ay must be united to christ , while they continue in their sins : for if it once be granted ( as it must be granted , if we believe the gospel ) that our union to christ gives us an actual interest in all his promises , such as pardon of sin , and eternal life ; it is easie to observe how this overthrows the whole design of the gospel ; if a bad man , while he continues so , may be united to christ ; for then he is a son of god , and an heir of everlasting life ; and what becomes then of all those gospel-threatnings , which denounce the wrath of god against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men ? when christ tells us , that he who breaks the least of his commandments , shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees , we shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven . and when s. paul tells us , the works of the flesh are manifest , which are these , adultery , fornication , uncleanness , lasciviousness , idolatry , witchcraft , hatred , variance , emulations , wrath , strife , seditions , heresies , envyings , murders , drunkenness , revellings , and such like , of the which i tell you before , as i have also told you in time past , that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of god , gal. v. 19 , 20 , 21. i say , must these and such like places , which so expresly denounce the wrath of god against all wickedness and impieties , be expounded with this limitation , that this shall be the portion of such men , unless they be united to christ , and thereby sheltered from the wrath of god , as a wife under covert is secured from all arrests at law ? but as soon as any man hath got into christ , let him be what he will , he is redeemed from the curse of the law , and made an heir of eternal life : and does not this effectually evacuate all the threatnings of the gospel , and set up the person of christ , as a refuge and sanctuary for the ungodly , and make the grace of christs person a dispensation from his own laws and threatnings ? i am sure the apostle understood not this limitation , as is plain from what he adds , vers . 24. and they that are christs have crucified the flesh , with the affections and lusts . and in rom. 8. 1. there is no condemnation to them which are in christ jesus ; and that we might not mistake him , he expresly tells us , whom he means , who walk not after the flesh , but after the spirit . this is essential to our union to christ , and to entitle us to the grace of the gospel . and it is not enough to say , that christ will save none , but those who do live very holy lives , because there is no reason for this saying : for if men are united to christ before they are holy , their very union to christ gives them a title to eternal life , and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of holiness , which the gospel inculcates , not only to qualifie us for actual salvation , but to give us a right to it : and therefore i had good reason to reject ●his notion of union , unless i would renounce the whole gospel . i reject such a notion of union , as makes it impossible for any man to know , either how to get into christ , or whether he be in christ or not ; and i think every man , who values the salvation of his soul , or the peace and comfort of his own mind , hath reason to reject this too . i reject such a notion of sanctification , as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctifiest state . i reject such a notion of christs love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion , as respects the very person , without regard to any qualifications in him , whether he be a fit object of love or not , which is so great an imperfection in humane love , that i cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a divine love. and i reject such a notion of the immutability of christs love , as sin it self cannot alter , which is contrary to all the declarations of his gospel , and inconsistent with the holiness and purity of his nature . i reject such a notion of our love to christ , as excludes all respect to the infinite love of christ , and those numerous benefits we receive by him ; which the scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to christ. i reject such a notion of love to christ , as excludes all regard to our own happiness and salvation by him , and must make us contented to be damned , and eternally separated from him ; which is not only impossible to humane nature , but contrary to the principles of christianity . i reject such a notion of our love to christ , as opposes our love to christ to our duty and obedience to him , which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him ; such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination , in admiring and valuing the person of jesus christ , and in preferring him above all legal righteousness , and blamelesness of conversation , and duties upon conviction ; and in using all duties and ordinances only to have us over to christ , for righteousness and salvation , and whatever we need ; for this is no better than to set up the person of christ in opposition to his laws and religion . this is a short and plain account of all the material doctrines of my book , and i dare appeal to any man of common honesty , whether these principles give as much hope of salvation to the devils as to mankind , whether they make christ and his gospel useless , and whether our author be not a great artist at misrepresenting the plainest truths , which are so plain , that no man of an ordinary understanding could mistake their meaning : and that he should do this after i had cleared my notions from popular mistakes , and silenced those clamors which were raised against my first discourse in my defence and continuation , without taking the least notice of any thing i had there said . i could have given many more instances of his foul play , had i not studied a short answer . i have let pass his scurrilous reflections and unjust insinuations of socinianism , as either unworthy of any notice , or already sufficiently baffled in my defence : when he pretends to argue , it is so very childish , that i thought it as ridiculous an attempt to answer it , as it would be very gravely to confute tom thumb , or merry andree , or a town lampoon ; and though the most proper return to such persons , is to laugh them out of countenance , yet i confess , i am not in a laughing humour ; for it is a sad consideration to all sober christians , that the holy religion of our saviour should be treated with such scurrility , that every thing that is sacred and serious , should be turned into ridicule , to make sport for atheists and buffoons , that one who pretends to be a reformer of the reformation , to be got much above the low and beggarly dispensation of the church of england , should bring the devil upon the stage disputing about religion , which if it were no more , is as great a scorn as can be put upon it . and now sure there is no need for me to chastise such an offender ; if his own brethren be such tender conscienced men , as they pretend , they cannot but correct such an affront offered to god , and such injustice to man ; for lying and slandering , and burlesquing religion are certainly much greater impieties , than wearing a surplice , or using a sober form of prayer . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59788-e150 defence , p. 529. notes for div a59788-e930 friend . deb. p. 1. fr. deb. p. 47. friend . deb. p. 8. know. of chr. p. 42. ed. i. p. 29. ed. ii. know. of chr. p. 242. ed. i. p. 172. ed. ii. p. 248. ed. 1. p. 173. ed. 2. fr. debate . p. 12. see the doctrine of our union to christ fully handled in defence and cont. ch. 5. p. 399. notes for div a59788-e4090 chap. 2. discourse of the knowledge of christ , chap. 3. chap. 4. chap. 4. sect. 2. a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians in answer to the antapologist. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1694 approx. 131 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 36 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59811 wing s3283 estc r8168 11902930 ocm 11902930 50617 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59811) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50617) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:3) a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians in answer to the antapologist. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 66 p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1694. attributed to william sherlock. cf. halkett & laing (2nd ed.). reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -apology for writing against the socinians. socinianism. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians . a defence of the dean of st. paul's , apology for writing against the socinians . in answer to the antapologist . licens'd . london : printed for william rogers , at the san over-against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdcxciv . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians . one would have thought , that when the ancient doctrine of a trinity in unity , had not only been contradicted , but openly scorn'd and ridicul'd with as little modesty as sense , it had been no unpardonable crime to undertake the defence thereof : but it seems a certain stander-by being a little touch'd with melancholy , could not bear such an attempt ; for this is to litigate touching a fundamental ; and that is to turn it into a controversy ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsettling the whole superstructure . so that when some learned writers took upon them to chastise the insolence of these busy and factious underminers of christianity , who in the opinion of any one that is not overrun with melancholy , must be thought by their bold attempts upon the fundamentals of our faith , to have endeavour'd the unsettling the whole superstructure ; this stander-by was put into a sudden fright , to see men so unreasonable , as to write in vindication of a fundamental article of the christian faith , which it becomes peaceable men rather tamely and silently to give up , than to litigate concerning it : and therefore he addresses in an earnest and compassionate suit to the learned writers in defence of the churches doctrine , to hold their hands , and forbear at least till a fit time . but it seems all men had not the same sentiments of this peaceable design , as the melancholy author of it had ; nor could the compassiona●e suit work its hop'd-for effects on the minds of all learned writers . 't is no wonder therefore that the dean of st. pauls was not thereby discouraged from resuming the defence of the catholick faith ; but only thought it necessary , before he ventured to dispute these matters any farther , to make some apology for disputing ; and to show , that notwithstanding what this author endeavours to persuade the world , it is neither vnchristian , nor vncharitable , nor of dangerous consequence . but this apology of the dean's did , it seems , stir the spleen of our stander-by , and move the choler of this peaceable and modest person , who would ( but it seems he could not , especially towards the church of england ) observe the common rules of good manners : and therefore we must not blame him , if in his reply to the dean we do ( notwithstanding his designing the contrary , and composing his mind as far as he was able ) meet with bitterness , passion , cavilling , insolence , and ill language ; for tho he will not pardon such things in himself , ( and therefore 't is to be hop'd will do private penance for them ) yet it may become us to pardon them , and let it pass , as he says too many do , for a point of justice in such case , calcare fastum majori fastu . and besides , since he owns , that 't is not without difficulty that human nature forbears rendring an angry and disdainful reply to haughty and ill-natur'd answers , or those which are fancied to be such ; if he does now and then do so himself , we may suppose it was because he could not help it , and therefore it is excusable ; for i hope the plea which he makes for hereticks , may serve also for himself ; and if a man must conceive as he can , and judge as he can , and believe as he can , so he must also write as he can . and this i think will also be a sufficient apology to our author , for my not being of his mind ; for since i must conceive as i can , and judge as i can , i find that for my life i cannot judge his discourse to be either rational or well design'd ; but rather , as he would fain have the world think of the endeavours of other learned writers , vnreasonable , vnseasonable , and of dangerous consequence : and therefore without any farther compliment , i shall venture to bestow some short remarks upon it ; in which i shall also confine my self to the main design of the book , which is , ( as we shall hear him confessing himself anon ) to dissuade men from writing in defence of the doctrine of the trinity ; and therefore i shall not think my self concerned to enlarge in the confutation of those arguments against the dean's hypothesis , which ever and anon he gives us into the bargain ; for my business is only to consider what he says in defence of his peaceable design of persuading all men , as well as the dean , not to write in defence of the truth , if he thinks it so . but i must desire one thing of our author , that because he falls foul on the dean for pretending to know his intent , when he wanted the gift of discerning spirits to capacitate him for being a judge of it , he would take notice , that i do not pretend to know his inward intentions any more than his name . and therefore whatever i shall say in my reflections , let him not pretend that i do it to calumniate and inodiate him , since all i have to do with , is his book . but now let us come closer to the purpose , and be plain and succinct , as far as our author 's intricate way of writing will permit , who begins ( as he also goes on ) with heavy accusations against the dean for his bitterness , insolence , ill language , indignities , false imputations , and at least seemingly malicious insinuations against himself : whether all this be true , and whether the dean in any place treats him with greater sharpness than such a writer deserves , must be left to the impartial reader to judge . one of the false imputations with which he charges the dean , is , that he says , he called the socinians learned writers of controversy , whom he now protests he did not mean by that character : and tho his title-page be so ambiguous , that it might easily be mistaken either for a suit to learned writers , or for forbearance to learned writers ; yet i am apt to believe him , because he has not dissuaded the socinians from writing against the trinity , but other learned writers from writing for it : a good orthodox excuse . but waving this and many instances of the like disingenuity , he will present here the main state of the cause betwixt the dean and himself ; which in short is this , that the disputes touching the controversies of the holy trinity , might be at present let alone , till fit time and place ; i suppose he means only by the orthodox writers , who defend that doctrine ; for he himself protests , that by learned writers , to whom he addressed his suit , he did not mean socinians : and to persuade to this , he had said , this particular controversy is of all others at present most unreasonable , most dangerous , and most unseasonable . this may pass for a state of the question ; and i will leave it to the reader to judge upon the whole , whether the dean has not quite overthrown this state of his question , and sufficiently demonstrated the weakness of all he urged . now he is desirous to know , where is the mischief of all this : for all that he designed was plainly no more then , to move for peace , at least for a truce , till both parties were calmed , and might calmly treat . but , methinks , the fairest way for this had been , to desire both parties to hold their hands , and not only to beseech one to be silent , and let the others write , and talk , and rail , and argue on too as well as they can against the established doctrine . but methinks this very project of a truce does not seem very reasonable , for it looks as if he thought the church and the socinians to be upon equal terms with one another , which i can by no means grant ; because the church of england , in this point at least , has had sixteen hundred years prescription , besides the authority of scripture and reason on her side . nor can i think any treaty lawful in such fundamental points , but that all catholick christians are bound to do what they can by reason to convince these men of their errors , and reduce them into the bosom of the church ; for i do not like our authors way of compounding with hereticks and shismaticks , and i hope posterity may find better expedients for vniting of protestants , than for the sake of peace to give up truth . but here though our author could bear , what he thinks a modest and just reprehension , yet he is very angry with what the dean says , and looks upon it as imperious beyond measure , especially when the great argument of all , is no better than a petitio principij , that the doctrine of the trinity , as dr. sherlock hath stated it , and does defend it , is a fundamental of the christian faith. now this i take to be a false imputation upon the dean , who does indeed , as the church of england does , look on the doctrine of three persons and one god , as a fundamental of the christian faith ; and this he endeavours to vindicate from those absurdities and contradictions which are charged upon it , and gives such an explication of it , as though he believes to be true , he does not lay down as necessary to be expresly believed by all ; nor will he esteem any man a heretick who sincerely believes the doctrine of the church , that there is but one god and three persons , though he does not subscribe in all things to his hypothesis . and therefore i think the antapologist is fallen into a fit of melancholy when he complains of the dean , because in his apology he quits his adversary , and neglects all that has been said against his novelties , and falls upon exposing the peaceable man. now i should rather have wondred , if in an apology for writing against the socinians , he had entred into the main subject of debate , when his only business was to show the weakness of such earnest suits , as desired that no man should write any thing in the present controversy ; so that i cannot but think the antapologist is a little , if not besides himself , i am sure a great deal besides the purpose , to make it a matter of accusation against the dean , that he keeps close to the proper subject of his discourse ; for i would here only ask him , whether in his suit he undertook a confutation of the dean's hypothesis ? if he did not , then i hope his book may be pertinently answered , and solidly confuted too , without entring into the merits of that cause . i would ask him also , whether he did not address to all learned writers against the socinians in this conttoversy , as well as to the dean ? and whether what he urges be not level'd against any man's writing in defence of the established doctrine , as well as of the dean's particular hypothesis ? if so , 't is plain that the dean did very well , not to run out into a vindication of his own hypothesis , or of the doctrine of the trinity in general ; but to fall upon exposing the peaceable man , as our author terms it ; that is , to show the insufficiency of all his pleas for forbearance towards the socinians , and betraying the christian faith , under the pretence of peace and moderation . but the dean does not like that the faith should be stated in scripture language , but would have school-terms pass as fundamental in faith , as well as his own new definitions and new notions . as to the first of these things : the dean does , and that on very good reasons , desire , whether the melancholy stander●by can admit it or no , that the true faith , under what words soever it be expressed , and not merely the sound of scripture-words , should pass for fundamental ; and thus far he is for school-terms , or any terms that fix the true sense of scripture : but as to the other branch of this accusation , 't is false and ridiculous , and that is answer enough to it . as for the uncertain signification of philosophical terms , methinks he should not quarrel at that , which may afford his friends the better shelter , and permit every one under the same words to couch his own meaning . and it seems in what he writ , he did not contest either of these points ; and yet in the very page before , he complains of the dean , because in his answer he did not offer one word to prove his own new notions ; which yet he owns he did not contest with him , and is still as willing as ever to decline engaging , but only in his own defence he can't forbear declaring , that the dean has to his power overthrown the true catholick faith of the nicene creed , as much as philoponus or joachim ever did ; nor will his invention of mutual consciousness clear him from the charge of inferring three gods , since that can infer only an vnity of accord , &c. this he says , but does not here go about to prove it , because these things require more words than the present design admits , and it may be more reason than he is master of ; and therefore 't is as easy for me , and as allowable to say , that the dean's mutual consciousness does infer more than an vnity of accord , as for him to say it does not : and that it does infer full as great , if not a greater vnity of substance and nature , than the words of the nicene creed express ; and if it were not for the reason which he himself has given , i should not care though i ventured to dispute this matter with him at large . as for his next section , i do not know well what to make of it ; 't is long and full of quotations , but to what purpose , he who writ it may possibly know best . in the first place , i think he would have none but scripture-terms made use of in stating this doctrine ; but this , whether it were the invention of old hereticks , or new ones , hath been shewn to be in our case very foolish and unreasonable , and what none would contend for , but he that either knows not what he asks , or has a mind to overthrow the true faith. the next thing , as near as i can guess , that he endeavours to shew from fathers , schoolmen , and protestant divines is , that the word person is equivocal and uncertain in its signification ; i hope then his clients may like it the better , as being able to make use of it in a sense agreeable to their own doctrines . but after all this vncertainty of the word person , about which he has shown so much learning , as far as i can find there is so much of its signification agreed to on all hands , that the antitrinitarians are unwilling to use it , as evidently including something that will not go down with them ; and i fear that this is the true reason of our author's quarrel against it . but now our author has shown himself such a master of books , he can't forbear stepping a little out of the way again , to show himself as great a master of reason , and therefore falls foul upon the dean for contradicting himself , for making three minds and one mind , and making the persons distinct , and not separate , which is to him an unavoidable contradiction : and who can help it if it be ? what the dean maintains , is not so to every body's apprehension ; especially if it be considered in his own words , without our author's comment on them ; for it may be understood how three minds are one , tho it be something difficult to apprehend that they are three sames , and not three sames : and i can no more understand our author's arguing , that if they are distinct , they are separate also , than he can the dean's , when he says they are distinct and yet not separate ; which i believe will not sound like an absurdity to any but a socinian vnderstanding . but if the dean has been mistaken , and has fallen short in his arguing , and has also set up an hypothesis full of contradictions , which yet there are a great many wiser men than our author do not believe , what would all this be to the design of our author's book ? if dr. sherlock does not argue well , must no body therefore write , that can argue better ? if his hypothesis be unreasonable , is it therefore unreasonable to write in defence of the doctrine of the trinity ? or is the doctrine it self unreasonable ? some men we know think so ; and this may be several strokes in his book be suspected to be the opinion of our author . however , he is so great a lover of peace ( why then does he quarrel so much with the orthodox writers , and the church of england ? ) that he is willing to admit the old way of speaking , and the ancient notion of a divine person , as being more consistent and less obnoxious : which if it had been kept to , he had f●rborn his suit : 't is the new notion then that he quarrels at ; but why then must all men be desired not to write in defence of the doctrine of the trinity , even tho they do hold to the old notion ? but h●re ( that is in the ancient notion of a person ) or rather in that word , since it has been a long time in use , without ever defending or explaining the thing ) he would have our divines stop for peace sake . and i believe they will gratify him so far , as not to enter into any farther disputes about it , if he will secure that the socinians shall not oppose this , but subscribe to it , and not write against it . now he would persuade us , and so it may be he might if we had never seen his melancholy ●uit , or did not understand english , that all he desired was , that men would stop at the ancient notion , &c. when 't is plain to any english understanding , that he desired a great deal more , viz. that no body would write at all in defence of the ancient faith , or ancient notion ●f a person , though our adversaries do daily affront and ridicule the doctrine of the church , and the ancient notion too . for i only desire to know , whether the ridiculing the athanasian creed , which was the occasion of dr. sherlock's vindication , be not ridiculing the ancient notion . this being all his harmless design , he is very angry at the imputation of disguised heretick , &c. what he is , i determine not , but i am sure he writes just as if he were such an one ; and since he has not set his name , i can't apprehend it any ways uncharitable to suspect so much of an unknown author , of whom we have nothing else to judge by but his book , which i am sure will never prove that he is any thing better , and does well deserve to have a brand set upon it , that unwary readers may not be deceived by it . and this i believe , whatever he doth , very few orthodox hearty asserters of the catholick faith , will think a calumny . now for the dean's new hypothesis again , who did not keep within bounds , and stop where he ought to have done , but must needs be rambling , and therefore he must have a lash or two for that . and for the reader 's great edification , our kind author will give an account how far he had read of the dean's book when he writ , which , and several other as weighty accounts of himself and his private concerns , i leave to the reader that has curiosity enough to peruse them . but the dean holds that which necessarily infers three gods , and in his apology goes beyond himself , as in his vindication he went plainly beyond and contrary to the doctrine of the fathers , schools , and protestant divines . pray what 's the matter now ? why , he calls the son a god incarnate , and the holy ghost a god ; and therefore infallibly by vertue of this little particle a , there must be three gods , all the world can't help it : for tho he expresly says , these three are but one god , and proves it too , yet as long as he says the son is a god incarnate , there is nothing can vindicate him from the imputation of tritheism ; and therefore he must according to his promise , thankfully correct this absurdity , now it is so plainly shown him . but does a god incarnate signify any more , but that he who is incarnate is god ? which if we were always to deal with such criticks , is a much safer way of speaking , than to say he is god incarnate ; for among those who own a trinity of divine persons in the godhead , a god incarnate can signify no more , than that one of the divine persons , who is really and truly god , is incarnate ; but to say god incarna●e , might be abused by such perverse criticks to signify , that the whole trinity , which is the one god , is incarnate . the next complaint of our author is , that the dean charges him with desiring that no body would write aga●nst the socinians : and pray is not that the design of his melancholy suit ? to most mens apprehensions i dare say it is ; nor do i find that he himself makes any exception against the truth of the charge ; he does not say it was not his design , tho it is very iniquitous in the dean to charge him with it , because whatever his intent was , he has given us two admirable reasons why it cannot be concluded from his book . the first is , that others as well as socinians are heterodox in this point : but the dean and dr. wallis writ only against socinians , and he owns his suit was chiefly to them , and no body else is particularly named in his suit , and therefore the dean guessed pretty right , and had some reason for his guess . 2dly . these are not the only points in which they are heterodox , and therefore the doctor had liberty to write against them in other points : but still was not he and every body else desired to forbear them in these their principal errors ? and did the dean charge him with any thing more ? for in this present controversy what had he to do with their other errors ? and yet i believe many at least of his reasons for not writing , will hold as well in other points as in this of the trinity . in the next place he gives an account why he stiles himself a stander by , which does not become any divine of the church of england in such a fundamental article of the christian faith. the first reason he gives , is his mean opinion of his own skill in the controversy , but it is modestly express'd with a perhaps , and therefore perhaps it was his ill opinion of the controversy it self . his next reason is , that every one who is skill'd at his weapon must not draw upon every one he meets begirt with a sword , but if they draw upon him , or to take it out of the metaphor , assault the catholick faith , which every christian is concerned in , and every divine concern'd to defend , it does not become him to be a stander by , but to use his skill to defend himself and his faith ; for to be a stander-by in such cases , in plain english is to be a neuter ; and when there is a dispute of faith , if a neuter be not a heretick , he cannot be orthodox , for he is on neither side , if we can suppose a medium between these two . in the next place he does not like to be thought tender on the wrong side ; but certainly he is so , if he means any thing that he speaks . he readily owns what i believe no body will lay to his charge , that he has shown a tenderness to the church of england and the nicene faith ; i suppose by those severe reflections which he makes upon both , and his burlesque of the athanasian creed and the litany , which as yet stand in our liturgy , and are like to do so , till it fall into the hands of such melancholy reformers , as out of pure tenderness for the credit of the old reformation , are for changing the frame of our most fundamental articles , or resolving them all into a mere negative belief , which is to leave no positive faith in the church . and here our author would know how he is tender on the wrong side , when he has only express'd a tenderness for the church of england , the credit of the reformation , and for peace and holiness ; and i 'le warrant you , has not said one word in favour of the socinian heresy , and therefore the dean may keep his profound politick notes , of mens tenderness being due to their inclinations , for better purposes : what these purposes are , i know not , but certainly 't is no improbable conjecture , that men have some inclinations to that , for which they express a great tenderness , though t is possible this rule may sometimes fail , and that tenderness , which our author saith he has expressed for the church of england , may not be due to his inclinations . but now let us go forward to the next paragraph , and we shall meet with some farther instances of the dean's disingenuous arts ; who perverts our author's peaceable assertions , and makes what he pleases of them by odious that is's , which the reader must know , is his common way of dealing . a short but heavy charge this , if it be true ; but the comfort is , that he who reads the dean's book with his own eyes , rather than the antapologists , will find no ground for such an accusation ; for he does no where pervert his peaceable assertions , nor do his that is's misrepresent the consequences of our author's assertions : and i take it for no disingenuous art , to expose any assertion by shewing its true m●●ning , and laying open the just consequences of it . a●● as to that publick hate , which he saith the dean endeavou●s to cast on him , i don't see how that can be , since 〈◊〉 dean has never mentioned his name , and theref●●● 〈◊〉 did not know him , or had no mind to expose him . in the next section he confesses himself an 〈◊〉 ●o such open disputes between protestants , as only pu●li●●●o the common enemies the divisions of the protestants . and so i believe is the dean too , as also to all such open disputes among christians , as have the same ill consequences with respect to the common enemies of christianity ; and yet i believe neither he , nor our author , would from hence conclude , that we must not dispute against any popish errors , because this publi●hes to the common enemies of christianity the divisions of the christians ; or that , if there be any such open disputes , those who defend the truth when openly contradicted , must bear the blame of them . as to what he says , that voluntary disputings have never suppressed , but rather revived old heresies ; if he means by voluntary disputing , a necessary defence , as he must mean if it be any thing to the present purpose , 't is very wisely thought of , that disputing against those who revive and propagate old heresies , is the thing which revives them . how this projector for the churches peace , would have those who should write in this controversy authorized , he will set down anon , and then 't will be time enough to admire the wisdom of his contrivance : let us in the mean time come to his latitude of faith , which is another branch of his notable project for peace , which he still adheres to , though , i think , he has given little or no answer to what the dean urged against it ; so that the dean's arguments hold good still notwithstanding his exceptions against them : nor are we one dram the wiser for all that fine lecture which he here reads concerning latitude , as a metaphorical term derived from astronomy , geography , triple dimensions , or what else you please ; nor yet for his citation from one who , i believe , was far enough from his latitude of faith. for i can't yet find what he would be at in the present point , unless it be , what he has been already charged with , that every man should be let alone to believe what he pleases , so he doth but profess to believe the words of scripture , though in never so perverse a sense . this i can't believe is that latitude in which the apostles left the faith. he says , to leave faith in the latitude in which it was delivered , is to impose no determinations of such words ( i.e. of such words as may carry with them different notions ) as necessary to salvation , but to allow each person to believe the matter propounded in one of those senses , whatever it be , which the words naturally bear , and which in his conscience he judges truest . this don't seem either safe or reasonable , because a word or phrase may naturally be capable of divers senses , and yet it may be demonstrable that in one place it must be taken in one sense , and in another place in another sense ; so that to take it in the wrong sense in either place , may be ridiculous , absurd and heretical . now i am persuaded that the apostles never intended to leave faith in this latitude , nor was it reasonable they should , for then we need profess but one general article , that the scriptures are true , and every man should be left to make what he would of them ; which would be a pretty and easy kind of unity of faith , comprehending all , or at least almost all heresies , for which some places of scripture are always urged by their abettors , which seem to them naturally to signify what they assert , or at least they say so ; and our author has told us in another place , that we are to believe them in what they constantly profess . but if he means only , that we should not impose any more determinate signification on such words , than what the apostles appear to have design'd them in , nor limit them to such specialties as they cannot be proved to be limited to in scripture , we agree with him . but this will not serve his cause , for here we must take in the circumstances of the place , the coherence with other texts , &c. and then we will limit them no farther than what evidently appears to be the true sense of them ; and so far we think it reasonable to limit them , and not to leave every one to interpret them as he fancies , and yet be obliged to account him orthodox , and not to oppose his false and erroneous interpretations ; which is to permit all heresies to go on , and never say a word against them . but i hope he will allow , that all scripture has some determinate sense , or else it signifies nothing ; and that this sense in the great articles of faith is obvious and intelligible to impartial , diligent , and unprejudiced seekers , and that as far as this determinate sense we ought all to agree : for tho in some lesser matters we cannot easily fix this determinate sense , nor know certainly what it is , and therefore may without any great danger be ignorant , and may own our ignorance ; yet as to the prime articles of our faith , we ought certainly to understand them in some determinate sense ; ( tho under that compass some specialties may be contain'd , to either of which it is not necessary to determine our assent ) for else indeed we do not understand them at all , and do only repeat a huddle of words when we confess our faith. now if our author can show me some plain determinate sense of those places which we urge , that comprehends under it both what we assert , and what the socinians maintain , only as such specialties , either of which may agree with the natural sense and plain meaning of the words in all those places , i will join with him in desiring no body to write against the socinians , at least not with any warmth or zeal , as allowing them to be no hereticks , nor involved in any dangerous errors . in the next paragraph , because the dean was not good at guessing , he will explain what he meant by simplicity of faith , and not any longer leave it to guess , though he first of all gives the dean liberty to take it in what sense he please , even in that of foolishness , and thinks that the apostle would in a sort justify the expression ; but neither the apostle nor common sense will justify the pertinency of it in this place . he tells us then , that he really meant plainness , vnmixedness , purity ; and i believe the dean is as desirous as he , that the faith should be preserved as plain and as pure as the apostles left it , and yet i fancy that will not hinder him nor any man else from defending it against the rude assaults of hereticks , nor from using reason in its defence : for the dean's design is to keep the christian faith pure and vnmixt from heretical glosses , which make it quite another thing than what the apostles left it , and not as our author fears , to vamp philosophy into faith. but now the dean must answer for what he has presumed to say in favour of the schoolmen , and must be confuted from his own words , for asking such an unreasonable question , as , what hurt have they done ? and here he spends three pages to show his own reading , and the schoolmens follies , and particularly those of the master of the sentences ; but i have more wit than to follow him through all these particulars . in short therefore , i suppose the dean did not intend to justify every thing that they said , but only thought they had done no harm by the words person , nature , essence , subsistence , and consubstantiality , which the dean expresly mention'd , and thought them a good defence against hereticks concealing themselves under scripture-phrases . and that the dean did not intend to vindicate them in all things , nor to fix on them the character of infallibility , is plain from what our author cites : and that the use of these words hath done more harm than good , i leave our author to prove at his leisure ; and so pass over all his tedious harangue against the school-doctors ; let him bang them about by himself , and vent his displeasure against them as long as he will , it may be a good exercise , and serve to divert his anger from the church of england and its orthodox defenders : but how he and the animadverter will agree the matter , i cannot guess . and it may be 't was this that mollified his displeasure by that time he came to the fathers , who otherwise were like to have smarted for the same kind of folly , but now are like to come off pretty well ; and he has given us a reason for it , which i like well , because it argues some modesty : he owns they are guilty as well as the school-doctors , but his respect would not let him expose their venerable names : he has indeed caught them in a great fault , but he is so kind as to let them escape . i am glad he has so much reverence for the ancient doctors , i only wish he had as much for the ancient faith , and would let that escape his lashes too . but the dean accuses him of not understanding , or not reading the schoolmen . what the dean t●ere says , i verily believe may be true , but neither does he affirm it to be our author's case , nor will i , because he now tells us , he has read them , and thinks he doth generally understand them ; and i had rather take his word , than contest that point with him . but the dean says , he censured even our english reformers for retaining scholastick cramping terms in their publick prayers ; this he denies , but owns that he did modestly wish that they had observed the same temper as did the foreign reformers ; which implies , that they ought to have done so , and yet did not , which notwithstanding the modesty of it , i take to be censuring them . nay , and is not what follows , censuring our litany and the compilers of it ? if it be not , i am sure the dissenters themselves never censured it . but by these terms , the dean says he means the beginning of the litany . and how comes he to know his thoughts ? a very pretty question : for how should any man with out conjuring know by his own words , that he meant the litany , which he prophanely and scornfully ridicules ? ●ut he meant not that alone ; a good excuse ; for it seems he meant also the ●reface in the communion service before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on trinity sunday ; that is , who art one god , one lord ; not one only pers●n , but three persons in one substance ; for that which we believe of the glory of the father , the same we believe of the son , and of the holy ghost , without any difference or inequality . and has not that school divinity enough in it ? and if this be all the hurt in school divini●y , it will make every good christian very fond of it , for it contains the true ●hristian faith. but because the dean has pitch'd upon the other , he will stick by it . generously done : now let us see how he defends his censure . luther and calvin are both called in to help . luther left out that petition , o ho'y , blessed , and glorious trinity , three persons and one god : of which he confesses the lutherans give another reason , viz. that the german word did not so expresly signify a trinity , as to exclude a triplicity ; but he will not allow this to be currant ; but i suppose they understood i uther's reason better than he . and then calvin disliked it also ; but so he did episcopacy ; and will he think that a sufficient ground to censure our reformers for retaining it ? but to what purpose are these citations ? let them be as express as they will , they are no argument to us , who are no more bound to acquiesce in their judgment , than our author is in that of the compilers of our liturgy , for whom i think he should have as much reverence , as either for luther or calvin . but other foreigners also , and our nonconformist countreymen , have strong exceptions against this part of the litany , which he cannot answer as he would . i am sorry for it , but i hope there are some others in the church who can . how he would have them answered , i cannot tell , but i suppose he can answer them so as to satisfy himself , which sure cannot be without sufficient reason to justify the lawfulness of these forms . and if that can be done , which if it could not , he must be a hypocrite in using them , i am sure 't is no sign of a tenderness for the credit of the english reformation , to endeavour thus to expose it , and to publish what he thinks to be the infirmities of it , when this publication can serve no other end than to encourage men in their opposition to , and dislike of the establish'd church : certainly it had been more proper to have reserved these complaints till his fit time and place . but he will grant that these forms may be used without sin , but yet he judgeth it much safer not to come so near dividing the deity , and so far to distract devotion . but must we not then lay aside the apostolical form of benediction in constant use among us , the doxology , and the form of baptism , for fear of dividing the deity , and distracting devotion ? for in all these there is as express , distinct , and particular mention of three , i dare not add persons for fear of offending our author , as in the litany . but still he would have these forms reduced to more scriptural ones , to bring in our own dissenters , whom we ought if possible , i hope i may add , by reasonable methods , to bring in and unite to us . but here i cannot but observe , that this and a great deal more of his book , is directly writing against the received doctrine of the trinity , and the established worship of the church of england . now what is this to the design of his book , to persuade men not to write in defence of the doctrine of the trinity ? did he do that , only that he might have liberty to ridicule and expose it ? i must confess 't is a good argument to engage men not to write in defence of this doctrine of the church , if he can make it out , that it ought not to be retain'd . but methinks 't is such a kind of argument , that bespeaks a man not so much a peacemaker , as a profest adversary . and besides , i would ask him , whether it be less dangerous and less vnseasonable at present for him to write against the established doctrine and worship of the church , than for others to write in defence of them ? in the next section he tells us , that vnscriptural words were complained of by the fathers , as well as by hereticks ; and by the fathers first , for which he cites st. athanasius and st. ambrose , whom i am not now at leisure to turn over , nor does it seem very material to the present business . st. athanasius he owns apologizeth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the necessity of it ; and if that will be allowed as a good reason , i suppose the dean will not desire more in favour of vnscriptural terms , and therefore since our author is willing , i think we had as good let this project stand upon its own merits . here then he is very liberal , and will allow us to vindicate scripture from heretical glosses . why then may we not write in defence of the doctrine of the trinity , and show what is the true sense of scripture in that point ? and if we may do this , why is it not seasonable to do it now hereticks are so busy in perverting the true sense of scripture ? and if he will grant us this , the main design of his book is overthrown . but when we have plainly proved that these words of scripture contain this sense , why should we ( i suppose he means in our creeds and articles ) change the words ? i will tell him one short reason , if he does not know it already , and that is because , when we have proved this to be the true sense of scripture , so as to satisfy honest and unprejudiced minds , yet perverse hereticks may still take them in their own sense , and so we shall be never the nearer the knowledge of their minds , nor able to distinguish them , unless we require them to profess they believe them in that sense , which we have proved to be the true sense ; and then it must be in other words ; for though we have shown to all reasonable men , what is the true meaning of them , and so made the sense of the words plain ; yet the words are the same that they were ; and therefore every one who took them in a perverse sense before , may do so still if he will. besides , why may not any man , who believes that to be the true sense which has been shown so to be , profess his belief in those terms when required by the church , as well as in scripture words which he takes in the same sense ? the dean urges , they ( i.e. scripture-words ) may be undetermined , and 't is necessary to fix their true sense . but this , says our author , is the difficulty ; they may rationally , at least probably , admit of more senses than one , &c. he gives an example of this , which is not very much for his reputation , because it can serve no other end , but to overthrow the personality of the holy ghost , and his intimate conscious knowledge of god ; and were my design at present to dispute the sense of particular texts , it were easy to show , that it is not the obscurity of the text , but his own inclination , which makes him fancy his latitude of sense ; but it is a vain thing in such a cause as this to infer a general rule from a particular instance : for how many instances soever of this nature he could give , if he will allow that there are any express texts for the divinity of the son and of the holy ghost , which will not admit such a latitude of sense , ( as he must acknowledge if he will allow the doctrine of the trinity to be a scripture-doctrine ) there can be no pretence then , to leave such a fundamental article in such a latitude of sense , that men may either own or deny a trinity as they please . further , he would be clearly for expressing some fixed true sense of all controverted tex●s in such words as hereticks cannot pervert , but for two or three reasons , which are worth hearing : his first reason is , because he cannot always be sure which sense is most truly affixed . but can he never be sure of this in any texts that have been controverted ? if he can , then this is no reason why it should not be done in them . his second reason depends upon the first , and so must stand or fall with that , for where we can be sure which is the true sense of scripture , there is no such danger of changing faith and changing scripture by fixing the sense , but the greater fear is of having no scripture , if you have no determined sense of it . his last reason , as urgent as all the rest , is , that we cannot tell where to find such words as hereticks cannot pervert . i grant some hereticks are so perverse , as to wrest almost any words to their own sense , or else the socinians could never have wrested such plain texts of scripture , and forced them to comply with their notions . but that some words have been found that hereticks could not pervert , is i think undeniable , since they have and do frequently refuse to subscribe to them and raise such opposition against them ; as for instance , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which the arians always opposed . now if these words did not plainly contain such a sense as doth expressly contradict their opinions , why should they not profess their faith in such words ? he could assign many words pitch'd upon from time to time , to guard the faith and prick the fingers of hereticks , &c. what then ? this is no proof that all words can be perverted , or that none were ever pitch'd upon that could not . as to the two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and personae , pitch'd upon by him , and so learnedly criticis'd upon , i shall only say in short , that these and such other words as the church of england delivers her doctrine in , have prick'd the fingers of some men , or else what makes the socinians cry out so ? there is something plainly signified by them , which the antitrinitarians think not so easily reconcilable to their opinions as the words of scripture are , though it be indeed no more than we say and prove to be contain'd in scripture ; or else why do they not rest contented with them as well as with the words of scripture ? suppose there are some homonymies , as our author complains , in some words used in this controversy ; will these words admit the heresies against which they are directed ? will they admit socinian opinions ? or do they contradict them ? if they do , then they serve the end for which they were designed , notwithstanding these homonymies . our author seems to think , that words cannot be found to fix the sense of scripture , unless the same words will exclude all heresies concerning the subject to which they are apply'd , which is manifestly absurd . for if i confess that god is almighty in the most express terms that can be imagined , may i not for all that affirm , that he is not just or good ? and must the word almighty be rejected because it does n●● exclude all heresies concerning the divine nature , though it sufficiently exclude all such blasphemous notions as make god a weak and impotent being . now though i confess three persons in the godhead , 't is no wonder that i may nevertheless hold heresy , and blasphemy , and assert three gods too ; but can i under these words mean , that there is not a trinity of persons , as socinians affirm ? but hereticks may here conceal themselves under a larger latitude of expression , and spread their heresies with a traditionary sense and comment of their own , more exactly and more poisonously then the purity of the holy text would have permitted . how shall we be able to deal with this man , who is so well skilled in the versatile wit of hereticks , that neither scripture-words , nor all the words made use of by the antient fathers with great caution and judgment , are able to hold him ? i wonder how he knows , what either heresy or orthodoxy is as to the doctrine of the trinity ; when , if we may believe him , there are no words that do determinately signify either , but both the words of scripture and fathers will equally serve both . but now we must return to the latitude of faith , which the dean tragically complains of him for pleading for , &c. here our author is much out of humour at some questions which the dean put to him ; and i do not wonder that it goes against his stomach to answer them briefly and plainly , though he says he will. for upon reading his answers , they appear neither brief nor plain , nor can i well tell what to make of his tedious harangue for some pages together . the dean asks him , if there be any more faiths than one ; to this indeed he answers plainly , that faith as truth can be but one. but then in what follows he makes it neither brief nor plain ; for though he owns there is but one christian faith , he qualifies it very notably , with and every truth which christ and his apostles taught , ought , if it can be without scruple understood , without scruple to be believed . now i would here ask him , if he will not be offended at my presumption , whether there be not some christian truths which ought to be expresly believed by all christians ? this i believe he will grant , because he afterwards says , that what is necessary to the salvation of all is plain . this is all we desire , and then let protestant divines be as tender as they will in defining the number of fundamentals : the only question to our present purpose will be , whether the doctrine of the trinity is not one of these few fundamentals which are necessary to salvation ? and if it be , certainly we may be allowed to write in the defence of it , and to require the profession of it from the members of our church ; and surely what is fundamental in this point is but one , and that wherein all ought to agree ; and then the faith will be but one , and no such fallacy in the deans questions as he complains of . if he will not allow the doctrine of the trinity to be a fundamental , i think'tis no hard matter to prove it ; but that is not my business , nor according to the design of his book , is it his : 't is upon this supposition we argue , and upon this supposition i would fain see him prove that the church ought not to require an express belief of this article ; but to leave it in such a latitude , as that every one may be socinian , arian , sabellian , or what else he please , and yet pass for a very orthodox christian. this i take to be the latitude he pleads for , and which , though in his dialect it be stiled believing as by grace we are able , is really believing only what we please . the rest of this paragraph concerning different measures of faith , as to the present purpose , is no more than mere harangue , ad populum phalerae ; for i cannot possibly understand that it concerns the present controversy , how god will hereafter deal with men , by reason of their different capacities and opportunities of knowledg , and what excuses ●here may be for some mens ignorance of the most important truths , &c. and i dare affirm , that all he urges here , mutatis mutandis , will be of as great force out of the mouth of a turk or deist , to prove that we urge too strict an vnity , when we desire them expresly to believe the truth of the christian religion . suppose , though there is no reason for it , that we should grant him his negative belief , even for the whole creed , will that serve his and his clients turn ? will his socinian friends submit to it ? will they then not say a word against the doctrine of the trinity , nor endeavour to spread their errors any farther ? or if they do , will he give us leave to oppose them and defend the truth ? but now let us see in the next section , where he thinks , tho upon very unjust grounds , as will appear presently , he has caught the dean ●●ipping , how ●itifully ( to use his own phrase ) and pedantically , as well as unreasonably , he triumphs and exults over him , and endeavours to expose his subtilty , as he calls it , in saying , that if the faith be one , there can be n● more latitude in the faith , than there is in an vnit. now sure this is no such metaphysical subtilty ; for if the faith be one , 't is plain there can be no more latitude in it than in an unit. but now for our author 's great discovery , without any subtilty in it , there are , says he , as many sorts of vnits , as there are of vnities ; and then he reminds the dean of philosophical and arithmetical vnits or vnities , which you please ; and what latitude there may be in an vnit. suppose all this , the dean doth not , as i can find , say there is no kind of latitude in an vnit , but only that there can be no more latitude in the faith , than there is in an vnit ; which if it be one , must be so . but then i pray , what is the latitude in an vnit , considered as an unit ? none , i think ; for in whatever respect 't is one , 't is no more than one , and has no latitude . a compositum , which is a thing he imagines the dean may have heard of in philosophy , tho , as he says , it has parts , yet is but one totum , and in that respect has no latitude ; and an hund●ed is but one hundred and no more ; and therefore as an vnit it is but an vnit , and has no latitude . and if the faith be one , as one , it can have no latitude : if the vnity of the one f●ith be only an vnity of words , then there is no latitu●● ●f words , and we must comply with our author's fancy , and never profess it in any other words than the words of scripture : but if it be an vnity of sense , ( as one would think'tis most reasonable and most proper it should be among intelligent creatures ) then we must agree in the same sense ; and if we do not agree in some one sense , we do not agree in the same ●aith , tho we do use the same words ; and if we do agree in the same sense , 't is no harm tho we happen not to use exactly the same words , and then there may be very good reason sometimes to make use of other than scripture words . i believe then there is no latitude in an vnit. yes , but there is , and 〈◊〉 the one faith too , especially as by the one faith we understand what churches and doctors have now made it . what churches and doctors have made the one faith , if any of them have made it more than our saviour made it , concerns not us , we justify no such things . but what is this to our purpose ? sure these churches and these doctors do still require an vnity of faith , and allow no such latitude as our author contends for ; nay , i fancy he really thinks they urge too strict an vnion ; and yet this for want of a better , must be made an argument to prove , that there is a latitude in the one faith ; and is it not a stabbing one ? some doctors require more things as articles of faith , than really are so ; ergo there is a latitude in the one faith. but sure this is no sign that these churches and these doctors allow a latitude in the one faith , if they make it stricter than christ or his apostles made it , much less that christ and his apostles allow of any such latitude of faith. but have we not whole systems of opinions now a-days made up into confessions of faith ? yes , we have several systems of arian , socinian , pelagian , calvinistical opinions , and all of them require a subscription at least from their divines to these several systems , without allowing his negative belief , which is a certain proof that they do not allow his latitude of faith ; and from hence to prove that the scripture words have no determine● sense , and are not to be believed in one determined sense , is to prove that the multitude of heresies destroys the certain and determined sense of scripture ; and i wonder what he means , who pretends to own one faith , to object against this one faith the various and contrary systems of opinions in religion , unless he thinks all these contrary systems are within the latitude of the vnit , or of the one faith. and now that this latitude may not pass for his own invention , he tells us , that god is doubly the author of a latitude in faith. 1. in revealing his truth in such terms as admit of a latitude of conception ; that is , in not revealing it at all ; for if the terms admit of a latitude of conception , i. e. two contrary senses ; which is the truth ? both cannot be , and if both are equally the sense of the words , then the truth is not revealed , but as far to seek as ever . now for my life cannot i imagine what else this latitude of conception should be , unless he means that god has revealed his truths , and those too the most fundamental articles of christian faith ( for concerning such our present controversy is ) in such dubious and ambiguous phrases , that we cannot understand the true sense of them , or at least that very few can , and that even they few cannot be certain that they understand them in the right sense , that is , in that sense which god meant them ; tho that is improperly said , for it seems god meant them in none , but intended that every man should believe them in what sense he pleases . this he may call a latitude of faith , but it is such a latitude , that if i should tell any infidels of it , whom i would convert to christianity , they would presently laugh at me and my faith too . but in the second place god is the author of a latitude in faith , in giving to men , as he sees fit , such measures of knowledge and persuasion , as leaves them in a higher or lower degree of faith , and even of holiness . this is impious ; for in the true consequence of it he charges not only all the heresies , but all the infidelity in the world on god almighty , and justifies both their heresies and their infidelity by the different degrees and measures of faith , or by the no-faith which god gives them ; but i am not at leisure to dispute this now , for it does not concern our present purpose . but if our author would say any thing either in defence of what he pleads for , or against what the dean maintains , he must show that christians are not obliged to profess and believe one and the same truth ; that agreeing in scripture-words , tho understanding them in contrary senses , is sufficient to make orthodox christians ; that we must not defend the true faith against such as oppose it , especially if they , or any peaceable men for them , pretend that they believe as they can , and as by grace they are able ; and that the church must not require an open and undisguised profession of the true faith. now all this , he says , is far from thinking it indifferent what men believe ; but very far i am sure from being any proof of what he pleads for ; for there is nothing that can uphold his cause , but such an indifferency as will not allow the church to concern her s●lf what men believe ▪ nor her members to defend the true faith. but i must conceive as i can , and judge as i can , and believe as i can too ; i must not believe what i cannot believe . very well : and i need not believe any more than i can ; and this is true too , if it be not my own fault , that i can believe no more ; but if it be , i shall hardly be excusable before god or man. i cannot , it may be , believe the true faith of the holy trinity ; or it may be i cannot believe the truth of the christian religion , as i fear too many now-a-days will be ready to tell you ; some lu●ts and prejudices hinder me from discerning the clear evidence of it , and so long i cannot believe , and therefore i hope i shall be excused , and no body will be so quarrelsome as to litigate with me about it , nor go about to confute me , for i believe as by grace i am able ; for though the gospel be never so true , if god has not given me grace to understand so much , how can i believe it ? for neither i , nor any man alive , who believes any thing , can believe all that dictating men will impose upon them . but can't he believe what reason and divine revelation di●tate ? and who desires him to do more ? if the doctrine of the trinity be the imposition only of dictating men , let him prove that , and we will no longer desire him or any man to believe it . but if it be the plain truth of the gospel , we will desire him to believe it , and think the church has authority enough to require him to do it , though the church can't make that an article of faith which god has not made so : for i hope she can require the profession of that which god has made so , and that is all we desire . but in controversies the church may declare her sense , and we are bound so far peaceably to submit and accept it , as not to contradict it or teach contrary , under penalty of her censures . a very bountiful concession , for which he deserves her publick thanks , if he will but stay for them till a fit time and place . and this he would be content ( i doubt it not ) to conceive the whole of what our church requires , as to these things , which are merely her determinations . now who can tell what he means by merely her determinations ? for i never heard that the church delivered any doctrines , especially the creeds , as merely her determinations , which would be indeed with a bare face to impose upon the faith of christians ; but she never pretended to make a faith , but to teach that faith which was once delivered to the saints . but does he really think the church desires no man to believe the creeds , and particularly the doctrine of the trinity , but only not to oppose them ? doth she indeed hand them to us merely as her own determinations ? can any thinking man say so ? but if this were all , do our socinians observe this ? why does not he first persuade them to comply thus far , before he desires us not to defend the church's doctrine ? but let us hear his profound reason ; for in truth it is to no purpose for her to require such approbation and consent , which whether paid or no , she can never come to have knowledge , of which sort is belief and inward approbation . is it then to no purpose to teach men the truth , because they may put upon us , and say they believe it when they do not ? is it to no purpose to require men to profess their minds sincerely , because we cannot always be sure whether they do or no ? this is admirable logick . we must then never administer an oath , because we can't tell for all that , whether the person speaks the real truth or no. but if this be true , there is no need of disputing a latitude of faith , for men may take this latitude whether we will or no. but to exact this may breed hypocrisy ; not if his latitude of faith be allowed , for then men may sincerely profess their faith in any words which have latitude enough to excuse from hypocrisy , which , if we will believe him , all words have , whether found in scripture , or used by the ancient church . but must nothing be done , from whence bad men may take occasion to be hypocrites ? then i am sure vertue must not be encouraged , nor vice punished , because some may hence take occasion to counterfeit virtue when they are not sincerely virtuous . and i hope he will not say , that requiring an inward belief makes men hypocrites any other ways ; it is not design'd for that end , it does not command nor force men to be hypocrites , and if men will be hypocrites , who can help it ? nay , certainly if our church required only his peaceable submission in what she teaches of the trinity , she might be more justly accused of encouraging hypocrisy . for what else would it be , to oblige men daily to worship the trinity , when she does not suppose nor desire them to believe any such thing , and to profess their faith in three persons , when they do not believe one word of that doctrine ? but it cannot be a seed of charity and christian concord to exact this inward belief . but i think 't is great charity to the souls of men to exact such a faith as is necessary to salvation ; as for charity to the bodies of men , writing against their heresies breaks no bones . and if by concord he means an unity of faith , which is the only concord we are now concern'd about , such a latitude as admits of twenty several sorts of faith , can't be this concord ; and whenever there is such a concord , as an universal liberty of faith signifies , which can be only a civil and political concord , i desire him to tell me , whether ever he found a greater unity in the faith , or less disputing for it . after some usual compliments pass'd upon the dean and his hypothesis , which deserve to be scorn'd , not to be answer'd , he comes to dr. wallis his three somewhats . the dean says , that when dr. wallis called the three persons three somewhats , thereby he only meant , that the true notion of a person he did not know : that is , that tho , as the doctor says , a person in divini● is analogous to a person in humanis , yet by what peculiar name to distinguish them he could not tell , and therefore calls them somewhats ; which , as the dean says , must signify , that three persons are three real subsistencies , and three real things , not a sabellian trinity of mere names . and if he can think this a good occasion to ridicule the trinity in our prayers and doxology , by the name of three somewhats , he is not a fit man either for the dean , or any sober christian to dispute with . but now for his unavoidable consequence of not knowing the true notion of a person , that we then worship we know not what ; i have hardly met with any thing more empty and weak . if we have not the true , that is , full notion of a person , therefore we worship we know not what , when we worship three persons : he might as well have concluded ; that because we have not a compleat notion of god , nor of several of his attributes , as omnipotence , omniscience , &c. all which we allow to be incomprehensible , therefore we worship we know not what , when we worship an omnipotent and omniscient , that is , an incomprehensible god. but now since he pretends to own a trinity , and has ridiculed somewhats , and done little less for the word person ; i would desire to know what he worships , when he says that prayer in the litany , o hol● , blessed , and glorious trinity , three persons , &c. and what he means , when he owns ●hree that bear witness in heaven ; whether they be in his opinion three somewhats , or three nothings ; three real things , or only three names ? but however that be , he will not blush to press again his desires to all men to let this controversy rest , as it was above thirteen hundred years ago determined by ●wo general councils . pray who are they that will not l●t it rest ? are they not his friends who move these ancient boundaries of peace ? if we must let it rest , persuade them to leave us in quiet possession of the truth , and we are content ; which sure he ought to do , or else to let us alone in defending it . for i cannot but look upon it as very partial and iniquitous , to desire us to let the controversy rest , that is , not to write in defence of the ancient doctrine , while our adversaries freely spread libels against it ; and who can imagine that any man who has any zeal for the true christian fa●th , should press this ? as for his reason , which he thinks stands unshaken , i am of opinion that neither the dean nor any one else had occasion to shake it , it was weak enough to fall of it self . if some men by the improvements they have attempted , have , as he says , embroil'd this do●trine , the fault is theirs ; or if some will draw false inferences from what is well and cautiously said , there is no help for it , as long as there are men of perverse minds , and weak heads : but sure all who have writ on this ●ubject have not embroiled it ; i have read what some learned writers of controversy , besides the present dean of st. paul's and dr. wallis , have writ on this subject within less than thirteen hundred years , which has not embroil'd nor perplex'd my understanding , but given me much satisfaction , and made several things clearer to me than they were before . but if this argument were never so true , it does not prove that we ought not to defend the ancient doctrine , but only not to give any new explications of it , lest they should turn the heads of some men . as for what he quotes out of the nouvelles de la republique des lettres , if it signify any thing more than to let us know he understands french , it must be to warn the world against mathematicians , who it seems are very busy in corrupting the faith with their notions of mathematical quantities : i never saw the book , and am not mathematician enough to be a proper judge of it ; and therefore must refer it to dr. wallis , who i● . but now he is for carrying on his jest in good earnest , whatever the dean think of it , and would still have the doctrine of the trinity left on its old foundation of authority ; i.e. he would have us yield the point to the socinians , who he knows value the authority of councils no more than he does that of the church of england . the dean , he tells us , demands of him , would he believe such absurd doctrines as some represent the trinity in vnity to be , merely upon church-authority ? to which he returns an answer , by which 't is not easy to apprehend what he means . he says , he is not press'd with any such absurd ●octrines : it may be he is not , for i am not sure ( tho he pretends the contrary now and then ) that he believes any more of the trinity than the socinians do : but if he believes what the church of england teacheth , the socinians i am sure do press him as well as others with pretended absurdities . now as for such forms of speaking , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , conglorified , and the like , he thinks we must receive them only from church-authority , and would have those who defend them ( which i think he does not care to do ) urge nothing else . the fathers indeed , good men , thought the sense of these words was in scripture , and so doth he , admitting what we judge good consequents out of scripture , to be of the same truth with scripture ; but poor man he confesses he is not able to prove it , nor to convince others who do not think so ; and because he cannot convince them , he thinks no body else can ; which may be true , if he knows his men to be convinced ; for some men will never be convinced , and some others have as little mind to convince them . but he goes on , demonstrate to the world this to be the sense of sc●ipture , and the controversy is at an end . if he means , prove it by good and sufficient reason , this we say may easily , and often has been done , and yet the controversy is not at an end , and i fear never will be , while there are such peacemakers as he is , fluttering about the world . but when he calls upon us to demonstrate this , i hope he does not mean mathematical demonstrations , unless he has a mind to trepan us into the nouvelles ; and as for any other demonstrations , if he cannot give them , others can , if he will secure them from his earnest suits . well , but if we can't demonstrate this , we must own this to be the state of our evidence . we have for the orthodox side , scripture interpreted by the tradition of the church : this at length resolves it self mainly into church-authority . this were true , if there were no other certain way of knowing the true sense of scripture , but church-authority ; for this sets aside scripture , and resolves all at last into church-authority ; and he himself has made that too contemptible to be a sure foundation for faith ; but the scripture was so writ by the divine penmen , as to be understood ; and tho a traditionary sense of scripture be a very good confirmation of what according to the ordinary rules of expounding scripture , appears to be the true and genuine sense of it , yet no authority ought so far to over-rule us , as ●● persuade us to believe that to be the true sense of scripture , which neither the usual signification of the words , nor the circumstances of the place , nor the contexture of t●e reasoning proves to be so . and this was the question he ought to have answered the dean , whether he would have believed such things as the socinians say are very contradictions and absurd , and which he himself does not say , are not absurd , merely upon authority , though this authority pretends scripture without any reason to be on its side . but still he has a farther fetch , which the dean was so dull as not to smell out , nor i believe would any man else , though he had attended his words never so strictly ; and it is this , that some other concurrent power should be called in to end this controversy , i suppose , by imposing silence on all parties , this carries a show of greater impartiality than our author usually expresses , for then the socinians , as well as the orthodox , must have their hands tied up . but i doubt this is not such a very fair proposal , when 't is thoroughly considered ; for this must not be done till the hereticks are first gratified , and the forms of worship , which some mens consciences can't bear , made easy , that is , the doctrine of the trinity thrown out of the liturgy ; thank him for his extraordinary civility to the church of england . and then no matter how severe the laws be against any who shall write or speak more in the controversy ; that is , i suppose , every man shall be punished who shall presume to speak one word for as well as against the trinity , and pretend to teach any such doctrine ; for saying any thing of it , either in the desk or pulpit , will be speaking in the controversy . now this i think will not amount to much less than determining the controversy on the socini●ns side ; for to prohibit the teaching or asserting the doctrine of the trinity , or the explaining of those texts which do assert it , looks very like determining that there is no such thing , or at least that 't is no matter whether men believe it or no , or in what sense they take the scripture words , so they do but agree to use the words . but to proceed with our author , he professes a great reverence for the council of nice ( whether in earnest or in jest let the reader judge ) and speaks a great many fine things in behalf of it , not worth repeating . and then he falls foul upon athanasius and his disputations , taking a hint from what the dean said concerning his learned and subtil disputations , which confounded the arians ; of which this author for brevities s●ke , and to keep close to the business in hand , gives us a tedious historical account , which is many times a very good way of dropping the main point ; besides , that it is always easier to tell a story , than to reason well . and to what other purpose all this account serves , he may guess that can ; for my part i see so little in it , that i think it time lost to consider it any farther . for i cannot understand how it proves , that the council of nice did rely chiefly on authority , as our author asserts ; and that ●heir faith was not ( as the dean says it was ) resolved into scripture and reason . when he shows how his story will prove this , which was the thing in debate , i will seriously consider his quotations , but in the mean time i shall leave him to read his history-lectures to the walls , and pass on a page or two farther , where we shall meet with a masterpiece of wit and reason , in some learned remarks on the athanasian creed , which may well enough divert a reader who is disposed for a little mirth , but will signify little to one that has a mind to be serious . but however , he cannot forbear an instance or two o●t of that creed , to shew how apt that creed is to lead men to mistake the truth , and to prosess heresies and blasphemy . i suppose this was meant for an instance to show his tenderness for the church of england , who owns and embraces this creed . he has found out a way , ( and as far as i know , the glory of the invention may be all his own ) to prove from this creed , that two of the three persons are not eternal , but created , because there is but one eternal and one vncreated , and therefore two of the three must be created ; tho the creed expresly says of each of the three persons , that he is eternal and uncreated . any man , i think , would rather hence conclude , that these three are one eternal and one uncreated , than that two of the three are not eternal . and i dare venture any man for making such a mistake , tho he hath a less metaphysical head than our author , and less grammar to direct him how to discern when a word is to be taken adjectively or substantively . and now he tells us , therefore ( i.e. because of what has been said ) he had reason , as to the doctrine of the trinity , not to go beyond the decisions of the councils , but to acquiesce in their authorities ; as if that were all he had urged , when 't is plain that he affirm'd , that it was authority that chiefly carried the point in these councils , and would have us urge nothing but their bare authority in defence of our faith ; and whether from what he has said , there be reason for us thus to expose our selves for fools to our adversaries , i leave every one to judge , who knows what reason means . so that the dean's question was very pertinent , and still retains its first force , for i would fain see this author show us any man of sense , who would believe such absurd doctrines , as the socinians represent the trinity in vnity to be , merely upon church authority . what farther authority beyond that of the church interposed in the council of nice , he has no mind to speak : but i think what he does speak , does plainly enough insinuate , that it was not reason nor scripture , but human force , which carried it , and determined the point in that council ; and would any man who did not intend to expose both the nicene faith and council too , insinuate this ? let the dean then be as charitable as he will in his opinion , i am hard to believe that this was writ with any other design than to expose the doctrine of the trinity , and the church of england , as well as the council of nice , which no doubt is much beholding to him , because he would not speak all he knew of it , but leave every one to suspect the worst . and after the same manner i find he is willing to oblige the dean ; for he will also pass by here , as small faults , some blunders of mr. dean's ; but not without naming them , for fear the reader should be so dull as not to apprehend them without notice . one of them , or rather all , is , that he makes st. athanasius , st. hilary , and st. basil ( tho i cannot find either hilary or athanasius named by the dean in that huddle of fathers ) to write largely against those heresies which former councils had condemned ; whereas they all three died when there had but yet one council sat . this blunder may , i hope , pass indeed but for a small fault , or rather , as i take it , for none at all : for as to hilary , he is not mentioned by the dean ; and then for athanasius , the dean a line or two before that huddle of fathers that sticks in our author's throat , says of him , that he wrote against the arians after they were condemned by the council of nice , which i hope is no blunder . and then if st. basil did dye after one council only had sat , did not the rest there named live and write after more councils than one had sat ? and therefore if some here named writ after one council , and others after two or more , what blunder is it to say in general , they writ against heresies which former councils had condemned ? is not this agreeable to the common form of speech ? and yet it may be they might write against some things condemned by more councils than one , tho not general ones . but however , these fathers , he says , are impertinently cited against him ; this i am sure is impertinently said ; for 't is evident enough , that what they are cited for , is directly contrary to what he would persuade us to , for they wrote against heresies condemned by former c●uncils , and that it is for which the dean cites them ; and the antapologist , if i can tell what to make of his arguments , has all this while been persuading us not to write against the antitrinitarians , because they were condemned by former councils : now on which side the impertinency lies , let any other stander by judge . and thus much , and more than enough , as to his adhesion to the authority of these councils ; which i can make nothing else of , but that he would have nothing added to the determinations of these councils . but all this while how does this prove , that authority chiefly carried the point , or that we may not write in defence of what these councils have determined ? and now our author after all this tedious harangue should come to vindicate his reasons from those exceptions which the apologist has made against them ; but that is a task which does not agree so well with him : he he has not , i suppose , leisure and books enough about him , being so many miles from his study ; and his adversaria for the proper month , it may be , are not at hand ; and therefore let his reasons shift for themselves as well as they can these hard times . as to his reflections on the dean ( to whom he now wholly applies what he had formerly said in general , against all who write in defence of the true faith , and for whose sake alone i believe indeed he wrote ) for contradicting and not being consistent with himself , while he says he has made that point plain and easy , which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible ; they need no very long answer , for the dean does not pretend to have made the doctrine of the trinity so easy and plain , as that there is now nothing in the nature of god incomprehensible : nor doth he say , that so much of the mystery as he has made plain , is incomprehensible . it is then no contradi●tion to make it plain , that there are , and how also there may be without any contradiction to the nature of an infinite and eternal spirit , three persons and but one god ; and yet to confess that the nature of god is incomprehensible . but now this controversy is like to be at an end ; for says our author , now i may set my heart at rest as to this controversy , if mr. dean will stand to the profession he has made , that all that any man that he ) pretends to in vindicating the doctrine of the trinity , is to prove that this faith is taught in scripture . this , our author adds , is that which he would be at . and yet i fear the dean and he would not be at the same thing : the dean would have it , and has proved it , that the doctrine of three persons and one god , is contained in scripture . now if i can guess at the meaning of the stander●y , this very attempt put him into a melancholy fit , and therefore he desires no man would meddle with this controversy . this was the design of his book , to persuade us not to meddle with this controversy , but to leave every man to take the words of scripture in what sense he pleases ; and this i take to be different from the dean's design of proving this doctrine to be contain'd in scripture ; and so the dean's own profession , tho he stand to it , will not bring the business so near a compromise . for i doubt , that if we should grant our author what he says , that three such persons as the de●n has defined , are not asserted in scripture , yet he would not be so kind to the church of england , as to grant , that three real persons are there asserted , which we know the socinians deny , and put strained and unnatural senses on scripture to reconcile it to their principles of reason ; and did so long before the dean gave any definition of a person , or said one word in the controversy . but after all , he has not fairly represented the dean's words , but has stopped where he thought fit ; as if the dean had only said , that all any man pretended to , was to prove that this faith is taught in scripture ; whereas he went farther , and added , and that it contains no such absurdities and contradictions , as should force a wise man to reject it , &c this , i doubt , the stander-by does not love to hear of , that there is no absurdity , no contradi●tion in the doctrine of the trinity . in the next page he proceeds to account for his last reason he assign'd for the present vnreasonableness of some mens agitating this controversy : he should have cleared his accounts as he went along , and said something more to the purpose in justification of his other reasons , before he came to the last ; but it may be he has a good excuse , and therefore we will be contented to attend his motions . here then he tells us , that the dean calumniates him , when he affirmeth this to be the sum of his argument , that to vindicate the doctrine of the trinity against socinians , will make men atheists . now i desire any man to look upon his words , and see if it be not so ; for he addresses his suit to all who write in vindication of the trinity , to forbear writing ; and to this purpose he tells them 't is unreasonable to controvert this point ; and the reason he brings to prove his assertion , is , that hereby our church at present is , and the common christianity ( it may be feared ) will be more and more daily exposed to atheistical men ; by what , i pray ? by vindicating the doctrine of the ●rini●y . this is the plain sense of his words , tho now he is asham'd of it , and would have us believe the sum of all was only this , such vindications as that writ by dr. sherlock , he should have added , or by any other learned writers of controversy at present , at least dr. wallis , tend rather to make men atheists , than to convert socinians . if this be all●he meant , it were to be wish'd he would learn to speak plainer . why did he not plainly say , he was not against mens writing in vindication of the doctrine of the trinity , but that he only disliked dr sherlock ' s vindication ? but whatever the doctor 's vindication will do , i am sure our antapologists politick method for men to agree in the bare sound of words , and no body to know what they mean by them , or to take them in opposite and contradictory senses , would expose us and our faith to the just scorn of atheists and scepticks , who by the same art might subscribe all the articles of the christian creed , and yet believe never a word of the gospel . in the next section he comes to the secret , which the dean told him , that atheists and deists , men who are for no religion , are of late very zealous socinians ; and which the dean urges as a good reason why we should at present be zealous against socinanism , and so undoubtedly it is , and a far better than any he has urged to the contrary . for the truth of the matter of fact , 't is notoriously known , and needs no proof . to invalidate this argument , i can't find that he has said one word ; but instead of this , ( according to his usual way of digressions ) he puts off the reader with an account of his friendship and acquaintance , which he holds with no atheists nor deists , but only with some virtuous rationalists ; and that his virtuous rationalists do not ridicule this faith. this virtuous rationalist , is a new name , and i 'am afraid signifies , either a deist , or a socinian , for other men are not ashamed of their known characters , and if they do not ridicule the doctrine of the trinity , no thanks to their good nature , nor to their good manners ; they do their best , as he has done , to ridicule it ; but it is a doctrine that won't be ridicul'd . thus much for the unreasonableness of this controversy about the holy trinity . in the next place he objects the danger of it ; and his argument for that , is , that it is a fundamental of our religion : now to litigate concerning a fundamental , is to turn it into a controversy ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsetling the whole superstructure . now , in answer to this , the dean had proved , that there was very great reason to dispute and settle fundamentals , when hereticks endeavour to unsettle them ; and ask'd this author , whether the being of a god were not a fundamental ? and whether that were a good reason not to dispute for the being of a god , because atheists denied it ? this made him ashamed to own his argument , and therefore he charges the dean with misrepresenting it . his pretended misrepresentation is , that he did not say , that the doctrine of the trinity was a fundamental in general , but only , if duly stated , and therefore not a fundamental , as unduly stated by the dean . this is so trifling an evasion , that it is hardly worth the while to expose it . was the dispute , whether the dean should write in defence of the doctrine of the trinity , or whether the doctrine of the trinity should be defended ? was his argument urged to prove that it was dangerous for the dean , whom he never named before , to defend the doctrine of the trinity by his mistaken notion of it , or that it was dangerous to dispute a fundamental ? to show the fol●y of this pretence , let us put his argument into mode and figure , wherein his fundamental doctrine of the trinity , as duly stated , can be only the minor proposition . 't is dangerous to litigate touching a fundamental , or to turn a fundamental into a controversy . but the doctrine of the trinity , as duly stated , is a fundamental : ergo , 't is dangerous to litigate touching the doctrine of the trinity , as duly stated . now if he will not allow the major proposition , his argument is nothing ; and if he will , then the force of his argument consists in the danger of disputing fundamentals , and i● seems the dean placed the force of his argument right ; and if that argument be good , it is as good against disputing for the being of a god against atheists ; for the being of a god is as fundamental as the doctrine of the trinity . so that this limitation of duly stated , does not at all concern this argument of disputing about the trinity ; but the argument only prov●s , that we must not dispute about the doctrine of the trinity , as duly stated , because it is a fundamental , and i suppose , whenever we talk of defending the trinity , we mean it as duly stated . but tho the stander-by would not allow any man to defend fundamentals , yet our worthy primate being not under his jurisdiction , has ventured to do it . this was then news to him , and welcome tidings too , if we may believe him ; and he pretends also to pay great deference to his authority , tho one would hardly guess so by the lash he gives him for licensing by his chaplain the dean's apology . but what has he to answer this authority ? why , he hopes in that piece to find ( as i hope too by this time he has ) plain and perspicuous scripture-notions , clear reason , and genuine antiquity . will this justify the writing of that piece ? if so , then 't is not unreasonable , nor unseasonable , nor dangerous , to write in defence of fundamentals , and even of the doctrine of the trinity ; but farther , he was capacitated by his publick station , &c. very well : and if that will justify him , why will not his approving the apology , justify the dean at least in writing that book ? and why may not his vindicacion be as well justified by the approbation of another , who was also capacitated by his publick station , either to write , or to license other men to write on this subject ? his last argument is the vnseasonableness of this controversy ; he says , all controversies among protestants are now unseasonable ; the dean adds somewhat more , that they are always so ; for there is no juncture seasonable to broach heresies and oppose the truth . to this he answers , that there may be controversies among protestants , without heresy ; but it is not easy to conceive any controversy , but that one side or other must oppose the truth ; and this i believe the dean thinks always vnseasonable ; but the present dispute was about fundamental articles , and therefore he had very good reason to mention only the vnseasonableness of broaching heresies . and he seems to me to urge a very good argument why no juncture can be unseasonable to defend the truth when 't is oppos'd ; for if hereticks will dispute against the truth unseasonably , there is no time unseasonable to defend fundamental truths . but can any thing be more pleasant than his proof of the seasonableness of some controversies , he might have said of all , even of socinianism it self , in all junctures , from the university-exercises in the divinity-schools , where men who are all of a mind dispute with one another , not to oppose the truth , but to learn how to defend it against the common enemy when occasion serves ? he might as well have proved that civil wars are not always unseasonable , because 't is never unseasonable for fellow-citizens to learn the use of their arms in a martial scene , without bloodshed . but his argument why it is so unseasonable in this juncture , is this , because , under god , nothing but an vnion of counsels , and joining of hands and hearts can preserve the reformation , and scarce any thing more credit and justify it , than an vnion in doctrinals : here he complains , that the dean left out somewhat at the latter end , and therefore i will add it , and it is this , so above all other controversies none can be well thought of worse timed than this ; let the reader judge whether this injured the force of his argument , especially since it was afterwards particularly considered . in answer to this , in the first place the dean asks , is the vnion in doctrinals ever the greater , that socinians boldly and publickly affront the faith of the church , and no body appears to defend it ? all that he answers to this is , that he does not love affronts , especially to the faith of the church , and don 't know that the socinians affront it , and is sorry for it if they do ; it may be he will not allow writing against the faith , and endeavouring to ridicule it , to be an affront , which he knew very well the socini●ns did , if he knew that ever the dean writ against the socinians , which was in answer to as prophane and as scurrilous a libel as ever was writ : but whether he will allow this to be affronting of the faith or no , i suppose he will allow that it is opposing it ; which argues no great vnion in doctrinals , tho no body should defend it , unless , as the dean adds , the world should think we are all of a mind , because there is disputing only on one side , and then they will think us all socinians , as some foreigners begin alrea●y to suspect ; which will be a very scandalous vnion , and divide us from all other reform'd churches . his answer to this , ( and a very politick and grave one it is ) as far as i can guess , amounts to this , that if we live good lives , and let our adversaries alone , the world will credit our practice , articl●s , homilies , &c. and therefore think us no socinians . now if subscribing the articles be no more than he makes it to be , they cannot conclude us to be no socinians from our articles , because a man may subscribe them , and yet believe never a word of them ; in which case the only way to show that we do believe them , is to defend and vindicate them , and then i believe the world will think us no socinians ; but otherwise , i fear , they will , as the dean says , think us all socinians , which will be a very scandalous vnion indeed . as to what he says of pamphlets dying away , if they were not opposed ; i am not in all cases of his mind , and see no present prospect of it , especially in this controversy , which so much gratifies atheists and infidels : but if these heresies would in time dye away of themselves , which yet i much question , as not finding that false opinions always lose ground by not being opposed , what must be done in the mean time ? must we all pass contentedly for socinians in the eye of the world , and be afraid to say we are none ? i believe all men would not think this much for the glory of the reformation , nor would the cause of religion be much beholding to us for it . but his great argument to prove this juncture unseasonable to defend the doctrine of the trinity is , that it makes sport for papists ; to which the dean answers , it must be disputing against the trinity then , not dis●uting for it , for they are very orthodox in this point , and never admitted any man to ●heir communion , who disowned this faith , or declared that he thou●ht it at any time unreasonable , dangerous , or unseasonabl● to dispute for it , when it was violently opposed . this he thinks fit to return no answer to , but only to deny that the dean took any notice of it , but says it was too warm for him , and that he let it slip through his fingers . the dean observed farther , that if this argument to prove the unseasonableness of this controversy in the doctrine of the holy trinity in this juncture , from the necessity of union of counsels and joining of hands and hearts for the preservation of the reformation , have any force , it must signify , that we shall never join against a common enemy , whose successes ●ould endanger the reformation , while there are any religious disputes among us ; which is a confession that every schism in the church is a new party and faction in the state , which are always troublesome to government when it wants their help . he seems surpriz●d at this , as not aware of this consequence , the truth of which he has not confidence enough to deny , nor reason enough to answer , but only sences a little for his beloved socinians , as a very small inconsiderable party , and so quiet and peaceable in their principles , that there is no danger of their disturbing government : now if all this be true , it only proves the impertinency of his argument ; for then we may still write against the socinians , and yet unite counsels , and join hands and hearts to preserve the reformation ; of which the socini●ns , as the dean before urged , and he thought fit to take no notice of , are no part . and now passing by some poor trifling reflections , we must come to his mind in a passage of more weight ; but pray , what are these trifling reflections , which he is so good natured as to pass by ? they are only some reflections on his answer to an objection started by himself in these words , shall we tamely by a base silence give up the point ? of which he tells us there is no danger , for a wise reason , viz. that the established church is in possession of it , and the a●versaries of the received doctrine cannot alter our articles of religion . now this answer is apparently weak , and the insufficiency of it is shown by the dean in a few words , as indeed a few are enow to do it ; and i suspect he passes by these reflections upon a very reasonable account , because he could not answer them . i shall not therefore trouble my reader with the repetition of them , nor ask our author any question for fear he should say , i fall on catechising him , which possibly will not agree with a man of a negative belief . but it may be the reader will not be angry , if i ask him a question or two ; whether because our articles oblige us to profess our faith in the holy trinity , this be a good reason why we should not defend it ? and if the socinians , as he tells us , have a zeal too , no less ardent than that of church men ; whether this be a reason why we should by a base silence suffer them to spread their poyson without contradicting them ? if our author were to answer this question , i suppose he would in his melancholy fit , say , yes by all means ; for if no body disputes with them , they will leave off disputing ; but will they leave off perverting the people ? will they leave off making proselytes to their heretical opinions ? nor do i believe after all , that the charms of our author 's melancholy suit and peaceable rhetorick , would be able to silence them , though no body should write against them : for why then did they unprovoked make the first onset ; and , as soon as they thought the times would bear it , openly disperse their envenomed libels , which i don't question but they would have done sooner , if they had thought it safe : if our author had told us , they had no ardent zeal , his argument would have been much more to the purpose ; for then indeed there would have been more reason to neglect them , since there would have been less reason to fear the spreading of the infection . well , but whether they will leave off disputing or no , 't is fit we should , and neglect them till a fit time and place , which is the weighty passage that the dean will not understand ; but however , whether he will understand or no , we must wait for this fit time and place before we open our mouths in defence of the truth . i wonder our author would not stay for them before he writ against the deans gross pack of errors , as he is pleased to stile them ; for certainly , according to his own rule , he ought to have remained a stander-by ( as melancholy as he pleases ) till what he himself calls a fit time and place were come . for it seems , tho the dean thought the present a fit time , not upon those reasons which he himself gives , and which our author has not confuted , but as our author , who , i suppose , by this time has got the gift of discerning spirits , , faith , because he had leisure and a mind to give the world some new specimen of his skill in dispute , and for other reasons that the world talk of ; yet all these reasons are not able to convince him , but that the fittest time and place is a full house of convocation : and if we grant this , may not the present also be a fit time , till the other can be compass'd , tho not the fittest ? and the fittest persons a committee chosen by that great and reverend assembly ? here i had a great mind to be at the old way of questions ; but since he is so afraid of being catechis'd , i must , to humour him , put the case categorically ; and , besides referring him to what the dean has already said , tell him what exceptions i have against his proposals , which i look upon as neither reasonable nor practicable ; for certainly there is no great reason why those doctrines , which have been so long since defined by a convocation , should never be defended against the assaults of scornful cavillers and opposers , till a convocation can meet and order an answer to their scandalous pamphlets , and then overlook it again before it goes to the press . and i think the authority lodged in the archbishop and bishop of london to license books , may be sufficient to justify any man , whom they approve , in writing in defence of the established doctrine , without waiting for a new convocation ; or else what was that authority lodged there for ? i hope , not to license books against the doctrine of the church , nor yet merely to license such as do not at all meddle with the doctrines of our religion . and if this authority be sufficient , we know the dean was thus far authorized to write in defence of the doctrine of the ●rinity . it seems very hard , that we may not vindicate the fundamentals of our religion from absurdities , contradictions , and falshoods imp●ted to them , till a convocation can be called to do it ▪ which in my apprehension is not easily practicable , unless we could have a convocation always fitting , which he cannot think either feasible or convenient according to our constitution : and yet if they are not always sitting , it will be very difficult and troublesome immediately to call them to confute every heretical doctrine that in times of liberty may be broach'd by bold and daring men . when it may be fit to do thus , i leave those , to whom it belongs , to judge ; but i am sure 't is neither reasonable nor practicable every time hereticks oppose the truth . now by this method he says , all sons of the church would and must be concluded . and are they not already concluded by the articles , liturgy , homilies , &c. which he says our adversaries cannot alter ? i suppose he would not have us obliged to subscribe every line and tittle in such a book revised and approved by a convocation , as a fundamental of christianity , but only the doctrines there defined as fundamental . and thus i think in the present point , all sons of the church are already concluded by subscribing the articles and creeds ; and if this would do it , as our author imagines , there would already be a due end put to these controversies . but according to his peaceable notion of subscription , by his proposed method , all sons of the church would not be concluded any farther then to hold their tongues , for they might still believe , and inwardly approve the socinian doctrines , or any other ; which thou●●● he may think a due end of these controversies , yet few others will. but after all , how would this put an end to these controversies ? if a convocation should meet and determine on the side of our articles , and write a book to justifie the truth , will this put an end to these controversies ? will the socinians be generally converted any more than they are by learned mens writings now ? i doubt they would hardly acquiesce in such a book , though drawn up by our author , who though he would be favourable enough to them , yet i hardly believe would be able to satisfy them . which he thinks will not be , till we can make things plain which are confessedly unsearchable , if not , as some pretend , unintelligible . the plain english of which i take to be , that it is impossible to prove the doctrine of the trinity so as to satisfy even rational and sober men : and then i cannot apprehend how his method would put an end to these controversies any other ways , than by a negative belief ; though i very much question whether even upon such terms he could persuade the socinians to be silent . but still he cannot see any readier expedient than this towards such an vnion , as in the present state of things may be adjudged possible . indeed i cannot tell whether a real christian union in the present state of things , will be adjudg'd possible , or no ; nor whether such an vnion as our author pleads for , be necessary for our affairs ; and would be effectual to keep out popery , and beat the king of ●rance ; but i hope both may be done without it : but if such an union as is indeed desirable , and such as there ought to be in the church of christ , be not possible , i know the fault is not in the church , nor only in her professed enemies who will not comply , but in such pretended friends as under the colour of peace do openly affront and condemn the faith of the church , and vilify her constitutions , thereby hardening and encouraging her adversaries in their obstinacy , and giving them hopes , that by their means they shall at length obtain the terms they desire . but of this negative belief enough has been said ; only i cannot but take notice of one thing here desired by our author , that no pra●tice be imposed upon any , contrary to their consciences . the meaning of which i take to be , as is plain from several other places of his book , and particularly from p. 10 of the earn . suit ; that no expressions should be allowed in the liturgy , which any one professes are against his conscience ; nor any rite or ceremony required , which all men are not satisfied in ; and so we must part with episcopacy , and all order and decency , to satisfy mens pretences to conscience . this is a brave protestant reconciler , and this is admirable arguing for a church-of england-man , and one who has read fathers and schoolmen . this is such a loose and wild principle , as if duly adhered to , we must tolerate most , if not all errors , schisms , and vices , that were ever heard of in the world . the next thing we are to answer is a captious question , with which he pretends to answer the dean , who as he imagines had put such an one to him . the dean had ask'd him , whether he would allow us , who as he grants , are in possession of this faith of the trinity and incarnation , to keep possession of it , and teach , explain , and confirm it to our people ? now because he is resolved to be as captious as the dean , he asks him , whether he never saw certain royal injunctions assigning fit subjects for sermons ? no doubt but he has : what then ? why then , must they not be obeyed ? yes . but what of all this ? to discourse concerning the doctrine of the trinity , is not there prohibited . but is there not the same reason of it , as of those things that are ? i believe not : for as i take it , the trinity and incarnation are more fundamental points than the disputes about predestination , and more necessary to be believed by christian people . besides , the controversy then was not only with such as wholly denied the article , but among those who differed in the sense of the article , while there was something contained plainly in the article , to which both sides agreed , tho some would have more included in it , than others could find , or would allow to be there asserted . which controversy authority saw fit to silence at that time , since both sides owned the truth of the article , which asserted a divine predestination ; and would not let every one in their pulpits run into nice , useless , and hurtful questions ; nor do we desire this should be allowed in the doctrine of the trinity . and when he has interest enough at court to procure a royal injunction , that no man shall write or speak concerning the trinity , we know what we have to do ; but till then , his royal injunctions are no more to the purpose than his own arguments . but however , he will not stand with us for this point , for notwithstanding this , he yields that ministers should at due season preach to their people the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation ; only let them do it plainly , easily , purely , and sincerely , according to scripture , and not with innovations of their own . this , if he be sincere and plain in what he says , is all we desire ; and if he will promise never to revoke this grant , we will be satisfied . in the next place he is for admitting known socinians into the communion of the church . the dean had said , he hoped he ( the stander-by ) did not propose this negative belief , as he calls it , as a term of communion ; that though we know them ●o deny the trinity and incarnation , yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this faith , we shall receive them to our communion . thus far our author cites ; but the dean had said also , and fling the worship of the holy trinity , and of a god incarnate , out of our liturgies for their sake . this he very roundly answers , and utterly confutes , with a short why not ? this is indeed a short question , and needs no long answer ; for in the next page , if he would but look on it , the dean has given him a sufficient reason , why not ? but he thinks to evade all by putting an impertinent case , too long to be recited here , and indeed not worth it : for it doth by no means reach the point , which isc whether the governors of the church ought to make the terms of communion so large , as that known professed socinians and arians may fully communicate with us as compleat and orthodox members of the church ; and not , as our author gravely puts it , whether every preacher should stop when he sees a socinian come into the church . besides , he supposes his socinian to be a known good liver , and professing the common christianity ; but it may be we may not agree with him ; and suppose i should not be so happy as to think so well of his socinian friend as he doth , will he then give me leave to turn him out of the church ? but what is all this to the publick constitutions of a church , and the laws of communion ? must they be made so loose as to admit all sorts of hereticks , because an heretick of any sort may sometimes appear at least to be a good liver , and profess to believe the common christianity , &c. as there have been such professors of other heresies , and may be of any as well as of this ? if our author answers this too with a why not ? i desire he will subjoin a reason for what he says , and then he may deserve a reply . and now our great champion of wrong'd innocence , out of his extraordinary generosity , and love of peace and truth , cannot forbear observing , that the dean wrongs the poor innocent socinians , and imputes sundry points very iniquitously stated , to them , which yet they hold not as he states them and first he tells us , if he ( the dean ) as some in the world , had had personal dealing with the generality of his parishioners as to matters of conscience , he would say , that the ignorance of many church-people , and so the errors of their conceptions touching god and the three persons in the godhead , much more alter ( as to them ) the object of the christian worship . the dean , i believe , tho not so unacquainted with his parishioners , while he had a parish , yet never met with such ignorance as this ; and yet no man doubts but there are some persons very ignorant , who have no distinct conceptions of god the father , son , and holy ghost , but yet have no heretical opinions about them ; and i wonder this stander-by , who is so fond of a negative belief , should not see a difference between a negative orthodoxy , and professed positive heresy . by the same argument he might as well prove , that all other hereticks ought to be received into the communion of the christian church , because there are a great many christians that are extremely ignorant in all other points of faith. but tho a general , confused , indistinct knowledge , with a sober and pious conversation , may qualify men for christian communion , yet profest hereticks ought to be flung out of the church . the first are the churches care to instruct them better , as opportunity and their capacities will admit ; the others are her profest enemies , and must be removed from the church , to preserve the sound parts from infection ; and i can t imagine what notion a man can have of church-communion , without unity of faith ; tho the same communion may admit of very different degrees of knowledge . it would be too tedious , and not very pertinent here , to run thorough these things ; but i am sure , for all his haste , the dean has not in this place imputed any thing to the socinians , but what they avowedly and in print maintain ; for it is evident that the socinians do deny the meritorious sacrifice , and the meritorious intercession of our saviour ; that they do also deny that the eternal son of god offered himself ; that god demonstrated his love to us by sending his own son in a proper sense , as opposed to a mere man , or created spirit ; and consequently , they do deny the humility and condescension of the eternal son of god , in becoming man , &c. and therefore these things are not iniquitously imputed to the socinians , which yet are the very things which the dean's discourse imputes to them ; and therefore he has no reason to add , that some men write against them without understanding them ; but i am afraid 't is too true , that some men apologize for them without understanding th●m . as to the socinians altering the object of religious worship , i refer the reader to that discourse of the dean's , to which he himself has referr'd in his apology , where he will find that point more largely handled , and fully and clearly proved . but now we come to a great point , and which takes up a great many pages in our author , about the authority of parliaments , bishops , and convocations ; on which head i have some good reasons not to be so large , and to desire the reader 's excuse , if i do not follow our author in all he says on this subject ; especially , since our proper business doth not require it , and therefore i do not care to ramble like him , unless i had the same advantage as he has , to be on the securer side . 't is not safe to define what parliaments can do without convocation● , or bishops without presbyters . but i am sure the church has no cause to thank our author , who would first betray her faith , and then diminish her authority , even in things purely spiritual : first , he gives up the convocation , for what reason is manifest , and for which the inferior clergy are bound to thank him : and then he does the same in effect for the bishops , when he allows so much to the parliament , for they have not so much as a negative voice there , and articles of faith may be coined even against the express will of every one of them ; and though he cannot believe the body of the bishops disallowed , or did not with good liking consent to the act of toleration ; if he does not particularly know this ( which it is certain might have passed without any of their consents , and how many dissented i never enquired ) his opinion , belief or disbelief , must be owing only to his inclination . and if we could suppose ( what god be thanked there is no danger of ) the majority of the lords an● commons to have as little understanding of , and zeal for the catholick faith as our author has , we might have a socinian creed made without the assent of one english bishop , or at least such articles of communion framed , as would admit all manner of hereticks into the bosom of the church , and allow all to be orthodox christians , that believe but as well of christ as the mahomet●ns do . and this our author , at least as far as concerns those hereticks , for whom alone he is advocate at present , hopes to see done ; for he hopes that authority , namely king and parliament , will in time relax what more is necessary for such an vnion as is possible to be patched up by a latitude of faith , and a negative belief . i hope they will not , and think there is reason to conclude from some late proceedings , that they will not . but we must not pass by his reflections on the dean's wonted civility , in taxing him with pretending to give an account of acts of parliament , as he doth of other books , without seeing them . this is indeed very uncivil not to believe a man except he produces witnesses that heard or saw him read the act ; and since he thinks this a hardship , i will not give him the trouble ; but i must needs say there was no reason for the dean to think otherwise before ; for by the account which he gives of this act , no man that thought that he had either sense , or sincerity , or modesty , could imagine that he had ever seen it , but was imposed upon by hear-say , or by a hasty conclusion , that because it was an act of indulgence to dissenters , it must certainly indulge the innocent and true protestant socinians among the rest . this would have been his best excuse , and much more allowable than still to stand to it , that other dissenters have benefit by that act who do not renounce soci●ianism , contrary to the express words of the act. but let us see how he makes it good , what then , do you think of a t●cit connivance at their stay at home ? i think there is no such connivance allowed by the act , nor can i believe it is the meaning of the words of the ●ct , or the design of those who made it . and i am sure this melancholy dream of a tacit connivance , is a very scandalous representation of the bishops and of the whole parliament ; for this is to tolerate atheism , deism , and profaneness , and to give men free liberty , not only to be of what religion they will , but of none at all , if they like that better . but then , what do you think of a tacit connivance quietly to come to our congregations ? this i think is no new favour , but what was always openly allowed to all who were not excommunicate , and is very far from a tacit approbation or ●oleration of their erroneous opinions , to let them come thither where they cannot join with us , but they must be supposed to renounce these errors ; for i am sure there is no allowance in the act for them to join with us only in such parts of our worship , as do not expresly relate to the holy trinity , any more than to hold separate assemblies of their own , without declaring their faith in the holy trinity . and then for his vetuit inquiri , i wonder where he will find it , there is no such thing in the act , and i believe any lawyer will satisfy him , that what law was in force against socinianism before , is so still , and the same inquisition may be made after them ; but if any , whose business it is to discover such offenders , or punish them when known , will neglect their duty , 't is their connivance and not the law that affords impunity . but i wonder what makes him dream of a tacit connivance for socinians , because they are expresly excepted : ' ●is just as if he should say , the articles of the church of england give a tacit connivance to them , because they require every man to renounce their errors , and to confess his faith in the holy trinity . this is an excellent argument to prove all hereticks true church of england men , even though they should write earnest suits , and enter their protests against her. but if this will not do , he now has , and then had in his head ( though he had not occasion to out with it ) another favour shown by the parliament to dissenters , not by this act indeed , but by a former statute ; which took away the writ de haeretico comburendo , which it seems he was afraid might hurt his socin●an friends , in case some such of their friends as mr. ●ean , were in the place they affect , but now , he says , he hopes this custom here is in a fair way to be aboli●●ed . this is so silly , that i can hardly call it spiteful , for its silliness is an antidote against its spite ; every one knows that writ was taken away to secure the church of england against the fears of a popish successor , which was the only danger of reviving that writ ; which had been so long out of use , that it was hardly known among protestants : which argues no great tendern●ss in him for the church of england to insinuate so vile an accusation , as if this practice of burning hereticks had been so very customary , that he can still only hope that an act of parliament can put a stop to it . his conclusion is so rambling , and so very furious , that i begin to fear his melancholy has some spice of frenzy in it ; and therefore it is time to leave off disputing , without returning the compliments or advice which he has given the dean at parting . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59811-e140 earn . su● . p. 7. antap. p. 1. ant. p. 11. p. 2. ant. p. 3. sect. 2. p. 4. ant. p. 5. ant. sect. 3. ant. p. 5. ant. p. 5. p. 8. p. 11. p. 12. sect. 7. p. 18. sect. 8. p. 20. p. 2● . sect. 9. p. 21. p. 23. p. 23. p. 25. p. 27. sect. 11. p. 27. p. 28. p. 28 , 29. sect. 12. p. 30. apol. p. 8. antap. p. 30. p. 3● . p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. sect. 14 . p. 33 . sect. 15 . p. 34. p. 3● . p. 39. p. 39. p. ●● . p. 41. p● 42. p. 43. p● 43. p. 44. e●rn . suit , p 7. antap p. 44. sect. 19. p. 45. p. 31. ant. p. 51. ant. p. 51. ant. p 51. earn s●●● p. 10. ant. p. 51. ant. p. 52. p. 52. apol. p. 26. ant. p. 52. p. 53. p. 53. apol. p. 26. ant. p. 53. p. 54. ant. p. 55. sect. 25. ear. suit , p. 11. ant. p. 55. p. 54. sect. 125. p 55. a discourse concerning the object of religious worship, or, a scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giving any religious worship to any other being besides the one supreme god part i. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1685 approx. 152 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 41 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59820 wing s3292 estc r28138 10410109 ocm 10410109 45002 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59820) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 45002) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1389:27) a discourse concerning the object of religious worship, or, a scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giving any religious worship to any other being besides the one supreme god part i. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 75 p. printed for abel swalle, london : 1685. 1686 edition by william sherlock. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng monotheism. god -worship and love. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 rachel losh sampled and proofread 2005-02 rachel losh text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse concerning the object of religious worship . or , a scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giving any religious worship to any other being besides the one supreme god. part i. london : printed for abel swalle , at the vnicorn , at the west-end of st. pauls church-yard . mdclxxxv . a discourse concerning the object of religious worship . the introdvction . of all the disputes between us and the church of rome , there is none of greater concernment , than that about the object of religious worship . we affirm , as the scripture has taught us , that we must worship the lord our god and serve him only ; the church of rome teaches , that there is a degree of religious worship , which we may give to some excellent creatures , to angels and saints and images , and the host , and to the reliques of saints and martyrs . if they are in the right , we may be thought very rude and uncivil at least , in denying to pay that worship , which is due to such excellent creatures , and very injurious to our selves in it , by losing the benefit of their prayers and patronage . if we be in the right , the church of rome is guilty of giving that worship to creatures which is due to god alone , which is acknowledged on all hands to be the greatest of sins ; and therefore this is a dispute which can never be compremised , though we were never so desirous of an union and reconciliation with the church of rome ; for the incommunicable glory of god , and the salvation of our souls , are too dear things to be given away in complement to any church . and should it appear in the next world ( for i believe it will never appear to be so in this ) that we were mistaken , that we were over-nice and curious in refusing to worship saints and angels , yet ours is a much more innocent and pardonable mistake , than that which the church of rome is guilty of , if they should prove to be mistaken . we are only wanting in some religious courtship , which we might innocently have given to saints and angels , but which we were not bound to give , ( as the church of rome will not say , that we are ) by any express divine law ; and therefore it is no sin against god not to do it ; and when this neglect is not owing to any designed contempt and dis-regard of those excellent spirits , but to a great reverence for god , and jealousie for his incommunicable glory , if it were a fault , we need not doubt but that god would pardon it , and that all good spirits , who have such a profound veneration for god , will easily excuse the neglect of some ceremonies to themselves upon so great a reason . but if the church of rome be mistaken , and gives that worship to creatures , which is due only to the supreme god , they have nothing to pretend in excuse of it ; neither any positive law of god , which expresly forbids all creature-worship ( as i doubt not to prove , to the satisfaction of all impartial readers ) nor the principles of natural reason ; which , whatever apologies it may make for the worship of saints and angels , can never prove the necessity of it ; and it highly concerns the church of rome , and all of her communion to consider , whether if their distinctions and little appearances of reason cannot justifie their worship of creatures , they will be able to excuse them from the guilt of so great a sin . but not to insist on these things now ; i shall divide this discourse into three parts . 1. i shall prove from the plain evidence of scripture , that god alone is to be worshipped . 2. i shall examine what that worship is , which is proper and peculiar to the supreme god. 3. i shall consider those distinctions , whereby the church of rome justifies her worship of saints and angels , and images , &c. section i. that god alone must be worshipped . to make good the first point , that we must worship no other being , but only god , i shall principally confine my self to scripture evidence , which is the most certain authority to determine this matter . for though i confess , it seems to me a self evident and fundamental principle in natural religion , that we must worship none but that supreme being , who made , and who governs the world , yet i find men reason very differently about these matters . the heathen philosophers , who generally acknowledged one supreme and soveraign deity , did not think it incongruous , nor any affront or diminution to the supreme god , to ascribe an inferiour kind of divinity , nor to pay an inferiour degree of religious worship , to those excellent spirits , which are so much above us , and have so great a share in the government of this lower world , no more than it is an affront to a soveraign monarch , to honour and reverence his great ministers of state , or peculiar favourites . and the church of rome , as she has corrupted christianity with the worship of angels , and saints departed , so she defends her self with the same arguments and reasons , which were long since alleadged by celsus and porphyrie , and other heathen philosophers , in defence of their pagan idolatry . and it must be confest , that these arguments are very popular , and have something so agreeable in them , to the natural notions of civil honour and respect , which admits of great variety of degrees , that i do not wonder that such vast numbers of men , both wise and unwise , have been imposed on by them . for there is certainly a proportionable reverence and respect due even to created excellencies , and every degree of power challenges and commands a just regard , and we are bound to be very thankful not only to god , who is the first cause , and the supreme giver of all good things , but to our immediate benefactors also . and therefore if there be a sort of middle beings , as the heathens believed , and as the church of rome asserts , between us and the supreme god , who take particular care of us , and either by their power and interest in the government of the world , or by their intercessions with the supreme god , can and do bestow a great many blessings on us , it seems as natural and necessary to fear and reverence , to honour and worship them , and to give them thanks for their care and patronage of us , as it is to court a powerful favourite , who by his interest and authority can obtain any request we make to our prince ; and the first seems to be no greater injury to god , than the second is to a prince . thus st. paul observes , that there is a shew of humility in worshipping angels ; that men dare not immediately approach so glorious a majesty as god is , but make their addresses by those excellent spirits which attend the throne of god , and are the ministers of his providence . but then every one who believes that there is one supreme god , who made all other beings , though never so perfect and excellent , must acknowledge , that as there is nothing common to god and creatures , so there must be a peculiar worship due to god , which no creatures can challenge any share in . it is no affront to a prince to pay some inferiour degrees of civil honour and respect to his ministers and favourites , because as the difference between a prince and his subjects is not founded in nature , but in civil order ; so there are different degrees of civil respect proportioned to the different ranks and degrees of men in the common-wealth . there is a degree of preheminency which is sacred and peculiar to the person of the prince , and no prince will suffer his greatest favourite to usurp the prerogative honours which belong to the crown ; but while they are contented with such respects as are due to their rank and station , this is no injury to the prince ; for all civil honour is not peculiar to the prince , but only a supereminent degree of it , and therefore inferiour degrees of honour may be given to other persons . but though there are different degrees of civil honour proper to different ranks and degrees of men , who all partake in the same nature , and are distinguisht only by their different places in the common-wealth ; yet in this sense there are no different degrees of religious worship . all religious worship is peculiar to the divine nature , which is but one , and common only to three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , one god blessed for ever , amen . civil honour and religious worship differ in the whole kind and species of actions , and have as different objects as god and creatures ; and we may as well argue from those different degrees of civil honour among men , to prove that there is an inferiour degree of civil honour due to beasts , as that there is an inferiour degree of religious worship due to some men . for all degrees of religious worship are as peculiar and appropriate to god , as civil respects are to men , and as the highest degree of civil honour is to a soveraign prince . however should we grant , that some excellent creatures might be capable of some inferiour degrees of religious worship ; yet as the prince is the fountain of civil honour , which no subject must presume to usurp , without a grant from his prince , so no creature , how excellent soever , has any natural and inherent right to any degree of religious worship and therefore we must not presume to worship any creature without gods command , nor to pay any other degree of worship to them , but what god has prescribed and instituted ; and the only way to know this , is to examine the scriptures , which is the only external revelation we have of the will of god. let us then inquire , what the sense of scripture is in this controversie ; and i shall distinctly examine the testimonies both of the old and new testament , concerning the object of religious worship . sect . ii. the testimonies of the mosaical law considered . 1. to begin with the old testament ; and nothing is more plain in all the scripture , than that the laws of moses confine religious worship to that one supreme god , the lord jehovah , who created the heavens and the earth . for , 1. the israelites were expresly commanded to worship the lord jehovah , and to worship no other being ; as our saviour himself assures us , who i suppose will be allowed for a very good expositor of the laws of moses . it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . in the hebrew text , from whence our saviour cites this law , it is only said , thou shalt fear the lord thy god , and serve him , without that addition , of him only . and yet both the septuagint and the vulgar latine , read the words as our saviour doth , him only shalt thou serve ; and the authority of our saviour is sufficient to justifie this interpretation ; and withal , gives us a general rule , which puts an end to this controversie ; that as often as we are commanded in scripture to worship god , we are commanded also to worship none besides him . for indeed the first commandment is very express in this matter , and all other laws which concern the object of worship , must in all reason be expounded by that . thou shalt have none other gods before me . the septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me ; so does the chaldee , syriack , and arabick to the same sense . and it is universally concluded by all expositors that i have seen , that the true interpretation of this commandment is , that we must worship no other god , but the lord jehovah . to pay religious worship to any being , does in the scripture notion , make that being our god , which is the only reason , why they are commanded not to have any other gods. for there is but one true god , and therefore in a strict sense , they can have no other gods , because there are no other gods to be had ; but whatever beings they worship , they make that their god by worshipping it ; and so the heathens had a great many gods , but the jews are commanded to have but one god , that is , to worship none else besides him . in other places god expresly forbids them to worship any strange gods , or the gods of the people , or those nations that were round about them . and least we should suspect , that they were forbid to worship the gods of the people , only because those heathen idolaters worshipped devils and wicked spirits , the prophet jeremiah gives us a general notion , who are to be reputed false gods , and not to be worshipped . thus shall ye say unto them , the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth , even they shall perish from the earth , and from under these heavens . so that whatever being is worshipped , whether it be a good or a bad spirit , which did not make the heavens and the earth , is a false god to such worshippers : and i suppose the church of rome will not say , that saints or angels , or the virgin mary ( as much as they magnifie her ) made the heavens and the earth . and then according to this rule they ought not to be worshipt . but to put this past doubt , that the true meaning of these laws is to forbid the worship of any other being besides the supreme god , i shall observe two or three things in our saviours answer to the devils temptation , which will give great light and strength to it . 1. that our saviour absolutely rejects the worship of any other being together with the supreme god. the thing our saviour condemns , is not the renouncing the worship of god for the worship of creatures , ( for the devil never tempted him to this ) but the worship of any other being besides god , though we still continue to worship the supreme god. it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . which is a plain demonstration , that men may believe & worship the supreme god , and yet be idolaters , if they worship any thing else besides him . the devil did not desire our saviour to renounce the worship of the supreme god , but was contented , that he should worship god still , so he would but worship him also . and therefore it is no reason to excuse the church of rome from idolatry , because they worship the supreme god , as well as saints and angels ; this they may do , and be idolaters still ; for idolatry does not consist meerly in renouncing the worship of the supreme god , but in worshipping any thing else , though we continue to worship him . when the jews worshipt their baalims and false gods , they did not wholly renounce the worship of the god of israel ; and the heathens themselves , especially the wisest men amongst them , did acknowledge one supreme god , though they worshipt a great many inferiour deities with him . 2. our saviour in his answer to the devils temptation , does not urge his being a wicked and apostate spirit , an enemy and a rebel against god , but gives such a reason why he could not worship him , as equally excludes all creatures , whether good or bad spirits , from any right to divine worship . thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . him and none else , whether they be good or bad spirits , for our saviour does not confine his answer to either , and therefore includes them both . when we charge the church of rome with too plain an imitation of the pagan idolatry in that worship they paid to their inf●riour daemons , which was nothing more , than what the church of rome now gives to saints and angels ; they think it a sufficient answer , that the heathens worshipt devils and apostate spirits , but they worship only the friends and favourites of god , blessed saints and angels . now i shall not at present examine the truth of this pretence , but shall refer my reader to a more learned person for satisfaction in this matter ; but if it were true , yet it is nothing to the purpose , if our saviours answer to the devil be good . for let us suppose , that the pope of rome , who calls himself christs vicar , had at this time been in christ's stead to have answered the devils temptations , and let us be so charitable for once as to suppose that ( saving always his indirect power over the kingdoms of this world in or line ad spiritualia ) he would not worship the devil to gain all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them . consider then , how the pope of rome could answer this temptation ; all this i will give thee , if thou wilt fall down and worship me : could he answer as our saviour does ? it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve . how easily might the devil reply , is this indeed your infallible opinion , and the judgment and practice of your church to serve god onely ? do you not also serve and worship st. paul and st. peter , and the virgin mary , besides a great many other obscure and doubtful saints ? this is down right heresie to confine all religious worship to god ; here now is matter of fact against the pope , that he does worship other beings besides god , and if he will shew any reason for his not worshipping the devil , he must quite alter our saviours answer , and not plead for himself , that he is bound to worship god and him onely , but that he is bound to worship onely god and good spirits ; and therefore the devil being a wicked and apostate spirit , it is not lawful to worship him . so that if our saviour gave a sufficient answer to the devils temptation , it must be equally unlawful to worship good and bad spirits ; there may be some peculiar aggravations in having communion with devils , but the idolatry of worshipping good and bad spirits is the same . 3. our saviours answer to the devil , appropriates all kinds and degrees of religious worship to god alone . the devil was not then so good a school-man , as nicely to distinguish & dispute the degrees of religious worship with our saviour , but would have been contented with any degree of religious worship . he did not pretend to be the supreme god , nor to have the disposal of all the kingdoms of the world in his own right ; but acknowledges , that it was delivered to him , and now by vertue of that grant , he gives it to whom he will. now it is impossible in the nature of the thing to worship any being as supreme , whom at the same time , we acknowledge not to be supreme . and therefore the devil asks no more of our saviour , than that he would fall down and worship him ; which is such an inferiour degree of worship , as papists every day pay to images and saints ; and yet this our saviour refuses to do , and that for this reason , that we must worship god only , which must signifie , that we must not give the least degree of divine worship to any creatures ; or else it is not a satisfactory answer to the devils temptation , who did not require any certain and determinate degree of worship , but left him at liberty to use what distinctions he pleased , and to pay what degree of worship he saw fit ; whether absolute or relative , supreme or subordinate , terminative or transient , so he would but fall down and worship him any way , or in any degree , he left him to be his own schoolman and cas●ist ; but of this more presently . 11. as the laws of moses in general , appropriate all religious worship to god , command us to worship god , and him only , so the whole jewish rellgion was fitted only for the worship of the lord jehovah . i suppose our adversaries will not deny , that the tabernacle and temple at jerusalem was peculiarly consecrated to the honour and worship of the lord jehovah : this was the house where he dwelt , where he plac●● his name , and the symbols of his presence . it was a great profanation of that holy place , to have the worship of any strange gods set up in it ; and yet this was the only place of worship appointed by the law of moses ▪ they had but one temple to worship in , and this one temple consecrated to the peculiar worship of one god ; which is a plain demonstration , that they were not allowed to worship any other god , because they had no place to worship him in . and this i think is a plain proof , that all that worship which was confined to their temple , or related to it , was peculiar to the lord jehovah , because that was his house , and then all the jewish worship was so , which was either to be performed at the temple , or had a relation and dependance on the temple worship . sacrifice was the principal part of the jewish worship , and this we know was confined to the temple . moses expresly commands israel , take heed to thy self , that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest . but in the place which the lord shall choose in one of thy tribes , there shalt thou offer thy burnt offerings , and there shult thou do all that i command thee . the prophets indeed , especially before the building of the temple , did erect altars at other places for occasional sacrifices , for as god reserved a liberty to himself to dispense with his own law in extraordinary cases , so it was presumed , that what was done by prophets , was done by a divine command ; but there was to be no ordinary or standing altar for sacrifice , but at the tabernacle or temple ; this we may see in that dispute which had like to have hapned between the children of israel and the tribes of reuben and gad , and the half tribe of manasseh , about the altar of testimony , which these two tribes and a half built on the other side of jordan . it was agreed on all hands , that had it been intended for an altar for sacrifice , it had been rebellion against the lord to have built any altar beside the altar of the lord , though they had offered no sacrifice but to the lord jehovah . the same is evident from gods dislike of their offering sacrifices in their high places , though they sacrificed only to the god of israel . so that all sacrifices were to be offered at the temple on the altar of god , and therefore were offered only to that god , whose temple and altar it was . and indeed this is expresly provided for in the law. he that sacrificeth to any god , but to the lord only , shall be utterly destroyed . and as their sacrifices were appropriated to the temple , so in some sense were their prayers , which were offered up in vertue of their sacrifice . and therefore this is a peculiar name for the temple , that it was the house of prayer . here god was more immediately present to hear those prayers which were offered to him , according to solomons prayer at the dedication of the temple . it is true , the devout jews did pray to god where ever they were , though at a great distance from the temple , whether in the land of canaan , or out of it , but then there are two things , which shew that relation their prayers had to the temple worship . 1. that their stated hours of prayer were the hours of sacrifice , which plainly signified , that they offered up their prayers in conjunction with those sacrifices , which were at that time offered in the temple ; and therefore that they prayed only to that god to whom they sacrificed ; for we must consider , that the constant morning and evening sacrifices , were not particular sacrifices , but were offered for the whole congregation of israel ; and therefore every man had a share in them . hence the time of offering the sacrifice , is called the hour of prayer . thus peter and john went up together into the temple , at the hour of prayer , being the ninth hour ; that is the time of the evening sacrifice . hence are such expressions as that of the psalmist , let my prayer be set before thee as incense , and the lifting up of my hands , as the evening sacrifice . nay , it is most probable , that when jerusalem and the temple were destroyed , and the people carryed captive into babylon , and the daily sacrifice ceast , yet the devout people observed the hour of sacrifice for their prayers . thus daniel prayed three times a day , which most likely were evening and morning , and noon . where evening and morning no doubt signifie the time of the evening and morning sacrifice ; and we are told , that the angel gabriel came to daniel while he was praying , and touched him about the time of the evening oblation . but 2ly besides this , when they offered up their prayers to god in other parts of the nation , or in other countries , they prayed towards jerusalem , and the temple of god , as we now lift up our eyes to heaven , where god dwells . thus solomon in his prayer of dedication , does not only beg of god to hear those prayers , which were made to him in that house , but those also which were made towards it , as the words must signifie in several places . in general he prays , hearken thou to the prayer of thy servant , and of thy people israel , when they shall pray towards this place ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie both in and towards this place , and here includes both , as appears from the following instances , which refer both to prayers made in the temple , and to those prayers which were made towards the temple by persons who were at a distance . thus in what ever part of the nation they wanted rain , which might be at a great distance from jerusalem , they were to pray towards this place . the same was to be done in case of famine and pestilence , &c. or if they were besieged in any of their cities , when they could not go to the temple to pray . nay , what prayer or supplication soever shall be made by any man , or by all thy people israel , which shall know every man the plague of his own heart , and spread forth his hands towards this house , then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place and forgive . thus when they went out to battle , they were to pray towards the city of jerusalem , and towards the temple . and when they were carryed captive into their enemies land , they were to pray to god toward the land which god had given them , towards the holy city , and towards the temple . and accordingly it was the constant practice of daniel , when he was in babylon , to pray three times a day to god , with his windows open in his chamber toward jerusalem . so that though the temple were not the onely place where they might lawfully pray to god ; yet all their prayers were to be directed to the temple , and receive their vertue and acceptation from their relation to the temple and the temple-worship . this was a standing rule for the whole jewish nation , that whenever they prayed , they offered up their prayers in the temple or towards it ; and this is generally observed by them to this day : for the reason why they generally now turn themselves towards the east when they pray , is not out of any respect to the rising of the sun , but because they live in western countries ; and so by turning to the east , they look towards jerusalem , and the place where the temple stood . and this is as plain evidence , that all their prayers as well as sacrifices , were to be offered onely to that god who dwelt in the temple . and therefore as they are commanded to pray to god , and this is made the peculiar attribute of god , that he heareth prayers , and therefore unto him shall all flesh come ; so they are expresly commanded not to make mention of the name of the heathen gods ; that is , not to pray to them ; the prayers of the heathens consisting of a frequent repetition of the names of their gods , as we see in the priests of baal , who cried from morning till evening , saying , o baal hear us . thus the jews were commanded to bring all their vows , first fruits , tythes , and offerings , to the temple , which is a plain sign to whom they were offered . the seventh-day-sabbath was a sign that they worshipt that god who created the world in six days , and rested on the seventh , and delivered them from their aegyptian bondage , and gave them rest in that good land , both which reasons are assigned by moses , and therefore god commands them by the prophet ezekiel , hallow my sabbaths , and they shall be a sign between me and you , that ye may know that i am the lord your god. they had but three solemn festivals every year , and they were all in remembrance of the great works of god , and all the males were to go up to jerusalem to keep these feasts ; and therefore all these were the feasts of the lord jehovah . and as they were to pray onely to god , so they were onely to swear by his name , which is another part of religious worship ; and therefore to swear by the lord of hosts is called the language of canaan . so that all the parts of the jewish worship were appropriated to the lord jehovah , he was the onely object of their dread and fear , and religious adorations . and when we consider that god had chosen them to be a peculiar people to himself , that the land was a holy land , gods peculiar inheritance , which he gave by promise to their fathers , and the temple was his house where he dwelt among them , it cannot be expected that any other gods might be worshipt by such a people , in such a land , and in such a house , as god had appropriated to himself . 3. it is very considerable , that we have no approved example under the law , of any worship pay'd to saints or angels , or any other being , but god alone . we have too many sad examples of the idolatry of the jews both in worshipping the molten calf which aaron made , and jeroboams calves , and baalim's , and other heathen gods ; but had it been allowed by their law to have pay'd any inferiour degree of religious worship to saints and angels ( which is now asserted by the church of rome , to be a matter of such great benefit and advantage to mankind ) it is very strange , that we should not have one example of it throughout the scripture , nor any authentick records among the jewish writers : all the psalms of david are directed to god alone , and yet we cannot think but such a devout man would have bestowed some hymns upon his patron and tutelar saints , had he worshipt any such , as well as the papists do now . this the church of rome sees and acknowledges , and thinks she answers too , when she gives us the reason why it could not be so under the law ; because those old testament-saints were not then admitted into heaven , to the immediate vision and fruition of god ; heaven-gates were not opened till the resurrection and ascension of our saviour , and therefore those blessed spirits were not in a condition to be our intercessors and mediators , till they were received into heaven ; but now saints and martyrs ascend directly into heaven , and reign with christ in glory , and it seems share with him in his peculiar worship and glory too . now 1 ▪ whether this be so or not , the scriptures assign no such reason for it ; and therefore it is likely there might be other reasons , and i think i have made it very plain that there was . we are not enquiring for what reasons the jewish church did not worship saint and angels , but whether they did worship them or not ; and it appears that they never did ; so that we have neither precept nor example for this , during all the time of the jewish church ▪ which is all we intend to prove by this argument . 2. but yet it is evident , that this is not a good reason why the jews did not worship angels under the law. for certainly angels were as much in heaven then , as they are now , whatever saints were . they are represented in the old testament , as the constant attendants and retinue of god , and the great ministers of his providence , and therefore they were as capable of divine worship in the time of the law , as they are now , nay , i think , a little more . for the law it self was given by the ministry of angels , and their appearances were more frequent and familiar , and the world seemed to be more under the government of angels then , than it is now , since christ is made the head of the church , and exalted above all principalities and powers . and therefore sometimes the advocates of the church of rome , make some little offers to prove the worship of angels in those days : to this purpose they alledge that form of benediction , which jacob used in blessing the sons of joseph : the angel which redeemed me from all evil , bless the lads . but 1. this is not a direct prayer to the angel , but onely his committing of them to the care and patronage of that angel , with a prayer to god for that purpose : and if he by experience had found that god had appointed his angel to defend and protect him , it was but reasonable to pray to god , that the same angel might protect his posterity . 2. but yet according to the sense of the antient fathers , this was no created angel and spirit , but the son and word of god , the angel of the presence , who is so often in scripture stiled jehovah , a name which can belong to no created spirit . and it is no hard matter to make it highly probable , that this is that angel who redeemed jacob out of all his troubles . but it is strange if angels were worshipt under the old testament , we should have no clearer and plainer evidence of it , than such a single text , which was never expounded either by any jewish or christian writers to this sense , till of late days ; and here the priests of the church of rome are to be put in mind of their oath to expound scripture according to the unanimous consent of the antient fathers . sect . iii. the testimonies of the gospel considered ; whether christ and his apostles have made any alteration in the object of our worship . let us now proceed in the second place , to consider the writings of the new testament , and examine what they teach us concerning the object of our worship . and that christ and his apostles have made no change in the object of our worship , will appear from these considerations . 1. that they could not do it . had they ever attempted to set up the worship of any other beings besides the one supreme god , the lord jehovah , the jews were expresly commanded by their law not to believe them , nor hearken to them , whatever signs and wonders and miracles they had wrought . if there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams , and giveth thee a sign or wonder , and the sign or wonder come to pass , whereof he spake unto thee saying , let us go after other gods ( which thou hast not known ) and let us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the prophet , or that dreamer of dreams ; for the lord your god proveth you , to know whether you love the lord your god with all your heart , and with all your soul. ye shall walk after the lord your god , and fear him , and keep his commandments , and obey his voice , and you shall serve him , and cleave unto him . and that prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death , &c. in which law there are some things very material to be observed in this present dispute . 1. when they are forbidden to hearken to any prophet , who seduces them to the worship of any other gods , this must be extended to all those instances of idolatrous worship , which are forbid by the law of moses , whatever is opposed to the worship of one supreme and soveraign being , the lord jehovah . and therefore whether these prophets seduced them from the worship of the lord jehovah , to the worship of other gods ; or perswaded them to worship other gods besides the lord jehovah , whether they were any of those gods which were at that time worshipt by other nations , or any other gods , whom the ignorance and superstition of the people should create in after ages , whether good or bad spirits , the case is the same ; whoever perswaded them to worship any other being with or besides the supreme god , was to be rejected by them ; for this is the sense of the mosaical laws concerning the worship of one supreme god , as i have already proved , and the serving other gods in this place , is opposed to the worship of one god , and therefore must include whatever according to the law of moses is contrary to the worship of one supreme being . 2. this law makes the worship of one god eternal and unchangeable . there is no way of altering any divine laws , but by a new revelation of gods will , and there is no way to give authority to such a revelation , but by miracles or prophesie ; but in this case miracles and prophesie it self can give no authority , because god himself has expresly forbid us to hearken to any prophet , whatever signs or wonders are wrought by him , who teacheth the worship of any other being besides the one supreme god. so that the law of moses having expresly forbid the worship of any other being besides god , and as expresly forbid us to hearken to any prophet , though a worker of miracles , who teaches any other worship , it is impossible , that this law should ever be altered , because we are before-hand warned by god himself , not to give credit to any prophet , whatever he be , or whatever he do , who attempts any alteration of it . and therefore had christ or his apostles taught the worship of saints and angels , it had been a just reason for the unbelief of the jews , notwithstanding all the miracles that were wrought by them ; and it is well the jews never had any just occasion to make this objection against our saviour ; for if they had , i know not how it would have been answered . i say a just occasion , for the jews did urge this very law against him before pilate . we have a law , and by our law he ought to die , because he made himself the son of god. in which they refer to that discourse of our saviour , 10. john 29 , 30. where he affirms that god is his father , and plainly tells them , i and my father are one , for which saying they attempt to stone him for blasphemy , and that being a man , he made himself a god. v. 33. but though he did indeed ( as the jews rightly inferred ) make himself a god by this saying , yet he did not preach any new god to them , but affirmed himself to be one with his father , that same supreme god , the lord jehovah , whom they were commanded to worship by their law ; he made no alteration in the object of their worship , but only did more clearly and distinctly reveal the father to them , as manifesting himself in and by his only begotten son. and therefore he did not offend against this law , by seducing them to the worship of any other gods besides the lord jehovah ; which if he had done , their accusation had been just , and all the miracles which he did , could not have secured him from the guilt and punishment of an impostor . which shews us , what force there is in that argument , which the church of rome urges from those miracles : which have been wrought at the tombs of martyrs , to prove the religious invocation of them ; if such miracles were ever wrought , it was in testimony to the truth of christianity , for which they suffered , not to betray men to a superstitious and idolatrous worship of them ; ten thousand miracles should never convince me of the lawfulness of praying to saints departed , while i have such a plain and express law against believing all miracles upon any such account . nor can it reasonably be said , that this law was given only to the jews , and therefore obliges none but them ; for we must remember , that christ was originally sent to the jews , to the lost sheep of the house of israel ; and therefore by this law , he was bound not to teach the worship of any other beings , under the penalty of death ; and they were bound not to own and receive him if he did ; and therefore it was impossible for the true messias to introduce the worship of any being , besides the one supreme god ; and if christ could not teach any such doctrine , i know not how the worship of saints and angels should ever come to be a doctrine of christianity . for what christ himself cannot do , none of his followers may , who had no other commission but to teach those things which they had learnt from him ; and he could not give commission to preach such , doctrines , as he himself had no authority to preach . so that though this law was not originally given to the gentiles , but only to the jews ; yet it equally obliges the christian church , whether jews or gentiles , because christ himself , who was the author of our religion was obliged by it . the worship of one supreme god , and of none else , is as fundamental to christianity , as it is to judaism ; for christianity is now , or ought to be , the religion of the jews , as well as gentiles ; and yet the jews are expresly forbid by this law ever to own any religion , which allows the worship of any being besides god : and therefore the worship of one god and none else , must be fundamental in christianity , if the people of the jews are , or ever were bound to embrace the faith of christ. sect . iv. 2. and therefore i observe in the next place , that christ and his apostles have made no alteration at all in the object of our worship . christ urges , that old testament law in answer to the devils temptation ; it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god and him only shalt thou serve . which it seems , is as standing a law after the appearance of christ , as it was before . he gives no other direction to his disciples , but to pray to their heavenly father , and in that form of prayer which he gave them , he teaches them to address their prayer neither to saints nor angels , but to god onely . our father which art in heaven . when st. paul charges the heathens with idolatry , he does it upon this account , that they joyned the worship of creatures , with the worship of the supreme god. because that when they knew god , they glorified him not as god , neither were thankful , but became vain in their imaginations , and their foolish heart was darkned . where the apostle acknowledges , that they did know god , that they did own that supreme and soveraign being who made the world ; and does suppose , that they did worship him also . for he does not charge them with renouncing the worship of that god who made the world ; but that they did not glorifie him as god ; which only taxes the manner of their worship . and wherein that was faulty he declares in the following verses . as that they made mean and vile representations of him , that they changed the glory of the uncorruptible god , into an image made like to corruptible man , and to birds and four footed beasts , and creeping things . and thus changed the truth of god into a lie . but this was not the only fault , but they also gave his incommunicable worship to creatures , and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator , who is blessed for ever , amen . which words do plainly suppose , that they did worship the creator of all things , but besides the creator , ( for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie ) they worshipped the creature also ; which proves that the worship of the supreme god will not excuse those from idolatry , who worship any thing else besides him . for the opposition lies between the creator , and the creature , be it a good or a bad creature , it matters not as to religious worship , which must be given to neither . or if we render the words , as our translators do , more than the creator , ( for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used comparatively ) yet so it supposes , that they did worship the creator , and when they are said to worship the creature more , that cannot signifie a higher degree of worship , but more frequent addresses ; and thus the church of rome worships the virgin mary , more than the creator ; for they say ten prayers ( if they be prayers ) to the virgin mary for one to god ; ten ave maries for one pater noster . the same apostle determines this matter in as plain words as can be : for though there be , that are called gods , whether in heaven or in earth , as there be gods many , and lords many ; but to us there is but one god the father , of whom are all things , and we in him , and one lord jesus christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . where in opposition to the pagan idolatry , who worshipt a great many gods , not as supreme independent deities ( for they acknowledged but one supreme god , who made all the other gods ) but either as sharers in the government of the world , or mediators and intercessors for them with the supreme god , the apostle plainly asserts , that to us christians there is but one god the maker of all things , and one lord jesus christ our great mediator and advocate with god the father ; that is , that we must worship none else . and that none of the distinctions , which are used by the church of rome to justifie that worship , which they pay to saints and angels , can have any place here , is evident from this consideration : for either these distinctions were known , or they were not known , when the apostle wrote this , and in both cases his silence is an argument against them . if they were known , he rejects them , and determines against them ; for he affirms absolutely without the salvo of any distinctions , that we have but one god , and one mediator ; that is , that we must worship no more . if they were not known ( as it is likely they were not , because the apostle takes no notice of them ) it is a plain argument , that these distinctions are of no use , unless they will say , that st. paul , who was guided by an infallible spirit , was ignorant of some very useful and material notions about the object of worship . if the apostle did not know these distinctions , it is evident they are of a late date , and therefore can have no authority against an apostolical determination : if he did not know them , he could have no regard to them , and therefore made no allowance for such exceptions . nay , the same apostle does not only give us such general rules , as necessarily exclude the worship of saints and angels , but does expresly condemn it , and warns the christians against it . he foretels of the apostasie of the latter days , wherein some shall depart from the faith , giving heed to seducing spirits , and the doctrine of devils , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the doctrine of daemons , the doctrine of worshipping daemons , or some new inferiour deity , saints , or angels , or whatever they are , as mediators and intercessors between god and men . this is the true notion of the doctrine of daemons amongst the heathens , and the apostle tells us , the time shall come , when some christians ( for it is evident he speaks here of the apostasie of christians ) shall fall into the same idolatry ; which is an exact prophecy of what we now see done in the church of rome , who have the same notion of their saints and angels , and pay the same worship to them , which the heathens formerly did to their daemons or inferiour gods. 3. and as a further confirmation of this , i observe , that the gospel of our saviour forbids idolatry , without giving us any new notion of idolatry ; and therefore it has made no alteration at all in this doctrine , of the worship of one god , which moses so expresly commanded the jews to observe . for the gospel was preacht to the jews as well as to the gentiles ; nay , the jews had the first and most undoubted right to it , as being the posterity of abraham , to whom the promise of the messias was made ; and therefore as the law was at first given them by moses , so it did still oblige them in all such cases , wherein the gospel did not in express terms make a change and alteration of the law ; and therefore since there was no such alteration made , and yet the law against idolatry renewed and confirmed by the authority of the gospel , what could the jews understand else by idolatry , but what was accounted idolatry by the law of moses ; that is , the worship of any other being besides the supreme god , the lord jehovah . and since it is evident , that there are not two gospels , one for the jews , and another for the gentiles , all christians , whether jews or gentiles , must be under the obligation of the same law , to worship only one god. the notion of idolatry must alter as the object of religious worship does . if we must worship one god , and none besides him , then it is idolatry to worship any other being but the supreme god ; for idolatry consists in giving religious worship to such beings , as we ought not to worship ; and by the law of moses they were to worship none but god ; and therefore the worship of any other being was idolatry . but if the object of our worship be enlarged , and the gospel has made it lawful to worship saints and angels , then we must seek out some other notion of idolatry , that it consists in worshipping wicked spirits , or in giving supreme and soveraign worship to inferiour deities , which the church of rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing , for any man to do , who knows them to be inferiour spirits . but if idolatry be the same under the new testament , that it was under the old , the object of our worship must be the same too ; and we have reason to believe , that it is the same , when we are commanded to keep our selves from idols , and to flie from idolatry , but are no where in the new testament expresly told , what this idolatry is ; which supposes , that we must learn what it is , from some antecedent laws , and there were no such laws in being but the laws of moses . the only thing that can be said in this case , is , that the apostle refers them not to any written law , but to the natural notions of idolatry : but with what reason this is said , will soon appear , if we consider to whom the apostle writes ; and they were both jewish and heathen converts . as for the heathens , they had corrupted all their natural notions of idolatry , and had no sense at all of this sin till they were converted to christianity ; and therefore they were not likely to understand the true notion of idolatry without being taught it ; and it is not probable the apostles would leave them to guess what idolatry is . as for the jews , god would not from the beginning trust to their natural notions , but gave them express laws about idolatry , which though they are the same laws which natural reason dictates to us , as most agreeable to the nature and worship of god , yet since the experience of the world , which was over-run by idolatrous worship , did sufficiently prove , that all men do not use their reason aright in these matters , god would not trust to the use of their reason in the weighty concernments of his own worship and glory , but gives them an express positive law about it ; and christ and his apostles having done nothing to repeal this law , they leave them under the authority of it ; and when they warn them against idols and idolatry , without giving them any new laws about it , must in all reason be presumed to refer them to those laws , which they already had . sect . v. 4. as a farther proof of this , i observe , that christ and his apostles did not abrogate , but only complete and perfect the mosaical laws . our saviour with great zeal and earnestness disowns any such intention or design . think not that i am come to destroy the law and the prophets , i am not come to destroy but to fulfil . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill it up , by fulfilling the types and prophesies of it , by exchanging a ceremonial for a real righteousness , or by perfecting its moral precepts with new instances and degrees of vertue . and therefore he adds , for verily i say unto you , till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law , till all be fulfilled . and st. paul , who was lookt on by the believing jews as a great enemy to the law of moses , does renounce all such pretences . do we then make void the law through faith ? god forbid ; yea , we establish the law. indeed had christ or his apostles attempted to have given any new laws contrary to the laws of moses , it had justified the jews in their unbelief , for god by his prophet isaiah , had given them this express rule to examine all new doctrines by ; to the law and the testimony , if they speak not according to this word , it is because there is no light in them ; and that christ himself is not excepted from this rule , appears in this , that this is joyned with the prophesie of the messias , both before and after ; as you may see in 8 isai. 13 , 14. and 9 chap. 6 , 7. and therefore christ and his apostles always make their appeals to the writings of the old testament , and st. paul in all his disputes with the jews urges them with no other authority but the scriptures ; and thô the miracles which were wrought by the apostles did move the jews to hearken to them , and greatly dispose them to believe their doctrine , yet it was the authority of the scriptures whereon their faith was founded . as st. peter tells those to whom he wrote , that though they preacht nothing to them concerning the coming of christ , but what they were eye-witnesses of ; and though god had given testimony to him by a voice from heaven , which they heard , when they were with him in the holy mount , yet he adds , we have also a more sure word of prophesie , whereunto ye do well , that ye take heed , as to a light , that shineth in a dark place , until the day dawn , and the day-star arise in your hearts . that is the scriptures of the old testament ; and therefore the jews of berea are greatly commended for their diligence in searching the scriptures , and examining st. pauls doctrine by them ; and this is assigned as the reason why many of them believed . to apply this then to our present purpose , i observe , 1. that if christ did not make any new laws in contradiction to the law of moses , then he could make no alteration in the object of religious worship . he could not introduce the worship of saints and angels without contradicting that law , which commands us to worship no other being but the one supreme god , for the worship of saints and angels together with the supreme god , is a direct contradiction to that law , which commands us to worship god alone ; though we should suppose , that in the nature of the thing , the worship of saints and angels were consistent with the worship of the supreme god , yet it is not consistent with that law , which commands us to worship none but god. so that let this be a natural or positive law , or whatever men please to call it , it is a very plain and express law , and christ never did contradict any express law of god. it is true , that typical and ceremonial worship , which god commanded the jews to observe , is now out of date under the gospel , and does no longer oblige christians ; but the reason of that is , because it has received its accomplishment and perfection in christ. christ has perfected the jewish sacrifices , and put an end to them , by offering a more perfect and meritorious sacrifice , even the sacrifice of himself . the circumcision , washings , purifications of the law , are perfected by the laws of internal purity . the external ceremonies of the law cease , but they are perfected by an evangelical righteousness . but this i say , that christ never repealed any mosaical law , but by fulfilling and perfecting it . he came not to destroy the law , but to fulfil . now methinks i need not prove , that the worship of saints and angels is not a fulfilling , but a destroying that law , which commands us to worship none but god. and it is not enough to say , that these are positive laws given to the jews , ( though that be said without any reason ) for let them shew me any positive law relating to the worship of god , which christ has wholly abrogated without fulfilling it . 2. yet as a farther proof , that christ has made no alteration in the object of our worship , that he has not introduced the worship of saints or angels , or images , into the christian church , which was so expresly forbid by the jewish law , i observe that according to our saviours own rule , that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets , but to fulfil ; these laws of worshipping one god , and none besides him , were not lyable to any change and alteration , because there was nothing to be perfected or fulfilled in them . he made no change or alteration but by way of perfecting and fulfilling ; and therefore those laws which had nothing to be fulfilled , must remain as they were without any change . to perfect or fulfil a law , must either signifie to accomplish what was prefigured by it , and thus christ fulfilled all the types and prophesies of the law , which related to his person , or his undertaking , as the jewish priesthood , and sacrifices , &c. or to prescribe that real righteousness which was signified and represented by the outward ceremony , and so christ fulfilled the laws of circumcision , washings , purifications , sabbaths , &c. by commanding the circumcision of the heart , and the purity of mind and spirit : or by supplying what was defective ; and thus he fulfilled the moral law by new instances of vertue , by requiring something more perfect of us , than what the letter of the mosaical law enjoyned . these are all the ways that i know of , and all that we have any instances of in scripture of fulfilling laws . now i suppose , no man will say , that the first commandment , which forbids the worship of any other gods besides the lord jehovah , is a typical law , for pray what is it a type of ? nor can any pretend that the first commandment is a ceremonial law , for it prescribes no rite of worship at all , but only determines the object of worship . as for the third way of fulfilling laws , by perfecting them with some new instances and degrees of vertue , it can have no place here , for this law is as perfect as it can be . for it is a negative law , thou shalt have none other god. now that which is forbid without any reserve or limitation , is perfectly and absolutely forbid . there are no degrees of nothing , though there are several degrees of perfection in things which have a being ; and therefore though there are degrees in affirmative laws , for some laws may require greater attainments than other ; and one man may do better than another , and yet both do that which is good ; yet there are no degrees in not doing a thing , and no law can do more than forbid that , which the law-giver will not have done . and besides , this way of fulfilling laws , does not abrogate any command , but adds to it ; it may restrain those liberties which were formerly indulged , but it does not forbid any thing which was formerly our duty to do ; for when god requires greater degrees of vertue from us , he does not forbid the less . and therefore in this way , christ might forbid more than was forbid by the law of moses , but we cannot suppose that he gave liberty to do that which the law forbids , which is not to perfect , but to abrogate a law. but to put an end to this dispute ; if christ have perfected these laws by indulging the worship of saints and angels under the gospel , which was so expresly forbidden by the law , then it seems the worship of saints and angels is a more perfect state of religion , than the worship of the one supreme god alone . if this be true , then though the heathens might mistake in the object of their worship , yet the manner of their worship was more perfect and excellent , than what god himself prescribed the jews . for they worshipt a great many inferiour deities , as well as the supreme god ; and if this be the most perfect and excellent worship , it is wonderful to me , that god should forbid it in the worship of himself ; that he should prescribe a more imperfect worship to his own people , than the heathens paid to their gods. for to say that god forbade the worship of any being besides himself , because this liberty had been abused by the heathens to idolatry , is no reason at all . for though we should suppose that the heathens worshipt evil spirits for gods , this had been easily prevented , had god told them what saints and angels they should have made their addresses to ; and this had been a more likely way to cure them of idolatry , than to have forbad the worship of all inferiour deities ; for when they had such numerous deities of their own , to have made their application to , they would have been more easily weaned from the gods of other countries . and we have reason to believe , so it would have been , had god been pleased with this way of worship , for he would not reject any part of religious worship , meerly because it had been abused by idolaters . the heathens sacrificed to idols , and yet he commands the jews to offer sacrifices to himself , and so no doubt he would have commanded the worship of saints and angels , had he been as well pleased with this , as he was with sacrifices ; had it been a more perfect state of religion than to worship god only , and without any image . when god chose the people of israel , and separated them from the rest of the world , to his own peculiar worship and service , we cannot suppose that he did intend to forbid any acts of worship , which were a real honour to the divine nature , much less to forbid the most excellent and perfect acts of worship ; for he who is so jealous of his glory , will no more part with it himself , then he will give it to another ; and therefore excepting the typical nature of that dispensation , the whole intention of the mosaical law was to correct those abuses , which the rest of the world was guilty of in their religious worship , which either respected the object or the acts of worship ; that they worshipt that for god , which was not god ; or that they thought to honour god by such acts , as were so far from being an honour , that they were a reproach to the divine nature . and whatever is forbid in the worship of god , unless there be some mystical and typical reasons for it , must be reduced to one of those causes . this account god himself gives , why he forbids the worship of any being besides himself , or the worship of graven images . i am the lord , that is my name , and my glory will i not give to another , nor my praise to graven images . whatever is his true glory , he reserves to himself , and therefore never did forbid any act of worship which was truly so ; but he will not give his glory to another , and for that reason forbids the worship of graven images , or any thing besides himself ; and if this was not his glory then , much less the most perfect and excellent part of worship , i know not how it should come to be his glory now , unless the divine nature changes and alters too . so that gods having forbid by the law of moses the worship of any other being besides himself , is a very strong presumption , that the worship of saints and angels , ( whatever fine excuses and apologies may be made for it , yet at least ) is not a more perfect state of religion , than to worship god alone . for though god may not always think fit to command the highest degrees of perfection , yet there never can be any reason to forbid it . but let us now consider the nature and reason of the thing , whether it be a more perfect state of religion to worship god alone , or to worship saints and angels , &c. together with the supreme god. now the perfection of any acts of religion must either respect god or our selves , that they signifie some greater perfections in god , or more perfect attainments in us , and a nearer union and conjunction with the deity . let us then briefly examine the worship of saints and angels , both with respect to god and our selves , and see whether we can discover any greater perfection in this way of worship , than in the worship of the supreme being alone , without any rival or partner in worship ; and if it appears , that it is neither for the glory of god , nor for the happiness and perfection of those , who worship , we may certainly conclude , that our saviour has made no alteration in the object of our worship , for he made no alteration for the worse but for the better ; he fulfils and perfects laws , which , i suppose , does not signifie making them less perfect than they were before . sect . vi. 1. then let us consider , whether the worship of saints and angels be more for the glory of god , than to pay all religious worship to god alone . now if religious worship be for the glory of god , then all religious worship is more for gods glory than a part of it ; unless men will venture to say , that a part is as great as the whole . and yet whoever worships saints and angels , though he be neve so devout a worshipper of god also , yet he gives part of religious worship to creatures , and therefore god cannot have the whole , unless they can divide their worship between god and creatures , and yet give the whole to god. if it be objected , that those who worship saints and angels , do not give that worship to them , which is peculiar and appropriate to the supreme god , and therefore they reserve that worship which is due to god , wholly to himself , though they pay an inferiour degree of religious worship to saints and angels . i answer , what that worship is , which is peculiar to the supreme god , i shall consider more hereafter ; but for the present , supposing that they give only an inferiour degree of worship to creatures , is this religious worship , or is it not ? if it be , is a degree of worship a part of worship ? if it be , then god has not the whole , and therefore is not so much honoured , as if he had the whole ; as to shew this in a plain instance . those who pray to saints and angels , though they do not pray to them , as to the supreme god , but as to mediators and intercessors for them with the supreme god , yet they place an inferiour degree of hope and trust and affiance in them , or else it is non-sence to pray to them at all ; so that though god may be the supreme object of their relyance and hope , yet he is not the only object ; he has part , and the greatest part , but not the whole , for they divide their hope and trust between god and creatures ; and if it be a greater glory to god to trust wholly in him , than to trust in him in part , then it is a greater glory to god to pray to him only , than to pray also to saints and angels . nay it is more than probable , that those who pray to saints and angels , as trusting in their merits and intercession for them , do not make god , but these saints and angels , to whom they pray , the supreme object of their hope . this it may be will be thought an extravagant charge against men who profess to believe , that god is the supreme lord of the world , and the sole giver of all good things ; but this is no argument to me , but that notwithstanding this belief , they may trust more in saints and angels , than in god , and consequently give the supreme worship to them . for men do not always trust most in those who have the greatest power , but in those by whose interest and intercession , they hope to obtain their desires of the soveraign power . thus i am sure it is in the courts of earthly princes ; though men know , that the king only has power to grant what they desire , yet they place more confidence in a powerful favorite than in their prince , and when they have obtained their requests , pay more solemn acknowledgments to their patron ; for let the power be where it will , our hope and trust is plac't there where our expectations are . and when mens expectations are not from the prince , who has the power , but from the favourite , whose interest directs the influences of this power to them , which otherwise would never have reacht them , such favourites have more numerous dependants , more frequent addresses , more formal courtships , than the prince himself . and when men model the heavenly court according to the pattern of earthly courts , and expect the conveyance of the divine blessings to them as much from the intercession of saints and angels , as they do to obtain their desires of their prince , by the mediation of some powerful favourite , no wonder , if they love , and honour , and fear , reverence and adore , trust and depend on saints and angels , as much or more than they do on the supreme god. for there is not a more natural notion , than to honour those for our gods , from whose hands we receive all good things , whether we receive it from their own inherent power or not , deus nobis haec otia fecit , namque erit ille mihi semper deus , illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus . men may acknowledge god to be the supreme being , and ascribe incommunicable perfections to him , and yet may pray more frequently , more devoutly , more ardently , with greater trust and affiance to saints and angels , than to god , as it is apparent many devotoes of the virgin mary do ; and this is to give supreme and soveraign worship to them , without acknowledging them to be supreme beings . indeed it is morally impossible , but our religious worship , trust and affiance , must be at least equally shared between the supreme god and our mediator , whatever he be , as men do not less trust in the interest of their patron , than in the power of their prince ; for it is not meer power but favour , which is the immediate object of our trust ; and therefore god appointed his only begotten son to be our mediator , as for other great and wise reasons , so to prevent idolatry by giving us a god incarnate , who is a proper object of religious adoration , to be our mediator , that seeing men will worship their mediator , they may have a god for their mediator to worship . the sum is this : if it be more for the glory of god to have all religious worship appropriated to himself , than to have only a part of it , and it may be the least share and part too , then the worship of saints and angels cannot be for gods glory . but besides this , the worship of saints and angels , together with god , does mightily obscure and lessen the divine perfections , and therefore it cannot be for his glory . it represents him indeed like a great temporal monarch , but it does not represents him like a god. that which we ignorantly think a piece of state and greatness in earthly monarchs , to administer the great affairs of their kingdoms , to receive petitions and addresses , to bestow favours , to administer justice by other hands , to have some great ministers and favourites to interpose between them and their subjects , is nothing else , but want of power to do otherwise . he would be a much greater prince , more beloved and reverenced , who could do all this himself ; but no prince can be present in all parts of his kingdom , nor know every particular subject , much less their particular cases , and conditions , deserts and merits ; and therefore is forc't to divide this care into many hands , and in so doing shares his power and honour with his subjects . but whoever imagines any such thing of god , denies his omnipresence , his omnipotence , his omniscience , and his particular care and providence over his creatures . god indeed does not always govern the world by an immediate power , but makes use both of the ministry of angels & men ; but he governs all things by his immediate direction , or at least by his immediate inspection . he overlooks every thing himself , while all creatures either obey his commands , or submit to his power . if this be the true notion of gods governing the world , that he has the concernments of the whole creation under his eye , and keeps the disposal of all things in his own hands , so that nothing can be done , but either by his order or permission ; then the most perfect and glorious angels , the greatest ministers of the divine providence , can challenge no share in religious worship , cannot be the objects of our trust or hope , because they are only ministers of the divine will , can do nothing from themselves , as civil ministers of state , and officers of great trust can in temporal kingdoms , but are always under the eye , and always move at the command of god. in such a state of things all the peculiar rights of soveraign power and dominion god reserves wholly to himself , as any wife prince would , among which the receiving the prayers and petitions of his creatures is none of the least ; to hear prayers is made the peculiar attribute of god in scripture , thou art a god that hearest , prayers , therefore unto thee shall all flesh come . and reason tells us , that it is the most eminent part of soveraignty and majesty ; and the reason why temporal princes do not reserve this wholly to themselves , is because they cannot do it ; but god can , and he challenges it to himself , and will not allow any creature to do it ; and there is no temptation to pray to any creature , when we know , that they cannot help us , that they must receive their orders and commands from god , and not act by their own will and inclinations . thus princes have their eavourites , to whom they express a very partial fondness and respect , to whom they will deny nothing that they ask , nor hardly shew any grace or favour to their subjects without them ; and this forces subjects to address themselves to their prince by them ; but it is a reproach to the divine goodness and universal providence , to conceive any such thing of god ; which yet is the foundation of the worship of patron saints and angels , as persons so dear to god , that he cannot deny their requests , and will not grant our petitions without them , or at least , that it is the most certain and effectual way to obtain what we desire , to offer up our prayers and petitions to god by their hands . no doubt but all good men on earth , much more blessed saints and angels in heaven , as being more perfect and excellent creatures , are very dear to god ; but yet god is not fond and partial in his kindness , as earthly princes are , but has an equal regard to all his creatures , and delights in doing good to them , and needs not to be importuned by any powerful favourites to hear their cryes and prayers ; he will as soon attend to the prayers of an humble penitent sinner , as of the most glorious saint , and is more ready to grant than they are to ask . a mediator of redemption is very consistent with all the perfections of the divine nature , and does mightily recommend both the goodness and wisdom of god to the world . when manking had transgressed the laws of their creation , they forfeited their natural right and interest in the care and goodness of their maker ; the divine justice , and the wisdom of god in the government of the world , required an atonement and expiation for sin ; and it was an amazing demonstration of the divine goodness to sinners , that he found one himself , that he gave his son to be a propitiation for our sins . when men by sin had forfeited their original innocence and happiness together , they could expect nothing from god , but by way of covenant and promise ; and every covenant between contending parties , must be transacted in the hands of a medaitor , and none so fit to be our mediator , as he who is our ransome too . and a mediator must be invested with power and authority to see the terms of this covenant performed , and this is his mediatory intercession . he intercedes not meerly as a powerful favourite , but as the author and surety of the covenant , not meerly by intreaties and prayers , but in vertue of his blood , which sealed the covenant , and made atonement and expiation for sin . thus christ is our mediator of redemption , who hath redeemed us by his blood ; and we must offer up all our prayers to god in his name and powerful intercession , because we can expect no blessings from god , but by vertue of that covenant , which he purchast and sealed with his blood. but now a mediator of pure intercession , without regard to any atonement made for sin , or any covenant of redemption ( such as saints and angels and the blessed virgin are made by the church of rome ) is a mighty reproach to the divine nature and perfections . it cloaths god with the passions and infirmities of earthly princes ; represents him as extreamly fond of some of his creatures , and very regardless of others ; as if his kindness to some favourite saint , were a more powerful motive to him to do good , than his own love to goodness ; as if he knew not when , nor to whom , to shew mercy without their direction or counsel , or would not do it without their importunity ; as if some of his creatures had as much the ascendant over him , as some favourites have over their princes , who can with a words speaking have any thing of them , and extort favours from them , even against their wills and inclinations . no man can think there is any need of such intercessors and mediators with god , who believes him to be infinitely wise , and to be infinitely good ; to know when it is fit to hear and to answer , and to be always ready to do , what his own wisdom judges fit to be done . there can be no place for such intercessions and intreaties , to an infinitely perfect being ; for they always suppose some great weakness or defect in him who wants them , for even a wise and a good man wants no mediators to perswade him to do that good , which is fit to be done . the objection against this is very obvious , and the answer , i think , is as easie . the objection is this : if god be so good , that he needs not such prayers and intercessions to move him to do good , why do we pray for our selves ? why do we pray for one another ? why do we desire the prayers of good men here on earth ? why is it a greater reproach to the divine perfections to beg the prayers of st. paul , or st. peter , now they are in heaven , than to have begged their prayers , while they had been on earth ? to this i answer : when we pray for our selves , i suppose , we do not pray as mediators , but as supplicants , and nothing can be more reasonable , than that those , who want mercy , or any other blessing should ask for it . it is certainly no reproach to the divine goodness , that god makes prayer the condition of our receiving , which is a very easie condition , and very necessary to maintain a constant sense and reverence of god , and a constant dependance on him . and when we pray for one another on earth , we are as meer supplicants , as when we pray for our selves , and to pray as supplicants is a very different thing from praying as advocates , as mediators , as patrons . the vertue of the first consists only in the power and efficacy of prayer ; the second in the favour and interest of the person . this the church of rome her self owns , when she allows no mediators and advocates , but saints in heaven , which is a sign , she makes a vast difference between the prayers of saints on earth , and saints in heaven . there are great and wise reasons , why god should command and encourage our mutual prayers for each other while we are on earth ; for this is the noblest exercise of universal love and charity , which is a necessary qualification to render our prayers acceptable to god ; this preserves the unity of the body of christ , which requires a sympathy and fellow-feeling of each others sufferings , this is the foundation of publick worship when we meet together to pray with , and for each other to our common father ; and it gives a great reputation to vertue and religion in this world , when god hears the prayers of good men for the wicked , and removes or diverts those judgments which they were afraid of ; this becomes the wisdom of god , and is no blemish to his goodness , to dispence his mercies and favours in such a manner as may best serve the great ends of religion in this world . god does not command us to pray for our selves or others , because he wants our importunities and solicitations to do good , but because it serves the publick ends of religion and government , and is that natural homage and worship , which creatures owe to their great creator and benefactor , and soveraign lord. but to imagine , that god needs advocates and mediators to solicite our cause for us in the court of heaven , where none of these ends can be served by it , this is a plain impeachment of his wisdom and goodness , as if he wanted great importunities to do good , and were more moved by a partial kindness and respect to some powerful favourites , than by the care of his creatures , or his love to goodness . erom hence it evidently appears , how inconsequent that reasoning is , from our begging the prayers of good men on earth , to prove the lawfulness of our praying to the saints in heaven to pray and interceed for us ; the first makes them our fellow supplicants , the second makes them our mediators and intercessors ; and how little the church of rome gains by that distinction , between a mediator of redemption , and mediators of pure intercession ▪ for though they pray to saints and angels only as mediators of intercession , yet this is a real reproach to the nature and government of god ; a mediator of redemption is very consistent with the divine glory and perfections , a mediator of pure intercession is not . and the sum of all is this , that it is so far from advancing the divine glory to worship saints and angels together with god , that it is a real reproach and dishonour to him ; and therefore this can be no law nor institution of our saviour , who came not to abrogate the divine laws , but to fulfil and perfect them . some think there is no danger of dishonouring god by that honour they give to saints and angels , because they honour them as gods friends and favourites , as those whom god has honoured and advanced to great glory ; and therefore whatever honour they do to them , rebounds back again on god , and this may be true , while we give no honour to saints and angels , but what is consistent with the divine glory ; but when the very nature of that honour and worship we pay to them , is a diminution of gods glory , and a reproach to his infinite perfections , as i have made it appear , the worship of saints and angels is , surely it cannot be for gods glory to advance his creatures by lessening himself . sect . vii . 2. let us now consider , whether the worship of saints and angels together with god , be a more perfect state of religion than the worship of god alone , with respect to our selves ; whether it puts us into a more perfect and excellent state . it does indeed mightily gratifie the superstition of mankind to have a multitude of advocates and mediators to address to , but there are three considerations which may satisfie any man , how far this is from a perfect state of religion . 1. that it argues very mean and low conceits of god , for did men believe god to be so wise , so good , and so powerful , as really he is , they would be contented with one infinite god , instead of ten thousand meaner advocates . the worship of saints and angels ▪ as i have already proved , is a great reproach to the divine perfections , and therefore such worshippers must have very imperfect and childish apprehensions of the supreme being , which is a plain proof what an imperfect state of religion this is ; for the perfection of religion is always proportioned to that knowledge we have of god , who is the object of it . 2. this worship of saints and angels is a very servile state , it subjects us to our fellow-creatures , who are by nature but our equals , however are not our gods. it is a state of liberty , freedom and honour , to be subject to god , who is our natural lord and soveraign , but to fall down to our fellow creatures , and to worship them with divine honours , with all humility of address , and sacred and awful regards , is to debase our selves as much below the dignity of our natures , as we advance them above it . the excellency and perfection of reasonable creatures principally consists in their religion , and that is the most perfect religion , which does most advance , adorn , and perfect our natures ; but it is an argument of an abject mind , to be contented to worship the most excellent creatures , which is a greater dishonour than to own the vilest slave for our prince . mean objects of worship do more debase the soul , than any other the wilest submissions ; and the more our dependancies are , and the meaner they are , the more imperfect our state and religion is . 3. the greatest perfection of religion , consists in the nearest and most immediate approach to god ; which i think , these men cannot pretend to , who flye to the patronage and intercession of saints and angels , to obtain their petitions of him . though we should allow it lawful to pray to saints and angels to mediate for us with god , yet we cannot but own it a more perfect state to do as the saints and angels themselves do , go to god without any other advocate but christ himself . it is a great happiness to have a freind at court , to commend us to our prince , when we have no interest of our own , but it is a greater priviledge to go immediately to our prince when we please , without any favourite to introduce us . this is the perfect state of the gospel , that we have received the adoption of sins , and because we are sons , god hath sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts , crying abba father . that is , this holy spirit which dwells in us , teaches us to call god father , and to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of children . this is the effect of christ intertercession for us , that we may now come boldly unto the throne of grace , that we may obtain mercy , and find grace to help in a time of need . the throne of grace certainly is not the shrine of any saints , but the immediate throne and presence of god , whether we may immediately direct our prayers through the merits and intercession of christ. upon the same account the whole body of christians are called a spiritual house , that is , the temple of god , where he is peculiarly present to hear those prayers which are made to him , an holy priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god through jesus christ. and a chosen generation , a royal priesthood , an holy nation , a peculiar people : this is a priviledge above what the jews enjoyed , they had a priesthood to minister in holy things , and to offer their sacrifices for them , but the whole nation was not a priesthood , nor had such immediate access to god ; but now every christian has as near an access to god as the priests themselves under the law had ; can offer up his prayers and spiritual sacrifices immediately to god ; and that very acceptably too , through jesus christ our great high priest and mediator ; and if our prayers be acceptable to god by jesus chrrist , we need no other mediators or advocates . this is the onely direction our saviour gave his disciples a little before his death , to ask in his name , with this promise , if ye ask any thing in my name , i will do it . hither to have you asked nothing in my name , ask and ye shall receive , that your joy may be full . and to give them the greater assurance of acceptance , he acquaints them with gods great and tender affection for them , such as a father has for his children . at that day ye shall ask in my name ; and i say not unto you , that i will pray the father for you , for the father himself loveth you because ye have loved me , and have believed , that i came out from god ; a reason which equally extends to all those who shall believe in christ , to the end of the world . and can we now imagine , that when our saviour has purchast for us this liberty of access to god , he should send us round about by the shrines and altars of numerous and unknown saints to the throne of grace . when he will not assert the necessity of his own prayers for us , while we pray in his name , because our heavenly father hath such a tender affection for all the disciples of christ , can we think it necessary to pray to st. paul and st. peter , and the virgin mary to pray for us . this is none of our saviours institution , nor can it be , because christ by his death and sufferings and intercessions brings us nearer to god , as the apostle to the hebrews speaks , having therefore brethren boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of jesus , by a new and living way , which he hath consecrated for us through the vail , that is to say , his flesh , and having an high priest over the house of god , let us draw near with a true heart , in full assurance of faith. but the worship of saints and angels removes us at a great distance from god , as not daring to approach his presence without the mediation of some favourite saint . and though the church of rome does sometimes pray directly to god only , in the name and mediation of christ , as the pagans themselves sometimes did to their supreme deity , yet it seems this is what they dare not trust to , and therefore joyn the meditation of saints with their prayers to god , and never pray to god without it . sect . viii . 5. that the gospel of our saviour has made no alteration in the object of our worship , appears from that analogie which there is , and ought to be , between the jewish and christian worship . the jewish and christian church are but one church , and their worship the same worship , only with this difference , that the jewish worship was in type and figure , and ceremony , the christian worship in truth and substance . and therefore if this legal and evangelical worship be the same it must have the some object , for the object is the most essential part of worship . so that if it appear , not only from the express letter of the law of moses , but from all the types and figures of the law , that god only was to be worshipt by the jewish church ; if christ was to fulfil all these types and figures in his own person , and in the evangelical worship , then it is certain , that the object of our worship must be the same still ; for if the type was confined in its nature and signification to the worship of one god , then the whole christian worship , which was signifyed and praesigured by these types , must be peculiar and appropriate to the same one supreme god. as for instance . i have already proved at large , that the jews were to worship but one god , because they had but one temple to worship in , and all their worship had some relation or other to this one temple , and therefore all their worship was appropriated to that one god , whose temple it was ; now we know gods dweling in the temple at jerusalem , was only a type and figure of gods dwelling in humane nature , upon which account christ calls his body the temple ; and st. john tells us , that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tabernacled among us ; as god formerly dwelt in the jewish tabernacle or temple , and st. paul adds , that the fulness of the godhead dwelt in christ bodily , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really , substantially , as an accomplishment of gods dwelling by types and figures , and shadows in the jewish temple . now if all the jewish worship was confined to the temple , or had a necessary relation to it , as i have already proved , and this temple was but a figure of the incarnation of christ , who should dwell among us in humane nature , then all the christian worship must be offered up to god through jesus christ , as all the jewish worship was offered to god at the temple ; for christ is the only temple ( in a strict and proper sense ) of the christian church , and therefore he alone can render all our services acceptable to god. so that god , who is the father of our lord jesus christ , is the only object of our worship , and christ considered as god incarnate , as god dwelling in humane nature , is the only temple where all our worship must be offered to god , that is , we shall find acceptance with god only in his name and mediation : we must worship no other being but only the supreme god , and that only through jesus christ. thus under the law the priests were to intercede for the people , but not without sacrifice ; their intercession was founded in making atonement and expiation for sin ; which plainly signified , that under the gospel we can have no other mediator , but only him , who expiates our sins , and intercedes in the merits of his sacrifice ; who is our priest and our sacrifice , and therefore our mediator ; as st. john observes . if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous , and he is the propitiation for our sins . the law knew no such thing as a mediator of pure intercession , a mediator , who is no priest , and offers no sacrifice for us , and therefore the gospel allows of no such mediators neither , who mediate onely by their prayers , without a sacrifice , such mediators as the church of rome makes of saints and angels and the virgin mary ; but we have onely one mediator , a mediator of redemption , who has purchased us with his blood , of whom the priests under the law were types and figures . thus under the law , none but the high priest was to enter into the holy of holies , with the blood of the sacrifice ; now the holy of holies was a type of heaven , and therefore this plainly signified , that under the gospel , there should be but one high priest and mediator , to offer up our prayers and supplications in heaven , he and he onely , who enters into heaven with his own blood , as the high priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice . there may be a great many priests and advocates on earth to interceed for us , as there were under the law , great numbers of priests , the sons of aaron , to attend the service and ministry of the temple , but we have , and can have , but one priest and mediator in heaven . whoever acknowledges that the priesthood and ministry of the law was typical of the evangelical priesthood and worship , cannot avoid the force of this argument , and whoever will not acknowledge this , must reject most of st. paul's epistles , especially the epistle to the hebrews , which proceeds wholely upon this way of reasoning : now this manifestly justifies the worship of the church of england , as true christian worship , for we worship one god through one mediator , who offered himself a sacrifice for us , when he was on earth , and interceeds for us as our high priest in heaven , which answers to the one temple , and the one high priest under the law : but though the church of rome does what we do , worship the supreme god through jesus christ , yet she spoils the analogie between the type and the antitype , the legal and evangelical worship , by doing more ; when she sends us to the shrines and altars of so many several saints , surely this cannot answer to that one temple at jerusalem , where god alone was to be worshipped , there are as many temples and mercy-seats now , as there are shrines and altars of saints and angels , by whose intercession we may obtain our requests of god. when she advances saints and angels to the office of mediators and interceslsors in heaven , this contradicts the type of one high priest , who alone might enter into the holy of holies , which was a type of heaven ; for there is some difference between having one mediator in heaven , ( and there can be no more under the gospel to answer to the typical high priest under the law ) and having a hundred mediators in heaven together with our typical high priest. to have a mediator of pure intercession in heaven , who never offered any sacrifice for us , cannot answer to the high priest under the law , who could not enter into the holy of holies without the blood of the sacrifice . the high priests entring but once a year into the holy of holies , which was typical of christs entring once into heaven to intercede for us , cannot be reconciled with a new succession of mediators , as ofter as the pope of rome pleases to cannonize them . so that either the law was not typical of the state of the gospel , or the worship of saints and angels , which is so contrary to all the types and figures of the law , cannot be true christian worship . sixthly , i shall add but one thing more , that christ and his apostles have made no alteration in the object of worship , appears from hence , that de facto there is no such law in the gospel for the worship of any other being besides the one supreme god. there is a great deal against it , as i have already shewn ; but if there had been nothing against it , it had been argument enough against any such alteration , that there is no express positive law for it . the force of which argument does not consist meerly in the silence of the gospel , that there is nothing said for it , ( which the most learned advocates of the church of rome readily grant , and give their reasons , such as they are , why this was not done , why we are not directed to pray to saints and angels , and images , &c. ) but the argument lies in this , that there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express law ; and therefore there is no alteration made , because there is no such law in the gospel . the jews were expresly commanded to worship no other being , but the lord jehovah , as i have already proved , which law appropriates all the acts of religious worship to one god ; and therefore all those , who were under the obligation of this law ( as to be sure all natural jews were ) could not without the guilt of idolatry give any religious worship to any other being , till this law were expresly repealed , and express leave given to worship some other divine beings besides the supreme god ; so that at least our saviour himself , while he was on earth , and subject to the law , and his apostles , and all believing jews , were obliged by this law to worship none but god , unless we can shew where christ by his legislative authority , or his apostles by commission from him , have expresly repealed this law ; nay , indeed ▪ unless we can shew , that christ himself repealed this law , and taught the worship of saints and angels , the apostles themselves could have no authority to do it , for their commission was onely to teach what christ had commanded them , which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline , and the external circumstances of worship , yet it does to all the essentials of faith and worship , and i think the right object of worship is the most essential thing in religious worship . from hence it appears , that at least all the jewish christians in the apostles days , and all succeeding ages to this day , cannot worship saints and angels without idolatry , because the law ▪ which was given to them , and never yet repealed , commands them to worship none but god ; and if gentile converts were received into the jewish christian church ( and christ has but one church of jews and gentiles ) they must also be obliged by all those laws , which were then , and are still obligatory to all believing jews , and therefore gentile as well as jewish christians , are still bound to worship none but god. now i think i need not prove , that an express law can be repealed onely by an express law. that law which commands us to worship god , and him onely , must continue in full force , till god do as expresly declare , that he allows us to pay some degree of religious worship to other beings besides himself : when a law-giver has declared his will and pleasure by a law , it is not fit that subjects should be allowed to guess ▪ at his mind , and dispute away an express law by some surmizes and consequences , how probable soever they may appear ; for at this rate a law signifies nothing , if we may guess at the will of our law-giver , without and against an express law. and yet none of the advocates of the church of rome ( though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty ) ever had the confidence to pretend an express law for the worship of saints and angels , and images , &c. and though they sometimes alledge scripture to prove this by , yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs , but onely attempt to prove some other doctrines from scripture , from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences that which the scripture no-where plainly teaches , nay the contrary to which is expresly taught in scripture . and if this may be allow'd , i know no law of god so plain and express , but a witty man may find ways to escape the obligation of it . this is a consideration of great moment , and therefore i shall discourse more particularly of it . the law of moses expresly commands us to worship god , and him onely ; our saviour christ owns and confirms the authority of this law in the gospel ; the church of rome notwithstanding this law , gives religious worship to creatures ; the question then is ; how she avoids the force of this law , since it is no where expresly repealed , and she does not pretend that it is . now the patrons of creature-worship think to justifie themselves from the breach of this law , these three ways . 1. by consequences drawn , as they pretend , from other scripture-doctrines . 2. by distinctions . and 3. by authority . let us then examine , whether all this have any force against an express law , which was never expresly repepealed . 1. by consequences drawn , as they pretend , from other scripture-doctrines ; and i shall discourse this with a particular reference to the invocation of saints . for when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to saints , they alledge no direct proof of this from scripture ; but because they must make a shew of saying something from scripture , when they are to deal with such hereticks as will be satisfied with no less authority , they endeavour to prove something else from scripture , from whence they think by an easie consequence , they can prove the lawfulness of praying to saints . thus they very easily prove , that we may and ought to pray for one another , and to desire each others prayers while we are on earth ; and from hence they presently conclude , that we may as lawfully pray to saints in heaven to pray for us , as beg and desire their prayers , while they are on earth . and to confirm this , they endeavour to prove , that some extraordinary saints , whose merits are very great , do directly ascend up into heaven into the immediate presence of god , and a participation of his glory ; and hence they conclude , that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us , and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state , that they deserve some kind of religious honour and worship from us , as being dii per participationem , gods by participation , that is , by partaking in the divine nature and glory by their advancement to heaven . and if after all this they can prove , that the saints in heaven do pray and intercede for us on earth , they think the demonstration is complete and perfect , that therefore * it is good and profitable ( as the council of trent words it ) humbly to invoke the saints after the manner of supplicants , and to fly to their prayers and help and aid to obtain blessings of god by his son jesus christ our lord , who is our onely ( not intercessor and advocate , but ) redeemer and saviour . now how they prove all this , is not my business at present to enquire ; but my inquiry is , whether such arguments as these be sufficient to oppose against the authority of an express law ; and if they be , truly i think it a very vain thing , either for god or men to make any laws . for , 1. i desire to know , what these gentlemen would prove by such kind of arguments as these . suppose we should grant them , that the saints are received into heaven before the resurrection , and are actually possest of all that glory and happiness , which they say they are ▪ suppose we should grant them , that by some means unknown to us , saints and angels are acquainted with all that we do and suffer in this world , hear all our vocal or mental prayers , which we offer to god or to themselves , and that they do actually pray and intercede for us , what follows from hence ? that therefore we may pray to saints ? not i hope if there be an express law against it , these arguments at most can onely prove , that in the nature of the thing it might be fitting and reasonable to pray to saints if god thought fit to allow it , not that we must pray to saints , though god has forbid it . for those are powerful reasons indeed , which can justifie saint-worship against the express law and declared will of god. could they first prove one of these three things : either 1. that there is no such law against the worship of any other being besides god. or 2. that this is not the sence of this law , that they must not pray to saints or angels , that the law , which forbids us to worship any being but god , does not forbid the worship of saints ▪ or 3. that though there was such a law , and this were the sence of it , and this law were never formally repealed by god , yet it disappears of it self , and obliges no longer since the discovery of such reasons as these for the worship of saints and angels . i say , could they prove any thing of this in the first place , then there would be as much reason for the worship of saints , as there is strength and validity in their arguments ; but no reason can take place against an express law , till it be as expresly repealed . for , 2. if an express law may be disobeyed , as often as men fancy they see reason to do , what the law forbids , this overthrows the whole authority of making laws , and makes every subject a judge , whether the laws of a soveraign prince shall be obeyed or not . at this rate he has the greatest authority , who has the best reason ; and since every man believes his own reason to be best , every man is the soveraign lord of his own actions . it is to be presumed , that no prince makes a law , but what he apprehends some reason for , and to oppose any mans private reason against a law , is to set up a private mans reason against the publick reason of government : and yet it is much worse to oppose our reason against a divine law , which is to oppose the reason of creatures against the reason of god , unless we will say , that god makes laws without reason , and those who can believe that , may as easily imagine , that god will expect , that those laws which he makes without reason , should be obeyed without reason also , and then to be sure all their reasons cannot repeal a law , nor justifie them in the breach of it . it becomes every creature to believe the will of god to be the highest reason , and therefore when god has declared his will by an express law ; while this law continues in force , ( as it must do , till it be as expresly repealed ) it is an impudent thing to urge our reasons against the obligations of it . so that since god has expresly forbid us to worship any being besides himself , unless we can prove , that god has repealed this law , it will never justifie the worship of saints and angels , though we could by the plainest and easiest arguments prove to the conviction of all mankind , that saints and angels are very fit objects of our religious worship , and that it is no diminution to the glory of god to pay some degree of religious worship to them . 3. especially , when the matter of the law is such , that whatever reasons may be pretended on one side or the other , it must still be acknowledged to be wholly at the will and pleasure of the law-giver , which side he will choose . as for instance , suppose there were no natural and necessary reason against the worship of saints and angels , yet there is no natural and necessary reason for it neither , and therefore god may either allow or forbid it , as he himself pleases , without assigning any reason why he does either . and when it appears that god might forbid it if he pleases , and that he has actually forbid it by an express law , it is time to leave off reasoning about it : natural reason can give us no assurance of any thing , which it cannot prove to be necessary , whatever in the nature and reason of things may be , or may not be , can never be proved either to be , or not to be , by meer reason ; for it is a contradiction to say , that there is no necessary reason why such a thing should be , and yet that i can prove by reason , that it must be , which supposes , that there is a necessary reason , why it should be ; for i cannot prove , that it must be , unless i can prove , that it must necessarily be ; that is , that there is a necessary reason , why it should be . to apply this then to our present case . the law expresly forbids us to worship any other being besides the supreme god , the church of rome prays to saints and angels and images , which is an essential part of divine worship ; and without ever attempting to prove this law to be repealed , she justifies her worship by such reasons and consequences , as i have now cited from their most celebrated doctors , and some of which are the principles , whereon the council of trent founds their praying to saints and angels . i ask then , whether these arguments , whereby they endeavour to justifie the worship of saints and angels , prove that we must worship them , that such worship is their natural right , and our duty . no , this the church of rome will not own ; the most the council of trent says , is , that it is bonum & utile , good and profitable to do it ; but , say i , if they do not prove it to be necessary , they prove nothing ; for if saints and angels have not a natural right to our worship , though we should suppose them to be very fit objects of some degrees of worship , yet it is at gods choice , whether he will allow it or not , and they can challenge no worship , and we must give none , if god forbids it ; and therefore since god has forbid the worship of any being , but himself ( and therefore of the most excellent saints and angels ) by an express law ; and it no-where appears , where or when , or in what manner this law was repealed , a hundred such arguments as these cannot prove it lawful to worship saints and angels against an express law not to do it . though we should grant that god , if he pleased , might allow us to worship saints and angels , as the church of rome does , without any deminution of his own glory , which is the most that all their arguments can pretend to prove , yet it does not hence follow , that we may worship them , when god by an express law has declared , that he will not allow it . no arguments nor consequences can prove , that god allows us to do that , which by an express law he has forbid us to do . no reason can prove that to be gods will , which he has publickly declared in his law to be against his will. 4. that no reason or arguments can absolve us from our obedience to an express law , till it be as expresly repealed , appears from this , that our obligation to obedience does not depend meerly upon the reason of the law , but upon the authority of the law-giver , and therefore though the reason of the law should cease , yet while it is inforced by the same authority , it obliges still . thus i am sure , it is in humane laws , and it is very fitting it should be so ; meer reason cannot make a law , for then every thing which is reasonable , would be a necessary duty ; that which is reasonable may be fit matter for a law , but it is the authority of the law-giver which makes the law , and the same authority which at first made it a law , continues it to be a law while the authority lasts , though the particular reason for which it was enacted into a law , may cease . so that though the church of rome could prove , that there is no reason now against the worship of saints and angels , that all those reasons for which god forbad the jews to worship any one but himself , were now ceased ; yet till the law be repealed too , it is utterly unlawful to worship any being besides the supreme god , and yet this is the most that all their reasonings come to , that there is not the same reason for this law under the state of the gospel , that there was under the jewish oeconomy . they suppose , that god forbad the jews to worship any one but himself , because they were in great danger of falling into pagan idolatries , and worshipping the gods of the aegyptians , and other neighbour-nations , and that this was the case also of the christian church at the first planting of the gospel ; but now there is no danger of worshipping false gods , we may very securely worship the friends and favourites of god. they suppose , that all the ancient patriarchs who lived before the resurrection of christ , were not received into heaven , and therefore not being in a state of bliss and glory themselves , were not yet capable of divine honours , could neither know our prayers , nor intercede for us . but now at last some eminent saints and martyrs ascend directly into heaven , and are the beati , advanced to such a state of happiness and glory , that they are fit objects of religious worship , and are so powerful in the court of heaven , that god denies them nothing which they ask ; and so tender and compassionate to us , that they readily undertake our cause , and intercede for us , and therefore it is very good and profitable now to invoke their aid and assistance by solemn and devout prayers . now though the learnedst men among them are put to miserable shifts to prove the least part of all this , yet let us for argument-sake , suppose all this to be true , that things are mightily changed since the making of this law , and that there is not the same reason now to confine all religious worship to god alone , that there was in the time of moses , what follows from hence , that therefore we may now worship saints and angels , notwithstanding this law which forbids it ? by no means , unless they can prove that the law is repealed too , as well as the reason ceased : here is the authority of the law-giver still , though we should suppose , that we had lost the reason of the law ; till the law is as expresly repealed as it was given , it is gods will still , and that is reason enough to bind the law upon us , though other reasons fail . the reason ( if we speak of such reasons as these , which the church of rome assigns , for it is a different case , if we speak of eternal and necessary reason , which is nothing else but the eternal & immutable nature and will of god , which is an eternal law ) did not make the law , and the change of the reason cannot repeal it . and since we see , that god has not repealed this law , we rather ought to conclude , that we are mistaken in the reasons , for which god made this law , or that there are other reasons , which we know not of , for which he continues it : we may indeed reasonably suppose , that god will repeal a law , when the reason , for which it was given , ceases , though earthly princes may not always do so ; but still the law binds till it be repealed ; and it is more reasonable to conclude , that the reason of the law continues , while we see god does not repeal it , than first to perswade our selves , that the reason of the law is changed , and thence infer the repeal and abrogation of the law , when we see no such thing done . 5. that these arguments which the roman doctors urge , to justifie their worship of saints and angels , are of no force to repeal that law , which forbids the worship of any other being besides the supreme god , appears from this , that they had no force in them to prevent the making of this law , and therefore much less can they repeal it now it is made : the reasons which they use , had the same force then , which they have now , and if notwithstanding all these reasons , god thought fit to forbid the worship of all created beings , it is ridiculous to imagine , that these reasons should supersede the obligation of that law , which is made in contradiction to all such reasonings : as to shew this brie●ly . they prove , that we may pray to saints and angels to pray for us , because we may desire good men on earth to pray for us . now suppose we could not assign the difference between praying to saints in heaven , and desiring the prayers of saints on earth , yet i would desire to know , whether good men did not pray for one another , and desire each others prayers , before and after god gave this law on mount sinai , which forbids the religious worship and invocation of any other being but himself : if good men did in all ages pray for one another , and desire one anothers prayers , and god allowed and approved of this , then it seems god did not think this a good reason for praying to saints and angels in heaven , because good men might beg each others prayers on earth , for if he had , he would not have made that law , which forbids such a religious invocation of any creature . and if notwithstanding this reason , which had as much force then , as it has now , god made and promulged this law , this reason can never repeal it , nor dissolve the obligation of it . thus if the saints & angels being in heaven be a good reason why they should be worshipped , this was as good a reason at the giving of the law , as it is now ; for thô we should suppose with the church of rome , that saints departed were not in heaven then , yet certainly the angels were , and if their being in heaven made them fit objects of our worship , why did god so expresly forbid it ; and if he forbad it then , when there was as much reason to allow the worship of those heavenly inhabitants , as there is now , this argument cannot prove , but that god forbids it still . the same may be said of the intercession of saints and angels . the papists suppose , that the saints and angels pray and intercede for us in heaven , and obtain for , and convey many blessings to us , and therefore it is good and profitable to pray to them , and to flie to their patronage ; now though indeed they date the intercession of saints , ( as they do their admission into heaven ) from the resurrection of our saviour , yet there is as much evidence for the aids and intercessions of angels before and under the law , as there is now ; nay , i think somewhat more ; for the government of the world was much more under the administration of angels , in the time of the law , then it is now ; and yet notwithstanding this , god did by an express law forbid the worship of any being but himself , and therefore of these angelical powers , who are somewhat superiour to saints in heaven ; and if this were no good reason against making this law , it can be no good reason to prove the abrogation of it . 2. the next way they take to evade the obligation of this law of worshipping god only , is by distinctions . as to name the chief of them . they tell us , that this law is only opposed to the worship of false gods , such gods as the heathens worshipped , not to the worship of saints and angels , who are the friends and favourites of god. and then they distinguish about the nature of worship ; they confess there is a worship which is peculiar to god , supreme and soveraign worship , which is peculiar to the supreme being , and this , for what reason i know not , they call latria ; but then there is an inferiour degree of worship , which they call dulia , which may be given to excellent creatures , to saints and angels , who reign with christ in heaven . they farther distinguish between absolute and relative worship . absolute worship is , when we worship a being for its self , and thus god onely is to be worshipped ; but relative worship is , when we worship one being out of respect to another , and thus we may worship saints and angels upon account of their relation to god. now i shall have occasion to examine these distinctions more particularly hereafter , my business at present is to examine , how far these distinctions can justifie the worship of saints and angels against an express law , which commands us to worship god only . and i have three things to say on this argument . 1. that the letter of the law will admit of no such distinctions as these . 2. that the scripture no where allows of any such distinctions , and 3. that no distinctions can justifie our acting against the letter of a law , which have not the same authority which the law has . 1. the letter of the law will admit of no such distinctious as these . the law is , thou shalt have none other gods before me . the explication of this law is , thou shalt fear the lord thy god , him shalt thou serve , and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name . or as our saviour expounds it , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . now these words do plainly exclude the worship of all other beings besides the supreme god : they exclude indeed the worship of all the heathen gods , which were at that time worshipped in the world , but they are not confined to the worship of the heathen gods , nor meerly to the worship of those gods who were at that time worshipt , but should any new gods start up in after ages , whether among jews or christians , the words extend to all that are , and all that ever shall be worshipped . thou shalt have none other gods before me , signifies , that we must worship no other being but the supreme god , for to have a god , is to give religious worship to some being ; as appears from that exposition , which both moses and our saviour christ gives of it . thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve . for it is impossible to have any god besides the supreme god , in any other sense than as we worship some other being , besides the supreme god , with divine honours ; and whatever being we so worship , become our god , and therefore this law forbids the worship of any being , which is not god , be it saint or angel , or the virgin mary ; how excellent and perfect creatures soever they be , they are not our god , and therefore must not be worshipped . if we must worship and serve god onely , as our saviour expresly tells us , that we must worship no creature whatever it be , the worship of saints and angels is as expresly forbid by this law , as the worship of the heathen gods , for that law which commands us to worship god onely , excludes the worship of all creatures , whatever they be . but may not the meaning of this law be onely this : that we must not give supreme and soveraign worship to any other being , but the supreme god , but we may give an inferiour degree of worship to some excellent spirits , who under god have the care of us . and is not this plainly signified in the very letter of the law , when it says , thou shalt have none other gods before me . for no other worship makes any being a god , but that which is supreme and soveraign , peculiar and appropriate to the one supreme god ; and therefore not to have any other being for our god , is not to give supreme and soveraign worship to it . now what that worship is , which is peculiar and appropriate to the supreme god , i shall discourse particularly in the second part ; our present inquiry is , whether this law makes any such distinction . the laws says , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve : here is no distinction between supreme and subordinate worship ; whatever is an act of worship must be given to god onely . but the law says , thou shalt have no other gods before me , and therefore it must signifie supreme & soveraign worship , for no other degree of worship makes a god. did the heathens then worship no inferior gods ? did those who worship ped so many several gods , look upon them all as supreme and absolute ? or were they so senseless as to give supreme and soveraign worship to inferior deities ? or does not this law forbid the worship of those gods , whom the heathens worshipped as inferior daemons , but onely the worship of those gods , whom they accounted supreme and soveraign ? if this law forbids the worship of all heathen gods , and it is certain , that they worshipped a great many gods , whom they did not account supreme , then there can be no place for this distinction here , for such an inferiour worship as makes an inferiour god , is as well forbid , as supreme and soveraign worship . the law says , thou shalt have none other gods before me : or besides me ; which as i observed before , does not exclude the worship of the supreme god , but forbids the worship of any other being together with him . the meaning is not , thou shalt not renounce my worship , for the worship of any other gods , but thou shalt worship me , and no other god besides me : now i would onely ask this question , whether a jew who worshipped the god of israel , who declared himself to be the supreme god , could give supreme worship to any other god ? this is contrary to the sense of all mankind , to worship him as supreme , whom they do not believe to be supreme . and therefore when god forbad them to joyn the worship of any other gods with the worship of himself , he must forbid all kinds and degrees of worship , even the most inferiour worship , which the heathens paid to their inferiour deities . if you say , that god did indeed forbid all kinds and degrees of worship to be paid to the heathen gods , which were impure and wicked spirits , but still it is lawful to pay an inferiour worship to saints and angels , who are the friends of god. i answer , the law makes no distinction between the worship of good and bad spirits , and therefore as far as this law is concerned , we must either deny this inferiour worship to all , or grant it to all . if this law does not forbid giving inferiour degrees of worship to other beings , then it does not forbid the inferiour worship of heathen gods ; that may be faulty upon other accounts , but is no breach of this law , and then the heathens were not guilty of idolatry in worshipping their inferiour daemons with an inferiour worship . if this law does forbid even this inferiour degree of worship , then it forbids the worship of good spirits too , though with an inferiour worship , which transforms true saints and angels into false and fictitious deities . but i have another argument to prove , that this law can have no respect to the different degrees of worship . the roman doctors themselves grant , that the difference between supreme and subordinate or inferiour worship , does not consist in the outward act , that all or most of the external acts of worship may belong to both kinds , they except indeed sacrifice , but contrary to the sense of all men ; for the heathens offered sacrifice to their inferiour deities , as well as to the supreme ; and there is no imaginable reason to be assigned , why sacrifice , as well as prayer , may not be an act of inferiour , as well as of supreme worship . the difference then between supreme and inferiour worship , is onely in the intention and devotion of the worshippers , and no man can by the external act know whether this be supreme or inferiour worship . now from hence i thus argue : if the worship forbidden by this law be such , as can be known by the external act , then this law can have no regard to the degrees of worship , for the degrees of worship are not in the external acts , but in the mind of the worshipper , which cannot be known by external acts . now that the law did forbid the external acts of worship , without any regard to the intention of the worshipper , appears in this , that this idolatrous worship was to be punished with death , and therefore it must be such external idolatry as falls under the cognizance of humane judicatures . had there been any regard to the degrees of worship , no man could have been convicted of idolatry by the external act , and could not have been liable to punishment , unless he had confessed his intention of giving supreme worship to a false god , and so this law of putting such idolaters to death had signified nothing , because it had been impossible for them to convict any man of idolatry , but by his own confession ; but when the external act which is visible to all men , is sufficient to convict any man of idolatry , it is next to a demonstration , that the law had no respect to the degrees , but to the acts of worship . and that our saviour in that law , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve , had no regard to the different degrees of worship , i have already proved at large , for allowing that distinction , he had not given a good answer to the devils temptation . thus as for their distinction between absolute and relative worship , that though we must not worship any creature , the most excellent saints and angels , for themselves , yet we may worship them upon account of that relation they have to god ; that is , we may worship them for gods sake , though not for their own ; i find no intimation of any such distinction in the law. we are there commanded to have no other gods , to worship god and him onely , which excludes saints and angels from being the object of our worship , as well as devils . 2. but possibly it may be said , that though the law takes no notice of such distinctions , yet the scripture in the explication of this law may make allowances for it . now in answer to this , i onely desire to know , where the scripture has made any such distinction between worshipping good and evil spirits , the enemies and rivals , or the friends of god , between supreme and subordinate , absolute or relative worship ; i can find no such distinctions in scripture , & i have a material reason to believe no such can be found , viz. because there was no occasion for them . the scripture no-where allows us to give any kind of worship to any creature , and therefore there was no need to distinguish between the kinds and degrees of worship . the most material thing that can be said in this cause is this : that when the scripture mentions this law of worshipping one god , it opposes it to the worship of the false gods of the heathens ; from whence some may conclude , that god forbade the worship only of these false gods. but we must consider , that the law is conceived in such general terms , as to exclude the worship of all beings besides the supreme god ; but it could not be thought , that god should at that time immediately apply this law against the worship of any other beings , but those which were at that time worshipped in the world . if god gives a law , which forbids the worship of all beings besides himself ; and particularly applies this law to prohibite the worship of all those gods which were then worshipped in the world , will any one in their wits hence conclude , that if the folly and superstition of men should set up a new race and generation of gods in after ages , that the worship of these new gods is not as well forbidden by this general law , as the worship of those gods which were worshipt at that time when this law was given ? if this were true , possibly pagan rome it self was not guilty of idolatry ; for most , if not all of their gods might be of a later date than the giving the law. 3. now since no such distinctions as these appear in scripture , it is impossible they should justifie the worship of saints and angels , which is so expresly forbidden by the law , if we will acknowledge them to be distinct beings from the supreme god ; for if they are not the supreme god , we must not worship them , for we must worship none but god. no distinctions can justifie us in this case , but such as god himself makes ; for otherwise it were easie to distinguish away any law of god. humane laws will admit of no distinctions , but such as they make themselves ; for a distinction does either confine and streighten , or enlarge the law , and he who has power to distinguish upon a law , has so far power to make it . if the law says , that we shall worship no other being besides god , and we have power ; if we have but wit enough , to invent some new distinctions , between the worship of good and bad spirits , between supreme and subordinate , absolute and relative worship , this makes a new law of it ; for it is one thing to say , thou shalt worship god only , and quite contrary to say , thou shalt worship god only and good spirits , god with a supreme and absolute , good spirits with a subordinate and relative worship . this i think is sufficient to shew , that we must admit of no distinctions upon a divine law , but what the scripture it self owns , and therefore since those distinctions , with which the church of rome justifies her worship of saints and angels , are no where to be found in scripture , they have no authority against an express law. 3. the next course the papists take to justifie their creature-worship , in contradiction to that law , which expresly commands us to worship none but god , is an appeal to such authorities , as they think sufficient to decide this matter . now i shall not say much to this , for i believe all mankind will acknowledge , that no authority less than divine , can repeal a divine law ; and therefore unless god himself , or such persons as act by a divine authority , have repealed this law , no other authority can do it . that christ and his apostles have not repealed this law , i have already proved , that the whole church in after ages had any authority to repeal this law , i desire them to prove . for the authority of the church , as to the essentials of faith and worship , is not the authority of law-givers , but of witnesses . the church never pretended in former ages to make or to repeal any divine laws , but to declare and testifie what the belief and practice of the primitive and apostolick churches was ; and it is unreasonable to think , that they should have any such authority ; for then christ and his apostles preached the gospel to little purpose , if it were in the power of the church to make a new gospel of it when they pleased . but indeed could it appear , that the apostles did teach the christians of that age , and the church in those ages , which immediately succeeded the apostles , did practice the worship of saints and angels , we should have reason to suspect , that we , and not they , are mistaken in the sense of that law , which commands us to worship none but god. but then none can be admitted as competent witnesses of this matter , but those who did immediately succeed the apostles , or conversed with apostolical men and churches . and thanks be to god , there is no appearance of creature worship in those ages , we dare appeal to the testimony of fathers and councils for above three hundred years ; and those who come after , come a little too late to be witnesses of what was done in the apostolick churches ; especially , when all the intermediate ages knew nothing of it . i shall not fill up this discourse with particular citations , which learned men know where to find ; since the roman doctors can find nothing in the writings of the first fathers to justifie the worship of saints and angels , and the protestant writers find a great deal in those ages against it . indeed at the latter end of the fourth century , some of the fathers used some rhetorical apostrophes to the saints and martyrs in their orations , which the church of rome interprets to be prayers to them ; but though other learned men have vindicated those passages so far , as to shew the vast difference between them , and solemn and formal invocations , which is not my business at this time , yet there are several things very well worth our observation towards the true stating of this matter . as , 1. that these fathers came too late to be witnesses of the apostolical practise , which they could know no otherwise , than we might know it , if there had been any such thing , viz. by the testimony and practise of the church , from the apostles till that time : this was no where pretended by them , that the invocation of saints had been the practise of the catholick church in all ages , and they could have no proof of this , unless they had better records of former times , than we have at this day , and such as contradicted all the records which we now have of the apostolick and primitive churches , and i believe few men will be so hardy , as to assert this ; and methinks there should be as few , who are so credulous as to believe it , and i am sure , there is no man living who is able to prove it . 2. nay , the particular sayings of these fathers , by which the romanists prove the invocation of saints , do not prove , that it was the judgment and practise of the church of that age . they no where say , that it was , and it does not appear to be so by any other records . let them shew me any council before , or in those times , when these fathers lived , that is in the fourth century , which decreed the worship of saints and angels . let them produce any publick offices of religion in those days , which allows this worship ; and if no such thing appears , those men must be very well prepared to believe this , who will without any other evidence judge of the practice of the church , only from some extravagant flights of poets and orators : and if even in those days , the worship of saints was not received into the publick offices of the church , methinks we may as well live without it still , and they must either grant , that these fathers , whose authority they alleadge , meant no such thing by these rhetorical flourishes , as they extract out of them , or else that they introduced a new and unknown worship into the christian church ; and then let them prove , that some few fathers of the fourth century , without the publick authority of the church , had authority enough of their own to change the object of worship , contrary as the church in former ages , believed , to an express divine law , which commands us to worship none but god. 3. nay , i further observe , that these fathers , whose authority is urged for the invocation of saints by the church of rome , do no-where dogmatically and positively assert the lawfulness of praying to saints and angels , and many fathers of the same age do positively deny the lawfulness of it , which is a plain argument , that it was not the judgement and practice of the church of that age , and a good reasonable presumptition , that these fathers never intended any such thing in what they said , how liable soever their words may be to be expounded to such a sense . gregory nazianzen , indeed in his book against julian the apostate , speaks to the soul of constantius , in this manner : hear o thou soul of great constantius ( if thou hast any sense of these things , ) &c. but will you call this a prayer to constantius ? does this father any where assert in plain terms that it is lawful to pray to saints departed ? a hundred such sayings as these , which are no prayers to saints , cannot prove the lawfulness of praying to saints against the constant doctrine of the fathers of that age. thus in his funeral oration for his sister gorgonia , he bespeaks her to this purpose , that if she knew what he was now a doing , and if holy souls did receive this favour from god to know such matters as these , that then she would kindly accept that oration which he made in her praise , instead of other funeral obsequies . is this a prayer to gorgonia to intercede for him with god ? by no means ! he onely desires if she heard what he said of her ( which he was not sure she did ) that she would take it kindly . whereas in that very age the fathers asserted , that we must pray onely to god , and therefore they define prayer by its relation to god ; that prayer is a request of some good things , made by devout souls to god , that it is a conference with god , that it is a request offered with supplication to god. which is a very imperfect definition of prayer , were it lawful to pray to any other being besides god. st. austin tells us , that when the names of the martyrs were rehearsed in their publick liturgies , it was not to invoke them , or pray to them , but onely for an honourable remembrance ; nay , he expresly tells us , that the worship of dead men , must be no part of our religion , for if they were pious men , they do not desire this kind of honour , but would have us worship god : honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem , non adorandi propter religionem , they are to be honoured for our imitation , not to be adored as an act of religion . the council of laodicea condemned the worship of angels ; and so does theodoret , oecumenius , and others of that age. it is notoriously known , that the arrians were condemned as guilty of idolatry for worshipping christ , whom they would not own to be the true god , though they owned him to be far exalted above all saints and angels , and to be as like to god , as it is possible for any creature to be : and those who upon these principles , condemned the worship of the most perfect and excellent creature , could never allow the worship of saints and angels . so that though the worship of saints and angels , did begin about this time to creep into the church , yet it was opposed by these pious and learned fathers , and condemned in the first and smallest appearances of it ; which shows , that this was no catholick doctrine and practice in that age , much less that it had been so from the apostles ; and i think , after this time there was no authority in the church to alter the object of worship , nor to justifie such an innovation as the worship of saints and angels , in opposition to the express law of god. the sum of this argument is this : since there is an express law against the worship of any other being besides the supreme god , the lord jehovah , which never was expresly repealed , whatever plausible reasons may be urged for the worship of saints and angels , they cannot justifie us in acting contrary to an express law of god. the end . errata . page 53. line 23. for repepealed , read repealed , p. 54. margin , for domini , r. dominum , p. 59. l. 30. for last r. least , a catalogue of books sold by abel swalle , at the vnicorn , at the west-end of st. paul's church-yard , 1685. a companion to the temple : or , a help to devotion , in the use of the common prayer . divided in the four parts . part 1. of morning and evening prayer . part. 2. of the litany , with the occasional prayers and thanksgivings . part. 3. of the communion office , with the offices of baptism , cateohism and comfirmation . part. 4. of the occasional offices , viz. matrimony , visitation of the sick ▪ &c. the whole being carefully corrected , and now put into one volume . by tho. comber , d. d. folio . forty sermons , whereof twenty one are now first published ; the greatest part of them preached before the king , and on solemn occasions . by rich. allestry , d. d. with an account of the authors life , in folio . the works of mr. abraham cowley , consisting of those which were formerly printed , and those designed for the press , and now published out of the authors original papers . the eighth edition , in folio . the second part of the works of mr. abraham cowley ; being what was written in his younger years , and now reprinted together . the fifth edition . the case of resistance of the supreme powers , stated and resolved , according to the doctrine of the holy scriptures . by william sherlock , d. d. in octavo . a vindication of the rights of ecclestastical authority ; being an answer to the first part of the protestant reconciler . by william sherlock , d. d. and master of the temple , in octavo . pet. dan. huetii de interpretatione libri 2. duo : quarum prior est , de optimo genere interpretandi : alter d● claris interpret ▪ &c. in octavo . the case of compelling men to the holy sacrament of the lord's supper considered . and authority vindicated in it , by the rules of the gospel , and from the common and popular objections against it . by the author of the charge of scandal , omitted in the late collection . l. coely lac●ant●i firmiani opera que extant , ad fidem ms ▪ s. recognita & commentariis ▪ illustrata , a tho. spark , a. m. oxonii e theatr. sheldoniano . a sermon preached before the king at white-hall , novemb. 23. 1684. by gilb. ironside , d. d. warden of wadham colledge in oxon , &c. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59820-e100 4. mat. 10. sect. 1. 2 col. 18. sect. 2. 4 matth. 10. 6 deutr. 13. 10 deutr. 20. 20 exod. 3. 6 deutr. 14. 70 jere. 11. stilling fleet●s defence of the discourse of idolatry . 4 luke 6. 12 deut. 13 , 14. 22 joshua . v. 16. 19. 22 , 23. 22 exod. 2● . 56 isai. 7. 2● . matth. 13. 1 king 8. 3 acts 1. 6 dan. 10. 55 psalm . 17. 9. dan. 21. 1 kings 8. 30. v. 35. v. 37. v. 39. v. 44. v. 48. 6. dan. 10. bu●torsii synag . jud. p. 222 65. psalm . 2. 23 joshua 7● 1 kings 18. 26. 20 ezek. 20. 10 deut 21. 19 isai. 18. 4● gen. 16. sect. 3. 13 deut. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. 19. john 7. 4 matth. 10. 1 rom. 21. v. 23. v. 25. 1 cor. 8. 5 , 6. 1 tim. 4. 1. see mr. joseph medes apostasie of the latter times . 5. mat. 17. 21. acts 21 , 22. 3. rom. 31. 8. isai. 20. 2 pet. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. 17. acts 10 , 11. 42. isai. 8. 4 gal. 5 , 6. 4 hebr. 16. 1 pet. 2 5 , 9. 14 joh. 13 , 15. 16 joh. 24. 26 , 27. 10 hebr. 19 , 20 , 21 , 22. 2 joh. 19. 21. 1 joh. 14. 2 coloss. 3. 1 joh. 2. 1 , 2. 1. heb. 12. 28. mat. 20. * bonum atque utile esse suppliciter sanctos invocare , & ab beneficia impetranda ● deo per silium ejus jesum christum domini nostrum , qui solus noster redemptor & salvator est , ad eorum orationes opem auxilium ▪ confugere . can● . trin. 16. 25. de invocat . 20 exod. 10 deut. 20. 4 matth 10. 13 deuter. 6 , 7. &c. 6 deut. 13 , 14. 13 deut. 7. see bishops ushers answer to the jesuits challenge . greg. naz. orat. 2. in gorg. basil , orat. in julit . martyr . greg. naz. orat . 1. de oratione . chrys. in genes . homil. 30. aug. de civit dei , l. 22. cap. 10. id. de vera religione , cap. 55 a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity in answer to the animadversions upon his vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity : with a post-script relating to the calm discourse of a trinity in the godhead : in a letter to a friend. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1694 approx. 198 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 58 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59810 wing s3282 estc r33885 13590739 ocm 13590739 100659 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59810) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 100659) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1048:23) a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity in answer to the animadversions upon his vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity : with a post-script relating to the calm discourse of a trinity in the godhead : in a letter to a friend. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 112 p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : mdcxciv [1694] half title reads: a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity, &c. errata on p. [2] reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng trinity -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 judith siefring sampled and proofread 2004-02 judith siefring text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion licens'd . errata . page 9. line 3. for usual , r. unusual , p. 21. l. 8. f. any r. an . l. 24. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 22. marg. l. 9. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 11. p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity , in answer to the animadversions upon his vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity . with a post-script relating to the calm discourse of a trinity in the godhead . in a letter to a friend . london , printed for w. rogers , at the sun , over-against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street , mdcxciv . a defence of dr. sherlock's notion of a trinity in unity , &c. sir , i had heard very often , and very much of the animadversions upon dr. sherlock's vindication of the doctrine of the trinity ; but i had also heard such a character of it , which both friends and foes agreed in , that i could not perswade my self to read it ; for a satyrical wit is no diversion to a wise man , except in a play , and where it hurts no body ; and i could never think , that true divine wisdom rests on an ill-natured and perverse spirit . but your late letter awakened me ; for i could not but think that book , whatever other faults it had , must be worth reading , which you could think worth answering , and seem so impatiently to expect , when the dean , or some body for him , should answer it . as for the dean , he has given testimony to the world , that he has not been idle all this while , but much better employed : and , to speak my mind freely , i don't see how he is obliged to answer , unless you think a man bound to answer ballads and lampoons ; for he is as little concerned in it as you are ; that , had it not been for the title page , and some particular expressions , which the dean uses , and the animadverter furiously opposes , without understanding them , i could never have guessed against whom he had writ . i had , a little before , read over the vindication , and the notions lay fresh and easie in my mind , but as soon as i dipt into the animadversions they were all on a sudden confounded , and put into disorder . the animadverter disputes earnestly , subtilly , and triumphantly , opens his whole armory of metaphysicks , and because they are thin , airy weapons , which do no great execution , he points them with wit and satyr , to make them pierce the deeper . it was the saying of a very witty man , that he who writes lies down , but it is to be supposed , he forgot it when he made the experiment himself : but i must say this for the animadverter , that he is as fair an adversary , upon this account as one would desire ; as he spares not those who lie down before him , so he very civilly takes his turn , and lays himself as fairly open to satyrical wit , if the dean , or any of his friends , would condescend to exercise it upon him . when he ventures upon any thing like wit , he always makes himself a jest , and never so much insults and triumphs over an enemy , as where he is certainly himself in the wrong : i will not entertain you with particular remarks of this nature ; read over his book again , if you have the patience , and see if this be not true . but , sir , as well as i love you , i 'm resolved to humble you , for giving me the trouble of reading this book , not by giving a particular answer to the whole , which would be too unmerciful , but by convincing you , that it needed no answer ; and to let you see what a trifling author you have either admired or feared , will prove some little humiliation to you : but i shall do it in short , to save my self , as much as i can , the pains of writing , and you of reading , and therefore shall consider only the main points of dispute between the animadverter and the dean , concerning self-consciousness , mutual-consciousness , and three eternal and infinite minds . he rages furiously against the dean , according to his custom , in a whole long chapter , for discarding those good old terms of essence , substance , nature , &c. for his own new-invented terms of self-consciousness , and mutual-consciousness ; that any one who reads it , would believe , that the dean would not allow god to be a real substantial being , or to have any nature or essence ; whereas he no where denies , that these are very good words , and not only useful but necessary in some cases , but yet very apt to confound us with material and sensible images , when we go about to form a notion and idea of god. we know not the naked substance or essence of any thing , not of matter , much less of spirit , and much less of an infinite and eternal spirit ; and therefore , as we can form no other idea of matter , but by its sensible qualities , so we can form no idea of a spirit , but by such attributes and powers as are proper and essential to a spirit ; which is so far from being a novelty , that it is to think and speak with all the considering part of mankind ; but let this pass , which the dean is no more concerned in , were his words and sence truly and candidly represented , than the best christian writers , both ancient and modern , as were easily shewn , did i not fear the animadverter , should he know it , would rail at them all for his sake ; for there is not a more capital crime , than to speak any thing well of the dean , or to say any thing that he says . that which the dean is more immediately concerned in , is the idea he has endeavour'd to give us of a trinity in unity ; and all that he positively asserts of it is , that it is a possible and intelligible notion , and no other in sence and substance , than what the ancient fathers made use of to represent this great mystery by , though expressed in other terms . to prepare you to judge equally in this cause , you must remember , that the substance of the article is not concerned in it ; here is no dispute about a trinity in unity : this the dean asserts in as full and ample words as the athanasian creed it self , which some trinitarians themselves boggle at , but without reason as he thinks ; for whoever will acknowledge three persons in the godhead , each of which distinctly considered is god , and has all the perfections of the divine nature , and yet are all three but one god , must , as he undertakes to prove , own the terms and explications of that creed . he has been careful to preserve a real , not a meerly nominal , distinction of persons , and yet asserts the unity of the godhead in as high terms , as ever the schools did , even a natural numerical unity ; and there is no reason to suspect he dissembles his sence , for then he might have concealed it too , having no other obligation to engage in this cause , but a zeal for this truly ancient , catholick , and apostolick faith. since then here is no innovation made in the faith , nor any alteration of the least term in it , what is the fault ? truly no other than what the best writers , both ancient and modern , have been equally guilty of , if it can be called a fault . those who are acquainted with this controversie , know , that the great objection against the catholick faith of the trinity in unity , is not its contradiction to any plain and express principle of reason , but the unconceiveabless of it : it is certain , that three should be one , and one three , upon different accounts , is no contradiction , and then what principle of reason does a trinity in unity contradict ? but we must grant , that we have no perfect example of any such union in nature , and therefore cannot frame a compleat and positive notion and idea of such an union : and this some men miscall contradicting reason ; but if every thing , which we have no positive idea of , must be allowed to contradict reason , we shall find contradictions enow ; and which is worse , must be forced to believe contradictions ; for we must confess a great many things to be true , which we have no idea of , and cannot conceive how they should be . but yet since the unconceivableness of this union is the great difficulty , and great objection ( though in truth it is no objection at all to any one , who considers , how unconceivable and incomprehensible the divine nature is ) the ancient fathers endeavoured to help our conception and imagination of this by some sensible images : such as the co-essentiality and union of the sun , its light and splendor , of a fountain and its streams , a tree and its branches , as the dean has observed , and as every one knows , whoever looked into the fathers . but these are material images , and may serve for allusions , and to render the notion of a trinity in unity possible and credible ; when we see some faint resemblances of it in the material world ; but they cannot help us to conceive , what kind of union there is between the divine persons , the union of matter and spirit differing as much as matter and spirit do , which have no likeness or resemblance to each other . and therefore the dean was certainly so far in the right , to seek for some image and resemblance of this mysterious union in the unity of a spirit : for a mind and spirit is the truest image of god , that is in nature ; for god is a spirit , and therefore it is more likely to find some image of the unity of the godhead in a spirit , than in matter , and yet we know nothing of a spirit , but what we feel in our selves , and can philosophize no farther about it ; for as mr. lock has truly observed , we can form no idea but either from external impressions , or internal sensations ; and therefore we can know no more of the unity of a spirit neither , than what we feel . now whoever considers , how he knows himself to be a distinct and separate person from all other men , will be able to resolve it into nothing else but internal sensation , which the dean , not improperly ; calls self-consciousness . the unity of matter consists in the unity of its parts , and we can see , how far its unity extends , and where it ends ; for its unity extends , as far as the continuity of its parts extends , and ends , where that ends : but we know of no extension or parts in a spirit , and therefore the very nature of a spirit consisting in internal and vital sensation , the unity of a spirit consists in the continuity ( if i may so speak ) of its sensation : so far as a man feels himself , or is self-conscious , so far he is one entire person ; where this self-conscious sensation ends , he becomes a distinct and separate person : for it is a self-evident proposition , that in an intelligent self-conscious being , self can reach no farther than he feels himself . and i would desire any thinking man to tell me , how he knows himself to be a distinct and separate person from all other men , but only by this , that he feels his own thoughts , volitions and passions , pains and pleasures , but feels nothing of all this in other men. i have been forced to explain this more at large , to help the animadverter to some conception of it , who i find understood not one word of it , as will appear presently . but to proceed . the dean having thus observed , that the unity of a single mind or spirit consists in such a natural self conscious sensation , this led him on to that other notion of a mutual-consciousness , which may be between three distinct spirits , and make them naturally one , as much as three can be one. for if a natural self-conscious sensation makes a spirit one with it self , why should not a natural mutual-conscious sensation unite three into one ? for if natural unity extends as far as conscious sensation , then if conscious sensation extends to three , why should not these three be acknowledged to be naturally one ? that as a natural self-consciousness makes one natural person , so natural mutual-consciousness should make a naral trinity in unity ? for my part , i believe it is much easier to cry down this representation as a novelty , than to offer one word of sence against it , or to make any other representation of this mystery , with so fair and natural an appearance of truth and reason : for this mutual-consciousness being a natural sensation , is not a meer moral , but a natural union , not a cabal of gods , as a socinian writer prophanely speaks , but one supream natural deity . this indeed forced the dean to speak of the three infinite and eternal persons in the godhead , under the character of three infinite and eternal minds , for this conscious sensation , whether self-consciousness or mutual-consciousness , can belong only to minds ; and if every person in the trinity , considered as a distinct person , be not a distinct , infinite , and eternal mind , there is , i confess , an end of the dean's notion , but then , i doubt , there will be an end of a trinity of persons also , and we shall have nothing left but a trinity of modes and postures , and names , not in the unity of the godhead , but in the unity of one person who is the whole deity and godhead . but if every distinct person in the godhead considered as distinct , be an infinite and eternal mind , as it must be , if every distinct person be god , unless any thing else than an infinite mind can be god , though it be an usual way of speaking to call them three eternal minds , yet there is no heresie in it , nor any intended by it , as will appear before we part . nor ought this to pass for meer fancy and invention ; for as the dean has shewn the phrases and expressions of scripture , whereby the union between father , son , and holy ghost is described , do naturally represent this conscious union , and cannot well be understood without it ; for that the father should be in the son , and the son in the father , so as perfectly to comprehend and be comprehended , with several like expressions , is made very possible and intelligible by a mutual conscious sensation , but nothing else will afford us any conception of it . now suppose , that after all these fair appearances , a spiteful wit could start some difficulties in this notion , ( as it is not to be expected , that in a matter of so high a nature , we should have such a perfect comprehension of it , as to leave no difficulties unexplained ) ought not the dean to have met with as fair quarter , as other writers have done in the same cause ? has he not given us as intelligible a representation ( and it is intended for no more ) of a trinity in unity , as the sun , its light and splendor , a tree and its branches , a fountain and its streams , or a mathematical cube ? are not all these accounts , much more chargeable with tritheism or sabellianism ? are not the sun , its light and splendor , as much three , but not so much one , as three conscious minds ? can there be a trinity in unity , unless there be a real and substantial trinity ? what work could our animadverter have made with the ancient fathers , and some late writers , had he thought fit to have treated them as he has done dr. sherlock ? but it is in vain to expostulate , when the man , not his notions , is in fault ; and the only comfort in such cases is , that malice is as blind as love , and so it has happened to the animadverter , as i shall make appear . but before i particularly answer the animadverter's arguments against self-consciousness and mutual-consciousness , and three eternal minds , it will be necessary to discourse something in general concerning a trinity in unity , and the words whereby to express it . for a trinity in unity is such a distinction , and such an union , as is peculiar to the godhead ; and though there are some faint resemblances of it in nature , yet nature has nothing like it , and then it is impossible we should have any words that can adaequately express it . it may help to allay the heat and virulence of disputation among those who heartily believe a trinity in unity , ( as i hope the animadverter does ) to discourse this matter plainly and briefly . the scriptures , both of the old and new testament , every where assure us , that there is but one god ; and not to take notice now of the more obscure intimations of a trinity in the old testament , christ in his gospel , and his apostles after him , have ascribed the name and character and incommunicable attributes of god to three , father , son , and holy ghost ; we are by the command of christ baptized in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost , and we are blessed in their name , the grace of our lord iesus christ , and the love of god , and the communion of the holy ghost , be with you all amen . christ declares himself to be the son of god , and to be one with his father ; and st. iohn tells us , that he is that word , which was in the beginning , and was with god , and was god. that by him all things were made , and without him was not any thing made , that was made . and the like divine attributes are ascribed to the holy spirit ; and therefore , though there be one god , we must acknowledge , if we believe the gospel , that there are three , father , son , and holy ghost in the unity of the godhead . this is the true simplicity of the christian faith , to believe father , son , and holy ghost to be one god ; that the father is not the son , nor the holy ghost ; that the son is not the father , nor the holy ghost ; that the holy ghost is not the father nor the son ; but that the father is god , the son god , and the holy ghost god ; and all three but one god. now one would have thought , that the authority of christ and his apostles , had been a sufficient foundation for this faith , without any farther enquiries ; but the devil very well knew , that the whole oeconomy of our salvation by christ , and consequently the whole christian religion , depended on this faith ; and that the curiosity of mankind , the weakness of their understandings , and their vain presumption in measuring god himself by their narrow conceits , might easily be managed to unsettle these foundations ; and therefore here he made some of his earliest attempts . the ancient christians , before this was made a matter of dispute , contented themselves with professing their faith , in one god , father , son , and holy ghost ; but when heresies in several ages of the church were broached , and some , to secure the unity of the godhead , made father , son , and holy ghost no more than three different names , belonging to three different appearances and manifestations of the same one god ; others ( if they were not misunderstood or misrepresented ) did not only distinguish , but separate father , son , and holy ghost , and made three absolute independent gods of them , and others denied the divinity of the son , and of the holy ghost , which preserved the unity of the godhead , by reducing the only begotten son , and the holy spirit of god into the rank of creatures : this forced the orthodox fathers into a dispute , where they wanted words adaequately to express their sence . the doctrine , which they constantly affirmed and defended against hereticks of all sorts , was this ; that father , son , and holy ghost , were three , as really distinct from one another , as three humane persons are , and that each of them is true and perfect god , and has all divine perfections in himself , and yet that all three are essentially one , and the same eternal and infinite god. but when they came to say , what these three are , and how they are one , by what name to call this wonderful distinction and unity , here words failed them , as of necessity they must , because there is no such distinction and unity in nature , and therefore no name for it . for the names of distinction in ordinary use do not only distinguish , but divide and separate their subjects , and the names of unity signifie singularity also , which admits no number . and this has occasioned most of our cavilling disputes , and raised all the noise and clamour about absurdities and contradictions in the doctrine of the trinity ; and there is no help for this , if men will ask such questions , as the proper and natural signification of words cannot reach the mystery of , and not allow such a theological use of words , as a little alters their natural signification , to accommodate them to represent some divine and supernatural mysteries . thus for example : a person signifies a reasonable understanding being , which actually subsists , and is distinguished from all other beings of the same kind ; but then it signifies more than this , not only a distinct , but a separate subsistence ; for so all created persons are , not only distinct , but separate beings , who have a compleat , absolute , independant subsistence of their own . but when we use this word person in a theological sense , as applied to father , son , and holy ghost in the ever-blessed trinity , we only use it in the sense of distinction , not of separation , to signifie , that each of these holy three has all the perfections of infinite mind and understanding , distinctly , as other persons have , but not separately , as created persons have . and since there are three in the unity of the godhead thus really distinguished from each other without a separation , i know no reason why we may not use this word person in this limited sence , to signifie three , who are as really distinct from each other , but not separated , as other persons are : for when it is known in what sence we use the word , when applied to the trinity , it is trifling to dispute against three persons in the godhead , from the signification of the word person , when applied to creatures ; and yet this is the sum total of all the socinian arguments against three persons , and one god , and of all the contradictions they pretend to find in it . three divine persons , they say , must be three absolute , compleat , independent gods , because three humane persons are three compleat , absolute men , who subsist independently on each other ; and therefore it is as manifest a contradiction , that three divine persons should be but one god , as it is , that three humane persons should be but one man ; which signifies nothing , if we do not use the word person in the same sense ( and all the world knows we do not ) when applied to the holy trinity , as when applied to men : for it is meer trifling to dispute against us from such a sense of the word , as we reject , and declare to all men that we do reject . the most that can be made of this is , that we use an improper word , and ought not to call father , son , and holy ghost three persons , because that is to make three gods of them , as peter , iames , and iohn are three men : but when the importunity of hereticks forces us to find names for that , which nothing in created nature can answer , if they will not give us leave , we must take leave to use the properest names we can find , though not every way proper ; and such the name of person is , when applied to the persons of the trinity : for all that this word person signifies , except a separate subsistence , belongs to the persons of the holy trinity . an intelligent nature , and all personal acts of understanding , volition , &c. do as distinctly belong to each person , as to any humane persons ; and it is this makes a person , not a separate subsistence , which belongs only to finite and created , not to infinite and eternal persons : and therefore the word person is properly enough applied to the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , because all that is essential to the notion of a person , belongs to each of them , though they do not subsist separately , as humane persons do . but yet men are very apt to judge of the divine persons , by what they see in humane persons , and to fancy these three persons in the deity to be like three men , who have the same humane nature , but subsist and act separately , and are one only by a moral consent and unity : and therefore to prevent this imagination , which betrays men to down right tritheism , others , without rejecting the name person , have thought fit more expresly to signifie what kind of persons they are , by calling them three subsistences ; that is , three who have all the perfections of the godhead , and do really and distinctly subsist ; for else they could not be three subsistences , but yet do not subsist as separate persons , but are essentially one god : for subsistence does not necessarily infer separation , for three may distinctly subsist , though essentially and inseparably united . and this is the difference between person and subsistence , that according to the most usual acceptation of the word person , which it is hard to correct , ( for that idea which in common use belongs to a word , is apt to stick close to it , ) three persons , signifie three who subsist apart , and as separately as three men do : but three subsistences are three persons who subsist distinctly without separation : for subsistence necessarily signifies a distinct and real , but not a separate subsistence ; for if three really subsist without a separation , they are three real subsistences ; and therefore it is in vain for the socinians to dispute against three persons , that they must be three separate persons , unless they can prove that they cannot really subsist without a separation , which none of them ever yet undertook ; and yet all their talk of contradictions and three gods , vanishes without it . what i have said of the word person , is with equal reason applicable to the word mind . the animadverter objects against the dean , that a mind or spirit is an absolute being , nature , or substance ; and i grant it is so in the common use of the word , as apapplied to created minds and spirits ; but so is person also , as much as mind ; and if we allow of a theological use of the word person , why not of mind too ? to signifie an intelligent subsistence , which is a mind too , but not a separate mind , and therefore not such an absolute being , nature , and substance , as a created mind is . and when the dean speaks of three distinct infinite minds , which are essentially and inseparably one , he could mean nothing more than three distinct intelligent , but not separate subsistences : and he needs ask no other pardon , but for the use of a word , which the schools have not consecrated . but there is greater want of words to express the unity and oneness of the divine nature and essence , than the distinction of persons . the nicene fathers in their controversie with arius , of which , ( if there be occasion more hereafter , ) who denied the divinity of christ , and made him no more than a creature , though as perfect , and as like to god as a creature could be , used the word homoousion , which was not first invented by them to serve that turn , but was used either in words or sence by the anti-nicene fathers , as the learned dr. bull has proved . but what is this homoousion , or sameness of nature ? this is the difficulty ; for there is not any one word to explain it by , which adequately answers the full notion of the divine unity ; and that is no great wonder , because there is no perfect example in nature of any such unity . they very often explain this by examples of a specifick unity : that the father and son have the same nature , as abraham and isaac have ; and therefore they call men , who have the same specifick nature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so they do the sun , its light , and splendor , the tree and its branches , &c. and this is in part a true representation of the homoousiotes , or sameness of nature in the persons of the holy trinity ; for if there be not that which perfectly answers , though it much out-does also a specifick sameness and unity , their nature cannot be the same , and accordingly they prove against the arians , that christ cannot be the son of god , if he be not homoousios to his father , because every father begets a son in his own nature . but yet we must not say , nor did they intend it so , that the unity of nature between father , and son , and holy spirit , is a meer specifick sameness . for we must not make the divine nature a species , which is common to more individuals ; for then the unity of the divine nature is no more than a logical notion , which is the only unity of a specifick nature ; whereas god is essentially and numerically one . the three divine persons are not individuals of the same nature ; for then they must have three individual subsisting divine natures , which would as much make three gods , as three individual subsisting humane natures make three men : the divine nature would then be communicated by multiplication , as humane nature is , which must multiply gods as well as men. is this sameness of nature then one single or singular nature , which has but one single subsistence ? this the fathers utterly deny , as being the heresie of sabellius , and leaving no other trinity of persons in the godhead , but a trinity of names . the divine nature is one individual nature ( as you shall hear presently ) but not one single nature ; for one single nature can be but one person , whether in god or man. i shall not dispute this at large now ; i may find a properer place for it , but i shall only observe at present , that if there be but one only single nature in god , the whole trinity must be incarnate in the incarnation of christ , as sabellius asserted : for the divine nature was incarnate in christ , he was perfect god , and perfect man , and if there was but one single subsisting nature in all three persons , this one single divine nature was incarnate ; and therefore the father and the holy ghost , who are this one single divine nature , as well as the son , must be as much incarnate as the son was ; for though it were possible to conceive three divine persons in one single divine nature , yet it is absolutely impossible , that this one single nature should be incarnate , and not the divine nature of all the three persons be incarnate , when it is but one single nature in all : and it is absurd to say , that the one divine nature of father , son , and holy ghost is incarnate , and yet none but the son incarnate . this is what victorinus afer teaches : non oportet dicere , nec fas est dicere , unam esse substantiam , tres esse personas ; si enim ista ipsa substantia & egit omnia , & passa est , patripassiani & nos ; absit . bibl. patr. tom. 4. we ought not , says he , to say , nor is it lawful to say , that there is but one substance , ( that is , one single subsisting nature , ) and three persons ; for if this same substance did and suffered all , we also must be patripassians ; which god forbid ; that is , we must say , that the father suffered as well as the son , as sabellius taught . it is such animadversions , and such unintelligible notions , which make the christian faith ridiculed by atheists and hereticks . but the great difficulty is , how to conceive one individual nature , which is numerically one , but is not one single nature : and yet thus it must be , if there be a trinity in unity , three real hypostases and subsistences in one divine nature ; which the counterfeit areopagite , but an ancient and learned writer , calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a monad or unite , which thrice subsists , or has three subsistences ; whereas it is demonstrable , that one single nature can subsist but once , or have but one subsistence : and therefore the ancient fathers owned , that father and son is alius & alius , and that god is solus , but non solitarius . that i may be the better understood , and give you some imperfect conception of this great and venerable mystery , let us contemplate this individual identity and sameness of nature , in a man and his image . a man sees his own image in a glass , the exact proportion of his body , all the lines and features in his face , all his own motions , and postures , whether he smiles or cries , sits or stands . now suppose this were a real , living image , as exactly himself , both in body and mind , as the image in the glass represents his external shape and features : that this living image was coeval with himself , and did subsist as necessarily as he did , and yet as much depend upon him , as the image in the glass does on his face and presence : that this living image did understand and will in the same act with himself , and repeat all his motions and passions , and sensations , as his face in the glass does : that this living image knew himself to be but an image , distinct from the original , but the same with him ; and that the man whose image it is , knew himself to be distinct from his image , but yet the same ; and that the man and his living image felt each other , and all that is in each other , in themselves . now i desire to know by what name you would call such a living image ? you cannot deny him to be a man , because he has humane nature in himself , and distinctly in himself , as compleatly and perfectly as the man has , whose image he is , or else he were not a compleat and perfect image : and yet you cannot say that he is a distinct man , or another man , a second man , for he is but an image , and the very same with the original , and therefore they are both but one man ; naturally one , not as two other men are , who may be morally one , by a consent and agreement of understanding and will , but by an individual unity and sameness of nature and will : and yet you must confess them to be two , though not two men , not two humane natures ; for the man is not his image , nor the image the man , whose image he is : but if you will call the man a person , as certainly every man is a person , then his image , which is the same with himself , must be a person too , and not the same person : so that here are two distinct persons subsisting in one individual nature , not multiplied , but repeated in its image . there is indeed no such living image as this in created nature ; but yet this is the true nature of any image , and gives us an intelligible conception of the unity of nature in a plurality of persons . and this is the plain account of the essential unity between god the father , and god the son. christ is expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the image of god , 2 cor. 4. 4. and col. 1. 15. and said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the form of god , phil. 2. 6. and to be the brightness of his glory , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the express character and image of his person . and because there are several sorts of images , the ancient fathers declare what kind of image christ is of god the father ; that he is not a dead picture , nor a meer reflection in a glass , but is a living image of the living god. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as gregory nazianzen speaks . deum viventis dei vivam imaginem , as st. hilary tells us , that christ is god , the living image of the living god. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as damascen speaks , that the son is the living , natural , invariable image of the invisible god ; having the whole father in himself , and being upon all accounts identically the same with him , excepting the principle and cause of being ; that is , that he is begotten eternally of the father , but the father is unbegotten . but then , though he be the son , and the begotten image of the father , he is not his image meerly as other sons are the images of their fathers , who , though they partake of the same specifick nature , may be very unlike them , and are not the same ; but as gregory nazianzen tells us in the place above-cited , christ is the living image of the living father , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : but a more invariable image than seth is of adam , or any child of his father ; for the nature of such simple and unmixt things , as an image is , is not to be partly like , and partly unlike , ( as children are to their parents , ) but that the whole represents the whole , as the impression does the seal , and rather to be the same , than to be like . but st. gregory nyssen gives us the most exact description of christ's being * the living image of his father , of his will , and of his goodness , which , he says , is just as if a man saw himself in a glass ; for the image in the glass does in every thing conform it self to its prototype ; the face which looks in the glass , being the cause of the face which is seen there ; and therefore the image in the glass neither moves , nor inclines it self of its own accord , but as its prototype moves or inclines , but always moves with it . thus we say , the lord christ , the image of the invisible god , is immediately and instantly affected together with his father . does the father will any thing ? the son also , who is in the father , knows the father's will , or rather , is the father's will. whether this be not the dean's mutual consciousness , which must of necessity be between a living image and its prototype , or that whereof it is the image , and is the most natural and inseparable union of all , let any man judge . it were easie to fill the margin with such quotations as these , as you who are conversant in the fathers , very well know ; but i shall only farther observe at present , that the fathers made use of this notion of the son 's being the living image of god his father , both in their disputes against the arians and sabellians . they proved from hence against the arians , that the son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the same nature with his father , which is a plain and necessary consequence , and needs no proof ; for if the father and the son be the same , as a prototype and his image , there can be no diversity of nature between them . thus st. hilary , st. basil , st. cyril , st. ambrose , st. athanasius , greg. nyssen , st. austin , and all the fathers who were concerned in the arian controversie , reason at large . and thus they proved against the sabellians , that god was not one single person , distinguished only by three names ; because the son is the living subsisting image of the father , and the image and the prototype cannot be the same , but must be two ; no man is his own image , nor is an image the image of it self . this is so self-evident , and so frequently occurs in the ancient writers , that i shall not detain you with particular quotations at present . this real distinction of three in the same individual numerical nature , the ancients expressed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : that the same one individual nature subsists thrice , in three real subsistences , not by multiplying , but only by repeating it self . as a man and his living image would be two real subsistences , but not two men , nor two humane natures , but the same man and the same nature subsisting twice in two different manners , not like two men , but as the prototype and the image , which are really and distinctly two , and yet but one man. thus father , son , and holy ghost are really three , but have the same individual nature , and are the same one god , and differ only in their manner of subsisting ; that the same divine nature subsists originally in the father , and subsists again in the son , as in a living image of the father , and subsists a third time in the holy ghost by an eternal procession from father and son , in eternal , living substantial love. in this sence the ancients understood the word subsistence , not in the abstract , as some modern school-men do , and as the animadverter seems to do , if i understand him , or he understands himself ; but in the concrete , for that which does really and actually subsist ; which does éxstare , and is called by them extantia and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and this is very intelligible , that there are three real subsistences , or three that really subsist in the numerical and individual unity of the divine nature . but to talk of three subsistences in the abstract without three that subsist , or of one single nature , which has three subsistences , when it is impossible , that in singularity there can be more than one subsistence , is too fine and metaphysical for me , and i envy no man that can understand it . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the greeks is , res subsistens & substantiva , as petavius proves ; a subsisting and substantial thing : and st. ambrose abhors the thoughts , that the son should not be a substantial son , who gives substance to other things ; non esse filium insubstantivum , qui aliis dedit habere substantiam : and facundus tells us , that these words , person , and subsistence , were used by the fathers in opposition to the sabellian heresie ; and therefore must signifie three that did really and substantially subsist ; as st. hilary teaches , non unum esse subsistentem , sed unam substantiam non differentem ; that there is not one who subsists , but one substance without any diversity ; that is , in three different subsistencies . there could not have been more proper words thought on to represent a trinity in unity , than three subsistencies in one individual nature , which differ in nothing from each other , but in their different manner of subsistence . for it is certain here are three different kinds of subsistence , which are not to be found in any one thing in the world besides . nothing else has any more than one real subsistence ; for every being in nature besides is singular , or has but one single subsistence . every man and angel is a single particular creature , subsists singly and separately by it self , and is singly one ; but if there be a trinity in unity , the same divine nature must subsist wholly , entirely , and substantially in three , but in a different manner to make them three . and it is as certain , that the father and the son , though they have the very same nature , yet subsist in a very different manner , the father as original mind , the son as the perfect , living , substantial image of the father , which is as different as the subsistence of the prototype and the image ; and every one will grant , that a man and his image , though it were a living substantial image , have a very different subsistence ; for the image has its whole subsistence in dependance on its prototype ; the man subsists by himself , and gives subsistence to his image ; and the same we must conceive of the subsistence of the holy spirit , though we have not so apt a similitude to represent it by . and if we must call the three in the holy trinity , by any other name than father , son , and holy ghost , three subsistences is liable to the least cavil , and does most properly express their general character ; for they are but one divinity , or one divine nature subsisting wholly and entirely three times , without multiplication , as a man is not multiplied but repeated in his image . all other names in their proper and usual sence , signifie an absolute , compleat , independent being , such as nature , essence , substance , god : and therefore though each divine person have a natural , essential , substantial subsistence , and be true and real god ; yet we must not say , that there are three divine natures , essences , substances , or three gods ; because though the whole divine nature , essence , subsists in three , yet it is but one and the same in all ; and tho' god be the most absolute , compleat , independant being , and the son be god , and the holy ghost god , yet neither the son , nor the holy ghost can be said to be an absolute , compleat , independant god , because father , son , and holy ghost are but one god ; neither of which subsist absolutely , compleatly , independently ; that is , without each other ; which is all that is meant by an absolute , compleat , independent subsistence , that they can subsist apart without each other ; but the father can no more subsist without the son , than the son without the father ; nor the holy spirit without father and son ; nor father and son without the holy spirit ; as a natural and necessary image cannot subsist without its prototype , nor the prototype without its image , which is essential to it ; so that they are but one absolute , compleat , independent deity , though the three divine subsistences in the godhead subsist in a mutual respect , and a relative dependance on each other . and this , i suppose , is what the schools mean , when they call the three divine persons , three relations , or three relatives ; for there must be three real subsisting relatives , if there be three relations ; for one subsistence cannot be the subject of three relations , no more than one and the same man can be related to himself as father and son. but then the father , and son , and holy spirit are such relations , as there is no example of in created nature ; for their relation to each other is not a meer external respect and denomination , such as absolute independant beings have to each other , but their very nature and subsistence , as father , son , and holy ghost , is relative . though the father be eternal original mind , yet it is essential to this eternal mind to beget his own living substantial image ; and therefore this eternal mind is naturally and essentially related to his image : and i need not tell you , that the very nature and subsistence of an image is wholly relative ; a natural and essential image subsists as necessarily as the prototype , but its nature is wholly relative . thus father , son , and holy ghost have the same common nature ; not common as a generical or specifick nature , which is only a logical notion , but as one individual nature , really and actually subsisting in each , without any other difference than their different manner of subsistence , and their different relations , as a man and his living image , have the same individual nature common to both , and differ only in their manner of subsistence and relations ; that is , as the prototype and its living image differ . and this i think gives us an intelligible account of a trinity in unity in the most orthodox language of fathers and schools . this shews us , that the son , and holy spirit , are not divine emanations from the father , as is represented in the platonick triad : for though the eternal generation and procession be such mysteries , as we cannot comprehend , nor frame any idea or conception of , yet we know that an image is not an emanation , but a reflextion ; and therefore is wholly and entirely the same with the prototype , which no emanation can be ; for the whole cannot be an emanation : an emanation indeed is of the same substance , and is specifically the same ; and in this sence homoousios ; but it multiplies natures and substances , and is not individually and identically the same as the prototype and its image ; and therefore the fathers declare , that the eternal generation of the son is not by abscission and passion , but think the aptest representation of it in nature , ( though that is very different ) is by splendor and brightness , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the out-shining of the deity ; and when they call the holy spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is not in the sence of emanation , but of the mysterious procession . this also shews us , that this holy trinity is not three divine attributes , such as wisdom , power , and goodness ; for they are all three the very same with each other , the same wisdom , goodness , and power , and therefore not three parts or attributes of the same deity , but each is the whole , as a prototype , and its living image is . and this shews , that though the son be true and perfect god , as the father is , yet the son can never be a father , because his nature and subsistence as a son is wholly relative ; and a son , whose nature and subsistence is relative , is necessarily and essentially a son , but can never be a father , no more than the image can beget its prototype . and this gives a plain account , why our saviour calls god , not only his father , but his god , and the only true god , and acknowledges , that he receives all from his father , and , that his father is greater than he is ; though he have the very same nature , and with respect to his nature is equal in power and glory ; for this is the true difference between the prototype and the image , though their nature be the same . had a man a living substantial image , perfectly the same with himself , as god has , the image must thus speak of his prototype , as the son of god speaks of his father . he must acknowledge that the prototype is his man , for he is only the image of the man ; and were there only one man in the world , as there is but one god , he must acknowledge the prototype to be the only true man ; for though the living image would be a true man also , yet he is not originally man , but man of man , a man only by relation and participation with its prototype ; and therefore the prototype is greater than its image , and the image receives all from the prototype , depends on it , and subsists and lives in and by it , as the son acknowledges , that he lives by the father , iohn 6. 57. this is manifestly the language of scripture and fathers concerning the son of god , his living and substantial image ; and i hope you see , that this is proper and peculiar only to a living subsisting image ; and can be applied to nothing else , but is the only proper way that we can speak of such an image , or that such an image can speak of it self ; this is intelligible , though the mystery of this eternal living image is inconceivable . this i suppose is what the dean meant ; when he said , that some tolerable account might be given of the terms and distinctions of the schools ; and i believe you begin to see , that this representation i have now made of this venerable mystery , will contribute very much to the better understanding both of the fathers and of the schools , as may appear more hereafter ; but at present i shall only shew you , that this is the true representation of the dean's notion of a trinity in unity . the dean does professedly teach , that the three persons or subsistences in the ever blessed trinity , are three real substantial subsistences , each of which has entirely all the perfections of the divine nature ; divine wisdom , power , and goodness ; and therefore each of them is eternal , infinite mind , as distinct from each other , as any other three persons ; and this i believe he will no more recant , than he will renounce a trinity ; for all the wit of man can't find a medium between a substantial trinity , and a trinity of names , or a trinity of meer modes , respects , and relations in the same single essence , which is no trinity at all . and if the son , as you heard , be the living image of his father's nature , essence and perfections , the divine nature , though it be not multiplied , yet is repeated in the son , and does as really and distinctly subsist in the son , as it does in the father ; as had a man a living image , his image would be as substantially and really man , as the prototype is , or as the man himself , whose image it is , though the man and his image , which are really and substantially two , are not two men , but one man. and thus the dean might very safely say , that there are three in the godhead , each of which is a distinct , infinite , eternal mind ; and though custom has not made the form of expression orthodox , yet there is no heretical sence in it , to call them three infinite and eternal minds , with respect to their nature and real subsistence , to distinguish them from meer names , and logical notions , if at the same time it be declared , that they are individually and numerically one : as it would be no mortal crime against logick and common sence to say , that a man and his living image are two distinct men , with respect to the real and actual subsistence of humane nature distinctly in each of them , though the image is not another man , but the same with its prototype . this is the distinction which the dean makes between the three divine persons , which yet could not be three , were they not three self-conscious subsistencies ; for there cannot be three in a knowing and intelligent nature , without knowing themselves and their distinction from each other ; that the father knows himself to be the father , and not the son , and the son knows himself to be the son , and not the father . this every man feels in himself to be a real and natural distinction of one person from another , and the scripture is express in it , that father , son , and holy ghost are thus distinguished ; and this the dean thought , and as far as i can yet see , with great reason , to be the most easie and sensible representation of a real and natural trinity . as for the unity of these three divine persons , the dean expresly teaches , that they are essentially and numerically one. and as the most sensible representation of this , he places their unity in mutual consciousness , that they have as conscious a sensation of each other in themselves as they have of themselves : and he is certainly so far in the right , that this is essential to their unity ; that three intelligent subsistences cannot be one without this mutual consciousness , and that this mutual consciousness cannot be in three , which are not essentially and numerically one. the scripture plainly enough teaches this very unity between father , son , and holy ghost , as he has proved at large ; and if this either be , or prove , or necessarily supposes an essential unity , as inseparable from it , and essential to it , here is an intelligible notion of a natural trinity in unity , without any contradiction , absurdity , or confusion of subsistences , which is all the dean intended . but the animadverter and his socinian seconds , or rather leaders , represent the dean's notion , as if he made the three divine persons , as absolute , compleat , independent persons , as three men are , and that they are united only by mutual consciousness , and then they can fansie nothing but an unity of knowledge , or a moral unity and consent of wills : but this is either a mistake , or a wilful misrepresentation , as every one may see with half an eye , who considers the whole notion together . the dean indeed , the better to convey this notion of the natural unity of mutual consciousness to our minds , supposes a case , which he knew very well , never was , nor ever could be , which is very allowable in all writers , within the compass of decency , when we want some sensible images to frame our conceptions by : and therefore says , that if there were three created spirits so united , as to be conscious to each others thoughts and passions , as they are to their own , he can see no reason why we might not say , that three such persons are numerically one. though he knew , that three such particular , separate natures never could be thus united , but in them we might the better conceive , what kind of union it was he meant . but from hence to conclude , that the dean owns no other unity in the divine nature , than what mutual-consciousness would make between three particular , absolute , compleat , separate natures , is , i 'm sure , false-reasoning , and looks like very foul play. the dean asserts , that these three divine persons are thus mutually conscious to each other , and that this mutual-consciousness is an essential unity , and that those , who are thus mutually conscious are numerically one ; but then he teaches , that there are no other three in the world that are thus mutually conscious , and that these three are not , and cannot be for this very reason , three particular , separate , subsisting natures , but three subsistences in one individual , numerical nature : an unity of nature , and mutual consciousness may be distinguished , but are inseparable : there can be no unity of nature between three intelligent subsistences without mutual-consciousness ; and there can be no mutual-consciousness but in the same individual nature ; but yet , if we must distinguish as far as we can apprehend these matters , mutual-consciousness is much more essential to the unity of three intelligent subsistences than any other notion of unity : for i cannot see , but that if it were possible , that three created spirits , who are not only three distinct subsistences , but have three particular , separate natures , should be thus united by mutual-consciousness , it would destroy the individuation of their natures , though the individuation of their subsistences or persons would be preserved by self-consciousness : and , were it possible , the same individual nature should be repeated in its image , without this mutual-consciousness , it would divide this one nature , and make the man and his living image , as much two men , as any two men in the world ; but then the image would cease to be an image , how exact soever , upon other accounts , the likeness or sameness were ; for the image does not only represent and resemble the prototype , but moves and acts with it . and this is that very mutual-consciousness wherein the dean places the essential and numerical unity of the holy trinity ; such a mutual-consciousness as must be between the prototype and its living image . i shall not trouble you with transcribing out of the vindication , but referr you to some places to consult at your leisure . he always represents the son , as the living substantial image of god the father ; and the eternal generation by god's reflex knowledge of himself ; and in this places the numerical identity and sameness of nature between father and son , as there is between the prototype and its image ; and the holy spirit , whom the fathers represent , as god's eternal love of himself in his own image , has all the same divine perfections repeated in eternal and substanstial love : that yet this numerical identity and unity of nature cannot be understood without this mutual-consciousness , which makes them one energy and power , and is their mutual in-being in each other . that this mutual-consciousness proves the perfect equality of all three persons in the unity of the godhead , as having the very same perfections , without destroying the prerogative of the father , or the subordination of the son , and the holy spirit : as a living image is in nature equal with the prototype , but subordinate . that this gives an account of the modi subsistendi , or of the real and actual subsistence of the same individual , numerical nature in three , but in a different manner ; had these things been duly considered and compared , we should not have heard so much noise and clamour about mutual-consciousness , as if it made three absolute , compleat , independent gods , when it is impossible to conceive a more close and intimate union in nature . but there is one formidable objection against all this , or rather against the dean for it , that he pretends by this means to make the notion of a trinity in unity as intelligible as the notion of god : which is intolerable vanity and presumption to pretend to explain mysteries . but does the dean pretend , that his explication leaves nothing mysterious in the doctrine of the trinity in unity ? nothing , which we cannot comprehend ? that , as the ancients used to speak , this is no longer a wonderful distinction , and a wonderful union ? this i confess had been very vain and presumptuous : but are there no mysteries in the divine nature , because the notion of one god is an intelligible notion ? if there be , there may be mysteries , very incomprehensible mysteries in the trinity still , how intelligible soever the notion be : the intelligibleness of any notion , whether it be true or false , consists in the terms in which it is conceived ; that they convey a distinct idea to our minds of something possible , not which we can fully comprehend , but which we can understand without confusion or contradiction ; and this does great service to religion to deliver mysteries from absurdity and contradiction , though they are very incomprehensible still . the notion of eternity ( for example ) is very intelligible , to be without any cause , without beginning , and without end ; there is no contradiction in this , and it is demonstrable , that something must be eternal ; and yet nothing can be more incomprehensible than eternity : our thoughts are presently lost , when we endeavour to conceive an eternal being : and thus an eternal image of an eternal being , begotten without beginning , is as intelligible , as an eternal being is ; for if it be necessary and essential to an eternal being , to have a living , substantial image , thought can't divide their existence ; and it is as certain , if there be such an eternal living image , that this eternal being , and his eternal image are two , as the prototype and the image ; and yet as essentially one , and as intimately conscious to each other , as you have heard , they must necessarily be ; this is intelligible , but yet a very incomprehensible mystery ; for who can conceive an eternal generation , which has no beginning ? the divine nature repeated in its image without multiplication ? a distinction without separation , and an unity without singularity , and without confusion ? if these be not mysteries enow for the animadverter , though the dean's intelligible notion were admitted , he is as much too fond of mysteries , as other men are too much afraid of them ; for whether he knows it or no , there is a very great difference between a mystery , and contradiction or nonsence . i believe by this time you are less fond than you were , of an answer to the animadverter's arguments , which some men , who have despised his wit and railery , have yet thought unanswerable ; but i will be as good as my word , especially since a short answer will serve . in his third chapter he attacks the dean's notion of self-consciousness , but he stumbles at the threshold , and runs on furiously as a man does who runs headlong , and is never able to recover himself . he says , it is evident , the dean assigns self-consciousness as the formal reason of personality , in all persons universally , whether finite or infinite , create or uncreate ; and therefore he undertakes to prove , that self-consciousness is not the formal reason of personality , either in finite or infinite persons . the dean says not one word about the formal reason of personality , nor is at all concern'd what it is . he only says , that the unity of a spirit with it self , and its distinct and separate subsistence from all oher created spirits , consists in self-consciousness . so that if that be one distinct , separate mind , which is conscious only to it self , which feels all that is in it self , and nothing else , and those be two distinct separate minds , each of which is thus conscious to it self , but not to each other , the dean has gained his point , and the animadverter has lost all his arguments and wit , whatever becomes of the formal reason of personality . the dean did not enquire what makes a mind , or spirit , or if you please a person , but what makes a mind or spirit , or person one , and either distinguishes , or separates it from all other minds , and spirits , and persons ; and if this be what he means by the formal reason of personality , i do affirm , that self-consciousness is this formal reason ; and that for the very reason he urges against it , that wheresoever the formal reason of personality is , there is personality , and wheresoever personality is , there is the formal reason of personality : for wheresoever there is a person , there is self-consciousness ; that is , every person is conscious to it self , and there can be no person without it ; and wheresoever there is self-consciousness , there is by nature a person , unless its natural personality be swallowed up in a supernatural union to a superior person , of which more presently . and yet to see what meer mortals the nicest scholastick wits are , who can spend days and years in picking straws , and splitting hairs , this great leviathan , the witty , the subtle , the good-natur'd animadverter , knows not the difference between the formal reason and such a natural property as the logicians call proprium quarto modo , which belongs to the whole kind , only to the kind , and always to the kind ; for such properties do exist convertibly , and one mutually and essentially infers the other , which is his account of the formal reason ; and thus risibility is the formal reason of humanity , which makes well for the animadverter to prove him to be a man , though he is seldom in so good a humour as to laugh without grinning , which belongs to another species . but since he is pleased to let that pass for the formal reason of personality , which is convertible with it , i hope self-consciousness may escape pretty well , and pass for the formal reason of personality . but let us hear his arguments against it . 1. the first is worth its weight in gold , and yet will not much enrich the buyer , that according to the natural order of things , self-consciousness in persons pre-supposes their personality , and therefore is not , cannot be the reason of it . now suppose a man should reason thus : actual knowledge pre-supposes a mind , and therefore knowledge in its principle is not , and cannot be the formal reason of a mind ; would the animadverter for this reason deny , that the principle of knowledge is the formal reason of a mind , that which makes and constitutes a mind , because there can be no actual knowledge before there is a mind ? and yet the argument is the very same ; for if knowledge in its principle , may be the nature or formal reason of a knowing being , or of a mind , though there can be no one act of knowledge , till there is a mind , then self-knowledge , or self-sensation , or self-consciousness , may be the formal reason of personality , though there must be a person , before there can be any actual self-consciousness ; that is to say , there must be a self ( which in this dispute is all that can be meant by person ) before this self can feel it self , and by this self-feeling distinguish himself from all other selfs . i could not but smile to see how gravely this wise animadverter proves , that there must be a person , before there can be any action proceeding from a person , and summons the whole posse of metaphysicks to prove it : but i hope notwithstanding this , that self-consciousness in the abstract ( as the dean uses it , and as every one but such an animadverter would understand it ) is as capable of being the formal reason of a person , as rationality is of a reasonable nature , though there must be a reasonable creature before he can reason , as there must be a self-conscious nature before there can be actual self-consciousness . but i have something more to say to our animadverter before i leave his demonstration , as he calls it ; for as sophistical as his argument is , the foundation of it is false , and absurdly unphilosophical : he says , that personality is the ground and principle of all action , wheresoever it is . for where there is a suppositum , whether it be rational ( which is another word for person ) or not , still it is the whole suppositum , that acts. that it is the person that acts is certain ; but where did he learn , that personality is the principle of all action ? i was always taught otherwise , that natura est principium motus & quietis : nature is the principle of motion and rest , and therefore of all action : and is there no difference between nature and personality ? is there no difference between being a reasonable creature , and being peter or iohn ? or do peter or iohn perform the actions of a reasonable creature , by vertue of their being such distinct and particular persons , or by their being men , by the powers of humane nature , which are common to all ? men are not distinguished from each other , nor act and subsist separately by humane nature ; and therefore neither humane nature , nor any of the powers or actions of humane nature distinguish men into particular persons , or are the reason of personality ; but that which limits nature , makes it particular , and a particular subsisting rational nature is a person , is one with it self , and distinguished and separated from all others : so that we must not seek for any formal constituent principle of personality ( in a strict and proper notion ) as we do of nature , but see in finite beings , where nature ends , and what are the utmost bounds of it , and that distinguishes a common nature into persons . now a rational nature extends as far as sensation and consciousness , and where that ends , there are the bounds of nature , and that makes a particular person , which feels all that is in himself , and nothing else ; and this is the dean's self-consciousness , which sets bounds to nature , and by that makes a person , which is one with it self , and separated from all others , and therefore in this dispute is neither to be considered as a power , nor as an action of nature , neither direct nor reflex , but as the bounds of it , which makes a particular subsisting rational nature , which we call a person . for it is plain , that as far as sensation and consciousness extends , a spirit is one , where that ends , common nature divides , and subsists in particulars . i cannot but think how this animadverter must look , when he reads over this argument again , especially his triumphant conclusion : this i look upon as a demonstration of the point ; and i leave it to our author ( who is better a great deal at scorning the schools , than at confuting them ) to answer and overthrow it at his leisure . 2. his second argument , i confess , looks like something solid and substantial , but proves a meer airy vanishing spectrum , when you come near to handle it . it is this : the humanity , or humane nature of christ is perfectly conscious to its self of all the internal acts , whether of knowledge , volition , passion , or desire , ( which is one of the passions ) that pass in it , or belong to it ; and yet the humanity , or humane nature of christ is not a person , and consequently self-consciousness is not the formal reason of personality ; for as much as it may be in that , which is no person . now indeed had the dean expresly taught . that self-consciousness is the formal reason of personality , here had been one supernatural exception against it , which does not alter the reason of natural unions ; and yet is no greater objection against self-consoiousness , than against the most approved definition of a person : for if with boethius , you define a person to be substantia individua naturae rationabilis ; an individual substance of a rational nature , the humane nature of christ , which is an individual substance of a rational nature , and yet no person is an equal objection against it ; and let the animadverter try , how , according to this definition , he can keep off the assertion of nestorius , that there are two distinct persons in christ : and if self-consciousness escape as well as any other formal reason of personality , i believe the dean desires no more ; and yet he needs not this , for he no where makes self-consciousness the formal reason of personality , but only of the unity and distinction of a mind or spirit ; and i hope he will grant the humane nature of christ to be one , and to be distinct and separated by self-consciousness , from all other particular humane natures , or persons . the short answer is this : that self-consciousness makes a mind or spirit one with it self , and distinguishes or separates it from all other minds or spirits , and such a distinct and separate self-conscious mind is a natural person , unless its own natural personality be swallowed up in a personal union to a superiour mind . for this is the account the dean gives of a personal union , when two natures are united into one person , they must be so united , that the superiour nature have the government of the whole person , which is necessary to make them one agent , without which there cannot be one person ; and that there be one consciousness in the whole : of which more presently . 3. his third argument is draw out to a great length , but may be answered in a few words , becuse it proceeds upon the same mistake , and is nothing to the purpose . it is taken from the soul of man in a state of separation from the body ; that the soul in a separate state is conscious to it self of all its own internal acts or motions — and yet the soul in such a state is not a person . and therefore self-consciousness is not the formal reason of personality . but whether the soul be a person or no person , in the body or out of the body , is nothing at all to the present controversie : if the soul and all other spirits are naturally one with themselves , and separated from all other souls and spirits by self-consciousness ; this is all the dean desires , and all that his hypothesis needs . and the animadverter may philosophize as he pleases about personalities . the truth is , to do him right , he is a very notable man , if he can draw you into a school-question , for he can make a shift to read and transcribe , but he hates a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men at his heart , which is none of his talent , for it requires thinking ; put him out of his way , and he is undone , which makes him so angry at the dean for not speaking the school-language , nor confining himself to known terms of art , which he has a great deal to say of , whether he understands them or not : and because the dean would not do this himself , he has done it for him , and put his notions into school-terms , and made self-consciousness the formal reason of personality , and on my word has disputed very notably against it , and it is pity three such dead-doing arguments should be lost for want of the formal reason of personality ; and yet there is no help for it , he must begin all again , and try how he can prove , that the unity of a mind , and its distinction from all other minds , does not consist in self-consciousness ; and if he can prove this , then the dean is a lost man for ever , and must be contented to follow his triumphant chariot . but yet , whether this question of the soul 's being a person , or no person , serve the purpose of the present dispute or not , it abundantly serves the animadverter's charitable purpose ( which is the only purpose of his writing this book ) to expose the dean ; and therefore though the matter is not worth disputing , i shall make some short reflections on it . the dean has upon another occasion asserted , that a soul without a vital union to a humane body is a person : in opposition to this the animadverter asserts , that the soul of man is not a person , neither in its conjunction with the body , nor its separation from it . the foundation of his arguments , such as they are , is a very unphilosophical and senceless mistake , that because man consists of soul and body ( which he very undeniably proves from the athanasian creed ) therefore the personality too must be divided between the soul and body , that the soul is but part of the person , as it is part of the man , and then the soul neither in nor out of the body , can be the person , because a part can't be the whole , quod erat demonstrandum . now i readily grant , that the person of a man , as it is used in common speech to signifie a man , must include both soul and body , as the constituent parts of a humane person ; but when we enquire into the strict notion of personality , that must be a simple uncompounded thing , as indivisible as self is , which cannot consist of parts , which may be separated from each other , that one part of the person may live and the other die ; for though there are two natures , there is but one person , and the same one person cannot both live and die at the same time . this is a very pleasant notion , if well considered , of the two parts of personality , as there are two parts of a man , soul and body ; for unless there be two personalities as well as two natures , the two natures cannot be two parts of the one humane personality , as they are the parts of a man : it is impossible to prove from two natures , that there are two parts of personality , unless each nature has a personality of its own , the personality of the body , and the personality of the soul , united into the one personality of the man ; for nothing can be a part of personality , which has nothing of personality it self . will the animadverter then venture to attribute any personality to the body , as he must do , if he makes it part of the personality ? this will be a little worse than ( what he so rares the dean for ) calling a beast a person , tho ▪ the dean gave notice of the impropriety of the expression , and used it only by way of allusion and accommodation , the better to represent the union of two natures into one person , which are two persons , or something as like two persons as their natures will permit , when they subsist apart . and i should have thought such a severe censurer should have been more cautious than to have attributed any part of personality to the body in the same chapter , wherein he so civilly schools the dean for seeming to attribute personality to a beast , when personality belongs only to a reasonable nature , and beasts have no reason ; which is more than he knows , ( for why may not beasts have some reason , as well as some men have such brutish passions ) and more than as wise men as himself think to be true ; for there are various degrees of reason ; and where ever there is a conscious life , there must be some degree of it , and that entitles them to as much share in personality as they have in reason ; but no man will pretend , that a humane body , though united to a reasonable soul , has any reason , or any sence either , though , by its vital union to the soul , the soul feels all the impressions made on the body . and this brings us to a fair state , and an easie decision of this question ; for if personality belongs only to a reasonable nature , it is certain , that the soul makes or constitutes the person ; or , if i may so speak , is the center of personality , whatever else be vitally united to it , and by such a vital union is incorporated into the same person . if there be but one principle of reason , sensation , and a conscious life , that is the person ; for a person is the individual substance of a rational nature . but is not a humane body part of the person to whom it belongs ? answ. it is part of the man , and in that sence part of the person , but no part of the personality ; that is , it does not make the person , but is taken into the person by a vital union , and so becomes part of the man , and part of the person , as belonging to it . i am of opinion , notwithstanding the animadverter's animus & anima , that there is but one soul or mind , or spirit in man , which performs all the offices of a rational and animal life , which understands , reasons , wills , and feels all the impressions of the body , whether pain or pleasure , though with respect to such different offices and powers , it may be of some use , both in philosophy and divinity , to call it by different names . now , if all life , reason , sensation , be only in the soul , there must be the whole personality , though the soul , when united to a body , is not the whole person ; for the person reaches as far as the self-conscious life does by a vital union , but the personality is whole and entire in the principle of a rational life , and is neither more nor less a person , though by vital unions , or a dissolution of them , more or less may belong to the person : we may find some resemblance of this in works of art : whether you add or take away some wheels from a clock , it is the same clock still , while there is the same spring of motion , though it communicates motion to more or fewer wheels . and thus the body becomes one person with the soul , neither by an hypostatical union , which is the swallowing up a natural personality in its union with a superior person , which can never be between two beings , one of which by nature is no person , as the body it self is not , and cannot be : nor by the body being joyned with the soul , as one part , joyntly concurring with another , to the composition of the whole person ; which is the animadverter's way , and a very absurd one , as you have already heard , to talk of a compounded personality ; but there is another way which he never thought of , and that is , by a vital union , which makes the body part of it self , without adding to its own personality , by making all bodily sensations its own . and thus , though the soul be an entire person , a man , when united to a body is not an imperfect , accidental compound , which , he says , philosophy calls unum per accidens , a thing made up of two such beings as cannot perfectly coalesce and unite into one ; for his own beloved philosophy never called things vitally united , unum per accidens , and i would desire him to inform us , how two things can more perfectly coalesce than in one life . however , by the power of metaphysicks he can prove , that if the soul be an entire person , a man must be an imperfect accidental compound : for a compleat being ( as every person essentially is ) having received the utmost degree of subsistence , which its nature can give it , if it comes afterward to be compounded with another being , whether compleat or incompleat , it must necessarily make such a loose unnatural union and composition . i do not wonder he is so fond of school-terms , for they serve him very often instead of sence ; but before i particularly consider them , by his good leave , i must ask him a question or two : whether the divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word before the incarnation were a compleat being , as he must be , if he be the second person in the trinity , for every person , he says , is essentially a compleat being ; and then , whether he will have the humane nature a compleat or incompleat being , the question is , whether the personal union of the humane nature to the divine word , be necessarily such a loose unnatural union and composition . to say , that this is not a natural union , is to say , that the divine and humane nature are not united into one person in christ ; for i take a union of natures to be a natural union , by what power soever it be done ; at least so far , that there is no natural repugnancy to such an union , for then no power could do it ; and therefore , according to this bold assertion , either the hypostatical union must be loose and unnatural , or if the divine and humane nature be perfectly united into one person , then the union of two compleat beings does not necessarily make such a loose unnatural union and composition . but to quit these school-terms , and to speak what we understand our selves , and what others may understand ; the soul may be a compleat and perfect person , and not a perfect man ; and therefore , notwithstanding it is a compleat being , may require a vital union to a humane body , to perfect its nature : that is a perfect humane person , which has entirely in it self all the powers which are essential to a humane person , such as understanding , will , and sensation , which are as entire and perfect in the soul without the body , as with it , though some of them either cannot act at all , or at least not so perfectly , without a vital union to the body , which conveys external impressions , and by them excites internal sensations in the soul. to represent this plainly , let us consider a soul vitally united to a body , but to such a body whose organs are so indisposed for sensation , that the man can neither see nor hear , nor taste , nor smell ; but only just lives and breathes , you will not say , this is a perfect man ; but the animadverter himself will acknowledge him to be a perfect person , compounded of body and soul ; but if a compleat person may not be a compleat and perfect man , then the formal reason of personality , and the natural perfection of a man are two things ; and though the vital union of soul and body make a perfect man , yet the whole entire personality must be in the soul , if a man be a perfect person , who is united to a body , which is worse than none : for where there is a perfect humane person , there must be the radical principle of all humane actions , which can be no where but in the soul , when the body is unfit for all the actions of a rational or sensitive life , which is a much more imperfect state than to be out of the body , if we believe , that the soul lives and acts when separated from the body . something in the shape and figure of a man , without the natural powers of reason and sensation , would very improperly be called a man , or a humane person ; and therefore we must confess , that the soul , which under all these natural impediments of acting , has still these natural powers to be the person , or there can be none . the soul is the person , the body only the organ or instrument , which , at least in this state of union , is necessary to the exercise of our natural powers , both of reason and sensation ; but whatever change there be in the body , the person is the same still , which could not be , were the body part of the person , for then the change of the body would be a partial change of the person too ; and yet our bodies are in a perpetual flux , and change every day ; some atoms fly away , and others are united to us ; that we are no more the same for a month or a year , than a river is , whose waters perpetually flow and change their place ; and yet we feel our selves to be the same persons still ; and therefore certainly these fluid atoms , of which our bodies are composed , are no part of our personality , though they belong to our persons , while they are vitally united to our souls . suppose it were possible , that the souls of iohn and peter could change bodies , that the soul of iohn should be vitally united to the body of peter , and the soul of peter vitally united to the body of iohn , i would ask the animadverter , whether he thinks , that such a change of bodies would make any change in their persons ? whether iohn would not as much feel himself to be iohn , and peter to be peter as ever they did ? i believe , indeed , an innocent , good-natured soul would not be willing to venture a change of bodies with every body , for fear of some moral infection , but the natural person would be the same ; for nothing makes any body ours , but a vital union , and whose body soever it was before , it becomes our own , when our soul informs it , and feels the impressions of it . now , if the soul be the person , when united to the body , it can't lose its personality by going out of it ; nay , if the soul can subsist in separation from the body , and live , and perform all the actions of a rational nature , it must be a person , if an individual subsisting rational nature is a person , and if it be not , i would know what to call it . but this animadverter is a very wagg , and banters the poor dean most unmercifully , and demonstrates beyond all contradiction , that the soul , in a state of separation , can't be a person , because it is neither the same person , which the man himself was while he was living , and in the body , nor another person ; and therefore it can be no person . the wording of this is very observable , and worthy of the wit and subtilty of its author : if the soul in such a state ( of separation ) be a person , it is either the same person which the man himself was , while he was living , and in the body : pray , what is this person , which he calls the man himself , which lives in the body ? i hope , it is not the body that lives in the body , and then i know no man himself , nor person , that lives in the body , but only the soul ; and if it be the same soul that lives out of the body , that lives in it , it is the same person , the same man himself in a state of separation , which lived in the body . and what does he mean by the same person , which the man himself was , while living ? for does the man and his person die ? then the man is not immortal , and if the man and his person live , when the body dies , then the soul is the man and the person , and the very same person out of the body that it was in it . so st. paul thought , when , speaking of himself , and his being taken up into the third heavens , he thus expresses it . i knew a man in christ fourteen years ago , ( whether in the body , i cannot tell , or whether out of the body , i cannot tell , god knoweth ) such an one caught up into the third heavens , 2 cor. 12. 2. but whether in the body , or out of the body , which he did not know , yet he knew himself to be the same man , and the same person that ever he was . but the animadverter very learnedly proves , that the soul out of the body cannot be the same person with the man , because the soul is not the soul and body too , as the man is when the soul and body are united ; which is well observed , that the soul is not the body , nor a part the whole : but yet if the personality be not compounded of soul and body , the soul may be the whole and same person in the body , and out of it . there is no need then to say , that the soul in a state of separation is another person , than the man himself is while soul and body are united ; though this would serve the dean's purpose as well , if the soul be but a person , and be a distinct person by self-consciousness : and should the dean prove cross , and say this , the animadverter could not help himself ; for as for his absurd consequence , viz. that it is one person that lives well or ill in this world , to wit , the man himself while he was personally in the body , which ( by the way ) is down-right nonsence , if the person of the man be soul and body , though we confess the body belongs to his person , when united to his soul , for the personal presence of the man in the body , must distinguish the person of the man from the body , in which he is personally present , and supposes , that the same man at other times may not be personally present in the body ; however he thinks it a great absurdity , that one person should live well or ill in this world and another person pass out of the body into heaven or hell , there to be rewarded or punished , ( at least till the resurrection ) ( and i suppose at longest too , unless it can be another person when reunited to the body , as well as when separated from it ) for what that other person had done well or ill upon earth . well , let this be as absurd as it will , the animadverter must say it , or say something as absurd , unless he will allow a soul in a state of separation to be the same person that it was in the body , or deny the intermediate rewards and punishments of good and bad men till the resurrection . for if the soul be a person , and not the same , then one person sins and another suffers . if a man be a person , and the soul no person , then the person sins , and that which is no person suffers : if a man be a whole person ; and the soul only part of the person , then the whole sins , and a part suffers for the whole . let him choose which he thinks looks most agreeable to the principles of reason and divinity . but does this profound philosopher indeed think , that the body either sins or suffers ? the soul sins in and by the body , and feels pain or pleasure from bodily impressions ; and therefore as the body may be made the instrument of vertue or vice , so it may be the instrument of rewards and punishments ; but vertue or vice is seated only in the soul , and it is the soul only that can be happy or miserable , rewarded or punished , in or out of the body , and therefore there is no danger , that one should sin , and another suffer , though the soul sins in the body , and suffers out of it . but it is worth observing how notably he winds up his argument . if it be intolerably absurd ( as no doubt it is ) that the soul in the other world should not be responsible for what the man himself in person had done in this : what then ? one would expect the conclusion should be , then the soul is the man himself in person . but this he durst not say , because it was to un-say all he had said ; and he durst not say the contrary , for that is the absurdity he is exposing , that one , who is not the man himself , should suffer for what the man himself did : and therefore he lets them both slip , and is very glad to get rid of them , and concludes safely ; then it is altogether as absurd and intolerable , for any one to represent and speak of these things under such terms and notions , as must necessarily throw all discourse and reasoning about them into paradox and confusion ; which is to bilk a conclusion , and to pay a reckoning by running out at the back-door . he adds : and indeed to me the soul 's thus changing its state forwards and backwards from one manner of subsisting to another , looks very odd and unnatural . what does he mean by this ? that it is odd and unnatural , that the soul should live in the body and out of the body , and then return into the body again ? and is not this so ? does not the soul first live in the body , and after what we call death , live out of the body , and shall it not be reunited to the body again at the resurrection ? and how does this change the soul's manner of subsisting , any more than the body changes its manner of subsisting , when it is naked and cloathed ? to live in the body and out of the body , are two different states of life , but the soul subsists still in the same manner , for it owes not its subsistence to the body , and can neither subsist more nor less in or out of the body ; for i know no degrees of subsistence in the soul , though there are of life and action ; what is , is , and what subsists continues to be . but that which is so odd and unnatural is , that from an incompleat state in the body , it should pass to a personal and compleat state out of the body ( which state is yet praeternatural to it ) and then fall back into an incompleat state again by its re-union to the body at the resurrection ( which yet one would think , should rather improve our principal parts , in all respects , not meerly relating to the animal life , as the bare subsistence of them , i am sure , does not . ) it is hard to guess the meaning of such gypsie-cant , and therefore i hope you and he will pardon me if i mistake , for i will do my best . by the soul 's incompleat state in the body , i suppose , he means , that the soul in the body is an incompleat person , and by the personal compleat state out of the body , that the soul is a compleat person out of the body ; this indeed sounds somewhat odd and unnatural ; but does he know any man who says , that the soul is an incompleat person in the body , and a compleat person out of the body ? or who calls this the incompleat and the compleat state of the soul ? those who affirm the soul to be the person , say , that it is the same person in the body , and out of it , but that it lives in different states in the body and out of it ; and that its state in this mortal body , is the most imperfect state a reasonable soul can live in ; that the state of the soul in separation from the body , is to good men a more perfect and compleat , because a more happy state , and therefore not praeternatural , which can never be a more happy state ; and that the re-union of the soul to an immortal spiritual body at the resurrection , is the most compleat and perfect state of all : so that here is no such unnatural change as he dreams of , from an incompleat to a compleat praeternatural state ( which is nonsence ) and then back again to an incompleat state at the resurrection , which so turned his own stomach , ( though not very squeamish ) that he was glad to qualifie it with a parenthesis , which i defie any man to make sence of : but the natural progress of the soul in this lapsed state is from a less perfect to a more perfect , and from that to the most perfect state of life ; which to me is proof enough that the soul is the person , and fitted by nature to live in all these different states , or it is impossible to prove peter or iohn to be the same men in these different states . at length the animadverter grew sensible , that it sounds very absurdly to say , that the soul in a state of separation is but part of the person , when it subsists by it self , not in any compound , and feels it self to be the same , and lives and acts in a more perfect and happy state , than when it lived in a mortal body , and therefore he fences against these two objections ( which are stronger , when they are put into one ) as well as he can . he says , the soul in a state of separation is but part of the person , the whole of which is a compound of soul and body , because of its essential relation to a compound . but what is this compound which the soul is essentially related to ? not the body i hope , for the body is no more the compound , than the soul : is it then the man ? and where is this man that the soul is essentially related to ? does he then mean , that it is essential to the soul to live in an earthly body ? then it cannot live in a state of separation . if it be of the essence of the soul to live in the body , it is evident , that it can never live out of it ; and if it be not essential , then the soul may be a whole entire person , when it subsists separate from the body . but the soul by its original designation is related to the body ; what ? so that it cannot live without it , and never should live without it ? if not , this original designation , does not prove an essential relation : but it has a natural aptitude to be an ingredient in the constitution of a compound . what does he mean by the soul 's being an ingredient in a compound ? is the soul and body mixed and blended together to make a man ? is it the same thing to be a part of the whole , and to be an ingredient in a compound ? well , but the soul has a natural aptitude to live in a body ; and so it has to live out of the body ; and what then ? then the soul , which is the same person still , is naturally fitted to live in different states ; and then its relation to an earthly body is not essential to it , whatever strong appetite and inclination , as he says , it retains to return and be re-united to the body ; which , whoever says it , no man can know ; and if it be true of sensual souls , who were wholly immersed in sense , is demonstratively false of all holy and pure spirits , who are in a great measure weaned from this body , while they live in it , and rejoyce at their deliverance when they escape safe out of it , who , with st. paul , desire to be absent from the body , and to be present with the lord. holy souls indeed in a state of separation do earnestly desire the completion of their happiness in the resurrection of their bodies , but not to be re-united to these vile , earthly , corruptible bodies , but to glorified , immortal , incorruptible bodies , when christ shall at his appearance change our vile bodies , and make them like to his own most glorious body ; which though they had every individual atome , which belonged to them before , are yet in their nature and constitution no more the same bodies , than earth and heaven are the same . but the spirits of just men made perfect are in a more perfect state of life and happiness out of these bodies than they enjoyed in them , and therefore are more perfect persons too , are more perfectly themselves , and enjoy themselves more perfectly , and therefore are in a state more agreeable to the perfection of their natures ( and that i take to be a natural state ) than living in these bodies . the animadverter will not allow this to be a natural , but supernatural perfection , which relates only to the consummation of their graces , and not to the manner of their subsistence . but is not the perfection of our graces , the perfection of humane nature ? and is not the perfection of nature , a natural perfection ? and if the soul be more perfect in a state of separation , is not this a more perfect manner of subsistence ? this might have shamed the animadverter had he had a little more consideration and less confidence , to deny the personality of the soul , which can subsist and act , and be more perfect and happy out of the body ; which shews , that to be in the body , or out of it , does not concern the personality , but the different states wherein the same person lives . to proceed ▪ the dean had upon another occasion said , that all the sufferings and actions of the body are attributed to the man , though the soul is the person , because it is the superiour and governing power , and constitutes the person . this i should have thought very true and safe , but the animadverter has made very tragical work with it . he says , that this proves the quite contrary , that the man himself , to whom these personal acts are ascribed , must indeed be the person , and that for the same reason also the soul cannot be so . but does the dean any where deny , that the man , as consisting of soul and body , is a humane person ? or , when united to a body , affirm , that the soul is the whole person ? he says indeed , that the soul is the seat of personality , the only principle of reason , sensation , and a conscious life , which consequently in a state of separation is the person , and when united to the body constitutes the person , and therefore may both be the person , and constitute the person . when a body is vitally united to a soul , soul and body are but one person , because they are but one voluntary agent , and have but one conscious life ; but it is the soul constitutes the person , as being the principle of all personal acts , sensations and passions which the body is only the instrument of , but being a vital instrument is united to the person , and becomes one person with the soul ; for the person reaches as far as the same conscious life does ; but it is only this vital union to the soul , which receives the body into the unity of the same person , not as part of the person , but as an animated instrument of life and action , which as it were , cements soul and body into one person . a soul vitally united to a body , is an embodied person , in a state of separation it is the same person still , but without a body , which makes a great change in its sensations , and manner of acting , but no more changes the person , than the man would be changed cloathed or uncloathed , were his cloths as vitally united to his body , as his body is to his soul. this is plain sence ; and if the animadverter knows not how to reduce it to terms of art , i cannot help it . the soul , i grant , as he wisely observes , cannot constitute the person efficiently , by creation or generation , nor formally as a constituent part , for the soul is not properly part of the person , but the soul constitutes an embodied person , by living and acting in the body , which unites soul and body into one life , and that makes one embodied person , or soul and body one man. and now , as for those questions , which , with so much triumph and scorn he asks the dean , i leave to himself to answer them , and to you to laugh at them . the rest of this chapter is nothing but ignorance and raving , and has been answered already . if you will pardon this long excursion about the personality of the soul , which is nothing at all to the present controversie , having given you this one sufficient taste of the wit and philosophy of the animadverter and his great exactness in speaking and reasoning , i promise you to let pass an hundred other absurdities and fooleries , and to make shorter work with him , without letting slip any argument , when i can find it . the title of his fourth chapter is an answer to it self , and proves , that it is nothing to the purpose . for he undertakes to prove , that self-consciousness is not the formal reason of personality in the three persons of the blessed trinity , nor does the dean say it is . the question is only this , whether three self-consciousnesses do not prove three persons , each of which is thus self-conscious to himself , to be really distinct from each other ? whether three persons who feel themselves to be themselves , and not to be each other , are not three really distinct persons ? this mistake has been so fully exposed already , that i need say no more of it ; for the mistake is the same , and the answer is the same , when applied to finite or infinite persons . to keep my word with you , i shall take no notice at present of his nine considerations , which are ushered in with a kind of mathematical pomp , as if we were to expect nothing less than demonstration ; when i see what end they serve , they shall be examined . but now for his arguments , which will be answered in almost as few lines , as they take up pages in the animadversions ; for when the question is mistaken , all arguments are lost . arg. 1. no personal act can be the formal reason of personality in the person whose act it is ( nor , i suppose , in the person whose act it is not ) but self-consciousness is a personal act , and therefore cannot be the formal reason , &c. this argument we have met with , and answered before ; the dean neither considered self-consciousness as a personal act , nor assigned it as the formal reason of personality ; and yet if we consider self-consciousness as a personal act , though it cannot make the person , yet it distinguishes one person from another ; by this actual self-consciousness every person feels himself to be himself , and not to be another . arg. 2. proceeds upon the same mistake , as to the formal reason of personality , but has some peculiar absurdities of its own ; for he proves , that self-consciousness can't make a person , because it can't make the relations , which distinct persons stand in to each other . that self consciousness can't make a father , because it can't beget a son : for this is the summ of his argument , that the three persons in the trinity are related to each other , as father , son , and holy ghost ; and therefore self-consciousness , which is an absolute and irrelative thing cannot be the formal reason of personality , because it is not the formal reason of these relations : as if ( let the formal reason of personality be what it will ) the fundamentum relationis , or the foundation of the relation between persons , and the formal reason of personality were the same thing : does that which makes iohn a person , make him a father , or that which makes peter a person , make him a son ? this , i suppose , will be acknowledged very absurd in humane persons , where every person has a distinct absolute nature to be the subject of these relations , for then the personality and the relation must differ ; but it is otherwise with the persons of the trinity , whose personalities are meer relations . but with the animadverter's good leave , this makes no difference : in what sence the divine persons are relatives or relations , i have already explained ; that they subsist relatively to each other , as the whole subsistence of the image is relative to its prototype ; but the same divine nature which subsists distinctly in each of them , is a compleat , absolute nature , and self-consciousness may distinguish the same nature into different persons , though they subsist in relation to each other : for has the person and his relation the same notion and formal reason ? is the father his paternity , the son his filiation , and the holy ghost his procession ? if not , then the formal reason of personality in the father and son , differs from the foundation of the relation between father and son ; and self-consciousness might be the formal reason of the personality , though not of the relation . but , have each of these three persons , who , as he says , are purely relative , a self-consciousness of their own , that the father knows himself to be the father , and not the son ; and the son knows himself to be the son , and not the father , &c. this distinguishes the persons , and proves them to be really distinct , which is all the dean desires . arg. 3. his next argument is just as much to the purpose as the former . if self-consciousness be the formal reason of personality in the three divine persons , then there is no repugnancy in the nature and reason of the thing it self , but that there might be three thousand persons in the deity , as well as three . now , had the dean said , that self-consciousness made the trinity , this had been a notable argument , but , i hope , self-consciousness may distinguish the three persons in the trinity , and prove them to be three really distinct persons , though there be but three , and not three thousand persons in the godhead . though it be not repugnant to the nature of self-consciousness , it may be repugnant to the nature of the deity , that there should be more than three persons in the godhead . self-consciousness proves the distinction , though it does not limit the number of persons , which no man ever dreamt of , and none but an ingenious blunderer , whose subtilty is too great for his understanding , could ever have thought of . and yet this argument is as very a non-sequitur as ever i met with ; for suppose self-consciousness were the formal reason of personality , how does it follow , that there may be three thousand persons in the deity ; for does the formal reason of personality make or limit the number of persons ? the nature of the thing , and the will of the maker may , but whatever be the formal reason of personality , there can be no more persons than nature will admit ; and if the eternal , uncreated nature will admit but of three persons , it is impossible that self-consciousness , tho' it were the formal reason of personality could make more ; for there can be no more when the divine nature will admit but of three self-conscious persons , though a created nature will admit of as many as god pleases to make . in short , that which naturally distinguishes three persons from each other , would distinguish three thousand , if there were so many ; but does not prove , that there may be three thousand persons in the godhead ; for though it is no contradiction to the distinction of persons , by self-consciousness , that there should be three thousand , yet it may be a contradiction to the perfection of the divine nature , because every divine person is eternal , and whatever is eternal doth necessarily exist ; and therefore if there be but three divine persons , father , son and holy ghost , there never can be , nor ever could have been more . arg. 4. his fourth and last argument is a great master-piece of profound reason and judgment . if three distinct self-consciousnesses formally constitute three distinct personalities , then three distinct self-complacencies will constitute three distinct personalities too . he might as well have added self-love , and self-displeasure , and self-condemnation , and as many selfs as he could think of , only the danger then was , that the personality should alter with the judgment or passion , that the person should not be the same , when he is pleased and displeased , when he applauds and acquits , or condemns himself . had he added self-conscious to all this ; as a self-conscious complacency ( for then it is the same thing , whether self or any other being be the object of the complacency ) a self-conscious love , or fear , or hatred , or desire , every one of these acts would prove a distinct person , because they are the acts of self-consciousness , which distinguish one person from another , as every act of reason proves a reasonable creature , because it is the exercise of rationality ; but yet no man will say , that it is every act , but the principle of reason , which makes a reasonable creature ; and no more does any particular act , but the principle of self-consciousness , distinguish between self-conscious persons , much less such acts as may be separated from the person , as , i doubt , self-complacency is from damned spirits , or if he will not allow souls to be persons , as it will be from damned men. he has drawn this argument out to such a length , and has so many pretty remarks , that i have much ado to keep my word with you , but let him go like a wrangling wit as he is , and i 'll go on . as self-consciousness makes a person one with it self , and distinguishes it from all other persons , so the dean apprehends , that a natural mutual-consciousness makes three persons as naturally one , as it is possible for three to be one ; and that is the unity of the godhead , not the unity of one person , but the unity of three , or a trinity in unity : and this is his next attempt , to prove , that the unity of three divine persons in the godhead can't consist in mutual-consciousness . he proceeds upon the same mistake , and therefore the same answer will serve : by self-consciousness he understood , as you have seen , the acts of self-consciousness , and then the act supposing a person could not be the formal reason of personality ; and thus by mutual-consciousness he understands the acts of mutual-consciousness , which supposes the unity of nature , and therefore cannot be the cause or reason of it ; now , though i know not of what use that dispute is , about the priority of being , and the first modes and affections of it to any act of knowledge , or any other acts ; especially when we speak of the divine nature , which we know has no modes and affections , no priority so much as in conception , if we conceive aright of him , between his being , and a pure and simple act ; yet i will not put the animadverter out of his way , when there is no need of it , an easie obvious distinction between the principle and the act answers all : a self-conscious principle , without which we can't conceive a mind , makes a mind one with it self , and distinguishes it from all other minds , and by the acts of self-consciousness , which suppose the principle , every mind feels it self to be one , and distinguished from all others : and thus the natural principle of mutual-consciousness between three persons unites them inseparably in one nature , and the acts of mutual-consciousness are the acts of unity , whereby they know and feel themselves to be essentially in each other , and therefore to be essentially one : just as we consider reason , either as the principle or as the act , the first constitutes a reasonable nature , the second is the actual exercise of reason ; and thus all his arguments vanish like smoak , rise in a dark cloud , but immediately disperse and are seen no more , till they return , as such vapours use to do , in thunder and lightning , or some threatning storm . 1. his first argument is this . no act of knowledge can be the formal reason of an unity of nature in the persons of the blessed trinity : but an act of mutual-consciousness is an act of knowledge . ergo. nothing will satisfie the animadverter but formal reasons , whereas the dean no where asserts , that mutual-consciousness is the formal reason of this unity , but that three persons , who are thus mutually-conscious to each other , must be essentially one ; nor does the dean place this unity in an act of mutual-consciousness , which signifies the principle as well as the act , and then mutual-consciousness ( if it were no more than knowledge , of which presently ) must not be considered as an act of knowledge . arg. 2. if unity of nature in the divine persons be the cause , reason , or principle of mutual-consciousness in the said persons , then their mutual-consciousness is not the cause or reason of the unity of their nature ; but the former is true , and therefore the latter is so too . if by this he means , that these divine persons could not be thus mutually conscious , except they were essentially one , it is true , but nothing to the purpose , for they may be thus essentially one by mutual-consciousness , or mutual-consciousness may be essential to this unity , though they could not be thus actually conscious to each other , unless they were thus united , as to have and to feel each other in themselves . if by the unity of nature in the divine persons , he means the sameness and homoousiotes of nature ; this i grant is a necessary foundation for mutual-consciousness , without which they could not be one , nor mutually conscious to each other ; but i deny that it is the immediate cause , reason , or principle of mutual-consciousness : the ancient fathers were very sensible , that when the same nature subsisted distinctly in three distinct persons , the meer sameness and homoousiotes of nature could not make this essential unity ; and therefore they added , their perichoresis or the mutual in-being of these divine persons in each other , which the dean calls mutual-consciousness , which is the only natural union and in-being of minds . he proves , that unity of nature is the cause and principle of mutual-consciousness , because mutual-consciousness is an essential property equally belonging to all the three persons , and therefore as all properties and internal attributes do , must issue and result from the essence and nature , and therefore can have no antecedent causal influx upon the same nature , so as to constitute either the being or the unity of it . now , i grant , that mutual-consciousness does equally belong to all three persons , for they are all mutually-conscious to each other , and i grant , that it is essential to the divine nature , as to subsist in three distinct persons , so in three mutually-conscious persons ; but yet mutual-consciousness belongs not immediately to nature but to persons , and is that intimate union of persons which consists in feeling each other in themselves . the dean will leave the animadverter to philosophize by himself concerning antecedent causal influxes on the divine nature , to constitute the being or the unity of it ; he pretends to no such knowledge of created nature , much less of an eternal , self-originated , simple , uncompounded nature : it contents him to know what is essential , not absolutely to the unity of the divine nature , but to the unity in trinity , and if mutual-consciousness be essential to this unity , that the three divine persons are thus united , and cannot be one without it , he will contend no farther with any man about it . and it is certain , this is essential to his notion of an identical and numerical unity of nature in the divine persons , when the same individual nature is repeated in its living image , for it is essential to the notion of a living image , not only perfectly to represent the nature , but to feel all the motions of the prototype , to live , and move , and act with it , as the face in the glass answers all the features and motions of the face it represents . but the animadverter mistakes the whole matter , as is evident from what follows : the divine nature or essence being one and the same in all the three persons , there is upon this account , one and the same knowledge in them also ; and they are not one in nature , by vertue of their mutual-consciousness ; but are therefore mutually-conscious , because the perfect unity and identity of their nature makes them so . if by one and the same knowledge , he means knowing the same things , this i grant is owing to the sameness of nature , but is not mutual-consciousness ; for three persons , who have the same nature , may know the same things , without feeling each others thoughts and knowledge in themselves : if by one and the same knowledge he means , that the knowledge of the divine nature in three persons , is but one individual act , as the knowledge of one single person is , this destroys the distinction of persons , which cannot be distinct without distinct personal acts , as knowledge is , and destroys mutual-consciousness ; for there is no place for mutual-consciousness , or mutual-knowledge , where there is but one single act of knowledge : if by one and the same knowledge he means what gregory nyssen calls , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one motion and disposition of the good will , which passes through the whole trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without any distance of time , or propagating the motion from one to t'other , but is distinctly in them all by one sensation , like one thought in one numerical mind ; this is that very mutual-consciousness the dean means , and is essential , not to the unity of the divine nature absolutely considered , but as repeated in its image : three such distinct subsistences of the same individual nature , are by mutual-consciousness essentially one ; and thus he may take his risibility again ; for he is undone if he parts with it . 3. arg. to affirm mutual-consciousness to be the cause of the union of the three divine persons in the same nature , is to confound the union and communion of the said persons together . to affirm , that the three divine persons are essentially one by mutual-consciousness is not to affirm , that mutual-consciousness is the cause of the union , but that persons thus united , whatever makes this union , are essentially one : the union of the father and son in the same nature , is by eternal generation , or the father's begetting a son in his own likeness , not without but within himself , and the union of the holy ghost , with father and son , is by his eternal procession from father and son , without separation , or going out of either ; but this in-being of these divine persons in each other is their mutual-consciousness ; for they are in one another , as minds , not as bodies , and we know no other natural union or in being of minds , but this natural intimate consciousness to each other . but his argument consists in confounding the union and communion of these divine persons ; for it seems their communion consists in this mutual-consciousness ; and if their union consists in it too , then their union and communion is the same : and what if it be ? can he tell of any communion between persons essentially one ( excepting such personal acts as are peculiarly ascribed to each in the oeconomy of our salvation , which are not the communion of mutual-consciousness ) distinct from their essential unity . in separate persons , who have no natural union , unity and communion are two things ; for where there is no natural union , communion can only signifie a moral or political union ; but all communion is union ; and where the union is natural , union and communion must be the same : for persons which are essentially one , which is the most perfect union , can admit of no lower degrees of union , which are only imitations of nature , to supply the want of natural unity . so that the animadverter has unawares proved the essential union of the divine persons to consist in mutual-consciousness ; for if their communion consists in it , as he grants , then their union must . but he has made a very false representation both of mutual-consciousness , and of the communion of the divine persons with each other . for to prove mutual-consciousness to be communion , he says , that all acts of several persons upon one another ( as all that are mutual must be ) are properly acts of communion , by which the said persons have an intercourse amongst themselves , as acting interchangeably one upon the other ; which may be true of separate persons , and of all other mutual acts , excepting mutual-consciousness : but persons , though distinct , yet not separate , but essentially one by mutual-consciousness , do not act upon each other ( which must signifie an external impression , which one person makes upon the other , and that supposes them to be separate persons ) but see , and know , and feel each other in themselves , as every single individual mind feels its own thoughts and passions . had the dean made such a separation between the divine persons , as this loose description of communion infers , what tragical exclamations should we have heard ? but this severe censurer of other men ought to have been more cautious than to have said , that all acts of several persons upon one another , are acts of communion , which makes boys in a state of communion with each other at boxing ; and a match at scolding another state of communion ; that had the dean but been pleased to have returned mutual acts , he and the animadverter might long before this , have been in very strict communion with each other . after all this huffing and swaggering , this notable dispute issues in a meer metaphysical subtlety about the natural order of our conceptions of things . the animadverter grants all that the dean says , and all that he has need to say in order to form a notion of a trinity in unity . in the dispute about self-consciousness , he no where denies , but in all his arguments supposes , that every individual person has a self-consciousness of its own , and that every such self-conscious person is thereby one with it self , and distinguish'd from all other persons ; but he will not allow self-consciousness to be the formal reason of personality , which the dean no where says it is ; and as for mutual-consciousness , he allows the three divine persons , to be thus mutually-conscious ; and that this mutual-consciousness may suppose an union of nature ( the dean would have said unity of nature , though an union of persons ; for unity is oneness , union is a conjunction of more than one ; and therefore there can be no union of nature , unless there be a number of natures united into one , but there is an union of persons in the unity of nature ) and that mutual-consciousness may result from this union , and upon the same account may infer and prove it , but it can never give or cause it ; for their essence and personality ( what but one personality , as one essence in three ? ) must still go before their mutual-consciousness , since the three persons must be really one in nature before they can know themselves to be so . to be so ? how is that ? to be one ? that they must be one , before they can know themselves to be one ? what is that to the purpose ? can they be one before they are mutually-conscious , even in the order of conceiving it ? can they be one before they are in one another ? or is there any other mutual in-being of minds , but mutual-consciousness ? but what confounded work does this make with the pure , simple , uncompounded , eternal nature of god to prove a priority or posteriority of being , or causality in the divine nature from the order of our conceptions ? when we certainly know , that the divine nature is eternal , and therefore has nothing before , nor after in it ; that it has no parts or composition , and therefore nothing in order of nature before or after , nothing that can be conceived as a cause or effect , is it not demonstrable , that all such conceptions , reduced into such exact order and method , are false , because there is nothing in the divine nature , that answers to them ? and though the imperfection of our knowledge makes it necessary to distinguish the divine nature into different conceptions , as far as we can know any thing of god , and can form distinct notions , which we can view by parts ; is this a reason to frame ideas of priority and posteriority , of causes and effects , of formal reasons and essential properties , when we know there is no such thing in god , and can form no distinct conceptions of them ? is it not a wise dispute , whether essence , subsistence , personality , the distinction of persons , or the unity of nature , self-consciousness , and mutual-consciousness , be first or last , which is the cause , and which the effect ; when we know that the divine nature did eternally subsist in three self-conscious , and mutually-conscious persons , and have no other conception of their distinction and unity ? but let those distinguish and methodize their conceptions into unconceivable confusion , that please ; if self-consciousness necessarily results from , and infers and proves a distinction of persons , and mutual-consciousness supposes , results from , infers , and proves , the union of the divine persons in the essential unity of the godhead , it will satisfie the dean without disputing the formal reasons of personality and union : for this proves a trinity in unity , and gives us as intelligible a notion of it , as we have of three distinct self-conscious persons , which are mutually conscious to each other , which either makes or proves an essential distinction and unity ; and to dispute about the cause of self-consciousness or mutual-consciousness , is to dispute about the naked essences , or essential properties of things , which the dean rejected from the beginning , as without the compass of humane knowledge . 4. his fourth and last argument discards the notion of self-consciousness and mutual-consciousness , not only as new and suspicious , but as wholly needless in this subject . why so ? pray what hurt have these seemingly innocent words done ? are they not english ? do they signifie nothing ? or can't he understand them ? the last is the truth of the case , and it is a hard case , that the dean must be bound , at the peril of having a great scolding book writ against him , to furnish the animadverter with understanding , if he venture upon any terms , which he can't find in some orthodox schoolmen , for peter lombard will not pass muster with him . but the sum of all is , that nothing can be signified by these words ( self-consciousness and mutual consciousness ) which is not fully , clearly , and abundantly signified by that one plain word , and known attribute , the divine omniscience . now suppose this ; why may not that one comprehensive attribute of omniscience very properly receive different names , according to its different objects , as the several arts and sciences do ? if , as he says , by this omniscience every divine person knows himself , and the same person , by the very same omniscience knows all that is known by the other two persons , and the other two persons by the same knows all that is known by him ; yet to know himself and to know whatever others know , though it may belong to the same omniscience is not the same knowledge , because it has not the same object ; for self and others , are as distinct objects as father , son , and holy ghost , are distinct persons ; and therefore this knowledge may be distinguished by different names , as it is by different objects . and since , as he confesses , the general notion of omniscience does not distinguish persons as self-consciousness does , nor unite them into one , as mutual-consciousness does , these terms were necessary to express something , which omniscience does not express , viz. wherein these divine persons are distinguished , and wherein they are one. but , after all , this is a mistake ; for though self-consciousness and mutual consciousness may in some sence be called knowledge , yet they are of a different kind and species from what we strictly call knowledge , that is , they differ as speculation and sensation . self-knowledge properly signifies to contemplate our own natures in their idea , to draw our own image and picture as like the original as we can , and to view our selves in it : but self-consciousness is an intellectual self-sensation , when we feel our selves , and all the thoughts , knowledge , volitions , passions of our minds , and know what is self , and what belongs to self by feeling it : he , who knows not the difference between intellectual sence and knowledge , is as unfit to meddle in this controversie , as a blind-man is to dispute of colours . thus the mutual-consciousness of three persons is not their mutual knowledge of each other , though they know each other as perfectly as they know themselves , but their mutual-sensation and feeling each other in themselves , which makes them naturally one. an omniscient being knows all things , but feels himself ; and omniscience , as the animadverter observes , belongs to nature , but mutual-consciousness to persons , which might have satisfied him , that there is a great difference between omniscience , and self-consciousness , and mutual-consciousness ; between knowing all things , whether the object be self , or any other being , and feeling himself and other persons in himself . this is sufficient to justifie the dean's notion of self-consciousness and mutual-consciousness , and a little more fully to explain it , which , it seems , he thought , that every one , who was acquainted with the workings of his own mind , must have understood without a comment : and , i hope , if the animadverter think fit to try his skill again , we shall hear no more of his formal reasons of personality and union , but that he will be pleased to speak to the true point , whether a self-conscious person be not one with himself , and distinguished from all other persons , and whether he does not feel himself to be thus one , and thus distinguished by self-consciousness ; and whether three divine persons , who are thus mutually-conscious to each other , be not naturally and essentially united into one supream being , or one god. all other disputes are beside the question ; for if this hold true , then we have a natural distinction , and a natural unity between these three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost ; and that is a natural trinity in unity , without the least appearance of absurdity or contradiction , or impossibility in its notion . hitherto , though the assault has been furious and insulting , we have met with no heavier charge , ( excepting some usual complements ) than ignorance in philosophy and metaphysicks , and scholastick terms , and where that charge falls , i will now leave you to judge ; but this is but the beginning of sorrow : tritheism follows next , which is a terrible accusation , though i do heartily thank the animadverter , that he has been so civil to the dean , as not to charge this upon him , as his opinion , but as the consequence of his principles , which i believe will prove no more than the animadverter's ignorance , not the dean's heresie . before i answer his arguments , it will be necessary briefly to state this matter in controversie ; for the sting of all his arguments consists in forcing such a sence on the dean's words , as he never intended . the only thing that needs any excuse or apology is the phrase of three eternal and infinite minds ; the fault of which is , that it is an unusual way of speaking , and gives advantage to an ignorant or cavilling adversary to affix some uncouth and heretical sence on it . what led the dean to this , i observed before , viz. his explication of the distinction of the three divine persons by self-consciousness , and of their essential unity by mutual-consciousness ; now since self-consciousness and mutual-consciousness can be in nothing but minds , he thought the fairest and easiest representation of this matter , was to consider them under the notion and character of minds ; for every man can feel in himself , that a mind is distinguished from all other minds by self-consciousness , and if there may be , and is , such a mutual-consciousness between three , as the dean describes , they must be as naturally and essentially one , as three can be one , and we must seek for no other unity in trinity , than what is reconcilable with a real trinity , or a real distinction between three . but had the dean been aware , what kind of men he should have had to do with , such as have no regard to the plain and manifest sence of an author , if they can but pick a quarrel with his words , he might easily have prevented all this , without having injured his main argument : if instead of three eternal and infinite minds , he had but said , three eternal , infinite , knowing , intelligent persons , he had kept the orthodox language , and yet expressed all that he intended by three minds ; for a knowing intelligent person is a mind , if knowledge can be only in a mind ; and then three such intelligent persons may be distinguished from each other by self-consciousness , and united in one godhead by mutual-consciousness . this is the account the dean himself gives , what he means by a mind , that a mind is an intelligent person , and that every intelligent person is a mind , and therefore thought it as innocent in this sence , to say , that there are three eternal and infinite minds , as to say , that there are three eternal and infinite persons ; and i believe it will appear , that excepting the unusualness of the expression , the objection of tritheism will equally lie against both , with this difference , that it is more easily answered by considering the powers and properties of a mind . and in this sence only he affirms , that to say , they are three persons , and not three distinct infinite minds , that is , not three distinct intelligent persons , is both heresie and nonsence ; it is nonsence to talk of a person , who is not an intelligent person , that is , as he explains it , a mind , which contradicts the notion both of a person and mind ; and to say , that there are three persons , but not three intelligent persons , is heresie , even the heresie of sabellius ; for there is no medium between a trinity of intelligent persons , and a trinity of names ; for powers and faculties , and modes , will prove no more , when distinguished from intelligent persons : and it is evident , that this is all he intended by it , by the opposition he makes between three minds and three intelligent persons , and three powers and faculties of the same being ; for faculties are not persons , no more than memory , will , and understanding , are three persons in one man : and he proves , that the received catholick notion of a person is such a being as has understanding , and will , and power of action , from the arguments universally urged against the socinians , to prove the holy ghost to be a person , and not meerly a divine power , because all the properties of a person belong to him , such as understanding , will , affections and actions . so that the dean does not charge those with heresie and nonsence , who barely refuse to use these terms of three eternal and infinite minds , which , it may be , no body ever so expresly used before him , and which he will not contend about ; but the heresie and nonsence is to assert three distinct divine persons , who are not three distinct , eternal , infinite , intelligent persons , and he has authority and reason enough to call this both heresie and nonsence . this is a sufficient answer to that charge the animadverter draws up against the dean , that he calls the three divine persons three eternal and infinite minds , by which he understands no more than three intelligent persons ; and if he thinks an intelligent person to be a mind , let the animadverter confute him , if he can ; and if he means no more by three minds than three intelligent persons , ( as it is evident he could mean no more ) how inconvenient soever this expression may be thought , let the animadverter try his skill to make tritheism of three minds , and excuse three intelligent persons from the same charge . and now let us consider his arguments , which he shews with great pomp in mode and figure . arg. 1. three distinct infinite minds or spirits , are three distinct gods. but the three persons of the blessed trinity are not three distinct gods. and therefore the three persons of the blessed trinity , are not three distinct infinite minds or spirits . now let us but change the term of minds into intelligent persons , and it is the very argument the socinians urge to confute the doctrine of three divine persons , or to charge it with tritheism , and runs thus : three distinct , infinite , intelligent persons , are three distinct gods. but there are not three distinct gods. and therefore there are not three distinct , infinite , intelligent persons in the godhead ; and consequently to assert three such distinct persons is to assert three gods. his proof of the major proposition will serve as well for an eternal , infinite , intelligent person , as for an eternal infinite mind . for god and eternal , infinite , intelligent person , are terms as equipollent and convertible , as god and infinite mind or spirit . god being as truly and properly an infinite , intelligent person , as an infinite mind or spirit , and an infinite , intelligent person being as truly and properly god , as an infinite mind . if the animadverter think fit to answer , that one god , and one infinite mind are convertible terms , but one god , and one infinite , intelligent person are not convertible terms , because there are three such infinite persons in the godhead , and but one infinite mind ; the reply is easie , that the bare terms , from which he argues , do not prove this distinction ; for though in the doctrine of the trinity , custom has more reconciled us to the term person than mind ; yet , setting aside this dispute , all mankind understand the same thing by an infinite mind , and an infinite intelligent person ; it is plain the socinians do , and hence conclude , that there is but one person in the godhead , because god is but one infinite mind . whether there be one or three infinite minds , or infinite intelligent persons in the unity of the godhead , is a dispute of a higher nature , and can't be determined by convertible terms ; for though the ancient philosophers and poets ( as he learnedly proves , what every school-boy knows ) did acknolwedge god to be a mind or spirit , that is , an understanding , intelligent , immaterial being , yet most of them by mind understood no more than one single mind , or one single intelligent person , and he might have known , that plato , to whom he appeals , though he acknowledged god to be a mind , yet he owned three such minds in the unity of the godhead . and therefore could not think , that one god , and one infinite mind , were equipollent and convertible terms ; because he asserted three infinite minds to be but one god. but since the animadverter has only made god , and infinite mind or spirit , equipollent and convertible terms , we may allow him this , and still deny his major proposition , that therefore three distinct infinite minds or spirits , are three distinct gods ; for though god is an infinite mind , and an infinite mind is god , it does not follow that three infinite minds are three distinct gods , no more than three infinite intelligent persons are three distinct gods ; but only as it is expressed in the athanasian creed , that we are compelled by the christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , singly , distinctly ) to be god and lord , and yet are forbidden by the catholick religion to say , there be three gods or three lords . if god be an infinite mind , and there be three infinite minds , it must follow , that each of these three infinite minds , distinctly , and by himself considered , is god , not that these three are three distinct gods , but one god. indeed the animadverter's argument from convertibility and commensuration , that whatsoever may be affirmed or denied of the one , may with equal truth and propriety be affirmed and denied of the other , proves all that the dean would desire , viz. that every distinct person in the godhead is distinctly by himself an infinite mind , because he is distinctly by himself god , and god is infinite mind , and therefore every person , who is god , is infinite mind ; for no person can , by himself be god , who has not by himself all the perfections that belong to the idea of god : so that here are three persons in the godhead , each of which by himself is infinite mind . and therefore , though it may be improper , in an absolute sence to say , there are three eternal and infinite minds , when we acknowledge this infinite mind is , and eternally was essentially and inseparably one ; yet we must say , that this one infinite mind is essentially distinguished into three infinite intelligent persons , whom , in any other case , we should call three minds , and are as much three as is consistent with the essential unity of the godhead ; and this is reason enough to consider the distinction of persons , and the unity of the godhead , as we would the distinction and unity of three minds ; and then this one eternal infinite mind , may be distinguished into three intelligent persons ▪ by three self consciousnesses , and be essentially one by a natural mutual-consciousness , which is all the dean intended , or had occasion to assert . and if this be all he means by the godhead , and infinite mind , which is common to all three persons , the dean readily agrees with him , and in this sence will no more say , that there are three infinite minds , than that there are three gods. the animadverter was aware of this , that the same objection of three gods , would as well lie against three persons as against three minds ; and let us consider how he avoids the blow . the difference he makes between them is this , that three infinite minds or spirits are three absolute , simple beings , or essences , and so stand distinguished from one another by their whole beings or natures . the sum of which is no more but this , that three distinct minds are three distinct gods , because they are distinguished ; but if notwithstanding their distinction , they are essentially and inseparably one , they are not three distinct gods , but a real trinity of divine persons in the unity of the godhead , which all men must own , who believe a trinity in unity . but are not three infinite intelligent persons , as much three absolute , simple beings and essences , as three minds ? no! by no means ! the divine persons are three relatives , ( or one simple being or essence under three distinct relations ) and consequently differ from one another , not wholly , and by all that is in them , but only by some mode or respect peculiar to each , and upon that account causing their destinction . this is perfect gibberish , which i am certain he understands not one word of himself ; but let us examine it . the divine persons , he says , are three relatives ; very right ; for father , son , and holy ghost , are three , and are related to each other . but what are three relatives ? that comes in by way of parenthesis , one simple being , or essence under three distinct relations . that these three persons , thus related to each other , are one simple being , or essence we readily grant , for they were from eternity inseparably united in one infinite essence , or one supream god ; but the question still remains , what these three persons are , into which this one being , or essence , is distinguished by these three distinct relations ? three relatives are not three relations , but three things related to each other ; what then , are these three persons in the unity of the divine essence ? three relations , three modes , three respects , without some being , which tho' essentially one , is really and substantially three , is nonsence in logick ; for there must be as many real , substantial relatives and correlates , as there are relations , unless the relation between father and son can subsist without a real father and son. the person then of the father , the person of the son , and the person of the holy ghost , are not the relations between father , son , and holy ghost , but real , substantial persons , thus related to each other : and if these are three intelligent persons , let him make , if he can , three gods of three minds , and excuse three real intelligent persons from the same charge . but the truth is , to prevent the charge of making three gods , he distinguishes the three divine persons , into three logical relations , or modes of subsistence ; and if we will be contented with a trinity of modes , he is for us ; but this looks very like renouncing a trinity of persons , to secure the unity of the godhead ; and i fear will prove no better when thoroughly examined . in what sence the three divine persons are three relatives , or three relations , i have explained above ; their nature is compleat and absolute , if the divine nature be so , but their subsistence is relative , as it must of necessity be , when the same individual nature is repeated , and subsists distinctly in three , if it be essential to the father to be a father , he subsists with a necessary relation to his son ; if it be essential to the son to be a son , the perfect living image of the father , his subsistence is wholly relative , as the subsistence of an image is , which depends upon the prototype . and therefore though each divine person be eternal and infinite mind , and with respect to their three real subsistences , may be called three infinite eternal minds , ( as the dean ventured to call them ) yet these three are not three absolute simple beings or essences , which stand distinguished from one another by their whole beings or natures , but one absolute eternal mind repeated in three relative subsistences without multiplication : as a man and his living image , though each of them have distinctly humane nature , and upon that account might be called two men , yet they have but one compleat , absolute humane nature , though it be repeated in the image , and are but one man in two persons , or two humane subsistences . had the dean indeed made three compleat , absolute , eternal minds , he had been justly chargeable with making three gods , but the same eternal and infinite mind repeated in three subsistences , necessarily and essentially related to each other , are but one eternal god. 2. his second argument is this . three distinct minds or spirits , are three distinct substances . but the three persons in the blessed trinity , are not three distinct substances . and therefore they are not three distinct minds or spirits . the dean does not pretend to know any thing of the substance of a mind , much less of god , who is an infinite mind : he is contented to know , that a mind is a thinking and understanding being ; and though understanding , and being , and nature , or substance , may be distinguished in finite , created minds , yet st. austin has taught him , that in god , * to be is not one thing , and to understand another , or whatever else can be said of the divine nature , and therefore not substance neither . so that if in the unity of the godhead there be but three such distinct understandings , or minds or intelligent persons , who are not each other , and do not understand by each other , but distinctly by themselves , as st. austin expresly observes , † that no man will say , that the father does not understand by himself , but by his son , he is not concerned about distinct substances , which are the same with to be , and to understand in god. but his proofs of both propositions are entertaining . his major , that three distinct minds are three distinct substances , he proves from the definition of a mind or spirit , that it is substantia incorporea intelligens ; an intelligent , incorporeal ( or immaterial ) substance ; and therefore three distinct minds or spirits must be three such distinct substances . now if a man should deny his definition , and say , that a mind is res cogitans , a thinking being , he would be undone for want of his substances ; but i shall only cap definitions with him at present , that a person is substantia individua naturae rationabilis , the individual substance of a rational nature : and therefore if there be three distinct persons , there are three such distinct substances in the godhead , and let us see how he will bring off three persons from being three distinct substances , and i will undertake the dean shall do as much , and do it as well , for three minds . but if a mind were not a substance , what could it be else ? let us know first , what substance is , and then we 'll tell him . not quod substat accidentibus i hope , for then he immediately proves , that god is no substance , because no accident can be in god , nor need he fear , that the dean will make a mind a mode of subsistence in his sence of it , but a true and real mind , which does really and actually subsist , though these three eternal minds are but three eternal subsistences of the same one individual eternal mind . as for the minor , viz. that the three divine persons in the blessed trinity are not three distinct substances , he proves first from authority ; and he is as dangerous a man at authorities , as ever i met with . he cites tertullian , st. ierom , st. austin , and some others , and he might have produced the authority of all the ancient fathers , to prove , that there is but one substance in god ; but this is nothing to his purpose , for by one substance they plainly meant the homoousion , that father , son , and holy ghost , were of the same nature , and by denying three substances , they principally rejected three divers natures , of different kinds and species , in opposition to arianism , which denied the son to be of the same nature with his father ; this he might have learnt from what he cites from his orthodox father , bellarmine , that to assert , that the father and the son differ in substance is arianism ; for the difference the arians made , and the catholicks opposed , was not in the real distinction of their persons , but in the diversity of their natures ; and the reason he adds , will not help it out : and yet ( he adds ) if they were two distinct substances , for them not to differ in substance would be impossible ; as if to be distinct , and to differ in substance were the same thing : as if two men were not unius substantiae , of one and the same substance , as st. austin and all the fathers assert , because they are two distinct men , and each of them has a distinct nature of his own ? or if he will call this a difference , as if to differ in number and in substance or nature were the same thing ? or as if to differ in number proved a diversity of nature too . it is a tedious thing to dispute with men , who must be taught to construe the fathers , and to understand common sence . but if authority will not do this , he is resolved reason shall , and he has as peculiar a talent at reason as he has at authorities . he proves , that the three persons can't be three distinct minds , because they are not three distinct substances . now the dean may very safely deny this consequence , and try how the animadverter will prove it ; that if three minds are three intelligent persons , and a mind is a substance , therefore three distinct minds , or persons , are three distinct substances ; for three distinct minds may subsist distinctly , and yet inseparably in one eternal and infinite substance , as three intelligent persons do . though the true and short answer is , that the same substance repeated in three distinct subsistences , is not three substances , but one , as i have often observed in the case of the man and his image . but suppose three persons were three distinct substances , inseparably united in one : what then ? what then ? it is a terrible then : for then two substances will concur in , and belong to each person ; to wit that substance , which is the divine essence , and so is communicable or common to all the persons , and the substance , which constitutes each person , and thereby is so peculiar to him , as to distinguish him from the other , and consequently to be incommunicable to any besides him , to whom it belongs . i am heartily ashamed and sorry to see such stuff , as must necessarily expose our holy faith to the scorn of atheists and infidels , and that i may not contribute to it , all this nonsence shall escape the lash of my pen. in short , the dean knows no divine substance or essence distinct from the three divine persons , nor knows any distinction between the divine essence , and a divine person , but that the essence makes the person . that the whole divine essence or nature is originally in god the father , that this same whole divine nature and essence was by eternal generation , communicated by the father to the son , and subsists distinctly in him ; that this same whole divine nature by eternal procession , is communicated by the father and the son , to the holy ghost , and subsists distinctly in him ; and these three divine persons by an inseparable union , dwelling in each other , is that supream and sovereign being , who is the one god , or a trinity in unity . it is amazing to think what strange conceits this man must have of a trinity of persons , and unity of essence or substance : for i am sure no man has any idea of an intelligent nature and essence distinguished from a person , or of persons distinguished from a rational nature ; of a divine essence and substance , which is no person ; and of divine persons , which are no substances , as it seems , they cannot be in the animadverter's way , unless he also will compound every person of two substances . what is the divine essence and substance , but an infinite and eternal mind ? and is not an infinite and eternal mind a person ? the divine essence then must be acknowledged to be a person , and to be a substantial person , or the divine substance ; so that there is a person , that is a substance , and if there be but one such single and solitary divine essence , there can be but one such single and solitary person : will he then make four persons in the godhead ; the divine essence , which is a substantial person , and three persons , which are no substances ? or will he own god to be , what pascentius objected to st. austin , and he rejected with scorn ; triformis persona , one divine person under three forms : this or something more senceless is the truth of the case , as may appear more hereafter : but i will now proceed . 3. his third argument is this . if it be truly said , that one and the same infinite mind or spirit is father , son , and holy ghost ( i mean all three taken together ) and it cannot be truly said , that one and the same infinite mind or spirit is three distinct infinite minds or spirits , then it follows , that father , son , and holy ghost , are not three distinct infinite minds or spirits . this logick is a very troublesome thing , when men want sence . the whole of this argument is this , that one infinite mind can't be three infinite minds , nor three infinite minds one infinite mind , and that three persons , who are one infinite mind , can't be three infinite minds ; that is , that three can't be one , nor one three ; which if it be universally true , there is an end of a trinity in unity ; if it be not universally true , that is , if three may be one , and one three , the meer opposition between three and one , which is the whole force of his argument , is childish sophistry : for if they be three and one in different respects , this is no contradiction . every divine person is an infinite mind , and as distinctly so , as he is a distinct person , and yet by their essential and inseparable union to each other , all three are but one eternal infinite mind , as they are but one god. but when these three divine persons , are said to be three , and to be one eternal and infinite mind , they are three and one mind upon different respects ; every person by himself , as a distinct person , is an eternal infinite mind , that is , is a knowing intelligent being , and has all the perfections of an infinite understanding , distinguished from the other persons by self-consciousness ; and all three persons by their inseparable union to each other , are but one eternal infinite mind , as having each other in themselves by mutual-consciousness ; and let the animadverter shew where the contradiction is , that there should be three self-conscious infinite minds , as there are three infinite persons , united into one mutualconscious mind , as three distinct persons are united in the unity of the godhead : especially when this one eternal mind is entirely and perfectly repeated without the least change in three eternal intelligent subsistences ; each of which is distinctly an eternal mind , but the same one individual eternal mind . 4. his fourth and last argument is this : whatsoever attribute may be truly predicated of all and each of the divine persons in the athanasian form , so belongs to them all in common , that it can belong to none of them under any term of distinction from the rest . but the attribute ( infinite mind or spirit ) may be truly predicated of all and each of the divine persons in and according to the athanasian form. and therefore it can belong to none of them under any term of distinction from the rest . this is a wonderful argument , if it be well considered . for , 1. infinite mind or spirit is no attribute , but the divine nature and essence it self , and our metaphysical animadverter uses to distinguish between essence and attributes in god ; and disputes earnestly without an opponent , that infinite mind is god ; and therefore , that there is but one infinite mind , as there is but one god ; is god himself then an attribute ? what will he make of god at last , when the divine essence is an attribute , and a divine person a meer mode ? 2. but let infinite mind or spirit be an attribute or the divine essence , since it may be truly predicated of all and each of the divine persons , it must so belong to them all in common , that it can belong to none of them under any term of distinction from the rest . if by this term of distinction from the rest , he means it cannot belong to each of them considered distinctly as such distinct persons , then it cannot be predicated distinctly of them neither ; for nothing can , without manifest absurdity , be distinctly predicated of three distinct persons , if it do not distinctly belong to each of them : if the father , considered as the father , and as a distinct person from the son , and from the holy ghost , be not an infinite mind , it cannot be truly said , that the father is an infinite mind ; and if the son , as a distinct person from the father and the holy ghost is not an infinite mind , it cannot be truly affirmed distinctly of the son , that he is an infinite mind . predication , if it be true , must follow nature , and therefore nothing can be particularly and distinctly predicated of any person , which does not distinctly belong to him . what is common to three , cannot be so peculiarly appropriated to any one , as to exclude either of the other two ; for it is not common , if it be not common to all ; and no more is it common , if each of them have it not as distinctly as they subsist : for distinct persons , that subsist distinctly , must distinctly have what they have , or they cannot have it at all ; though humane nature is common to all mankind , yet every distinct man , distinctly enjoys humane nature ; for there is no other way of distinction of persons in a common nature : there is indeed a great difference between the distinction of humane persons , and of the divine persons in the sacred trinity , and between the divine nature , being common to all three divine persons , and humane nature , being common to all mankind , as i have often observed ; but there is so much likeness and analogy between them , as to make it very absurd to say , that what is common to three distinct persons , does not belong distinctly to each . 3. nor does the form of the athanasian creed forbid us distinctly to attribute to each distinct person of the trinity , what is common to all three ; for the creed it self does this expresly in every point ; the father uncreate , the son uncreate , the holy ghost uncreate . the father incomprehensible , eternal , almighty , god and lord ; and the son incomprehensible , eternal , almighty , god and lord ; and the holy ghost incomprehensible , eternal , almighty , god and lord. and that the christian verity compels us to acknowledge every person by himself ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which , i think , is distinctly ) god and lord. well! but the creed expresly denies , that therefore there are three uncreate , or three incomprehensibles , or three eternals , or three almighties , or three gods , or three lords : i grant it , but not for the animadverter's reason , because what is common to all three , does not distinctly belong to each , or to all of them , for the creed expresly affirms , that it does ; but because these three divine persons , each of which have distinctly all these perfections of the divine nature , and the whole divine nature in them are so inseparably united , as to be essentially one : and therefore , though there are three eternal , incomprehensible , almighty persons , each of which is god and lord , yet there is but one eternal , incomprehensible , almighty god and lord ; and thus it must be , if we will maintain with the athanasian creed , the real distinction of persons , and the unity of the godhead : if there be three persons , each of which is by himself , uncreate , eternal , incomprehensible , almighty , i will venture any man , who can understand plain sence , and dares own it , to deny , if he can , that there are three uncreate , eternal , incomprehensible , almighty persons . and in this sence the dean has not transgressed the form of the athanasian creed , by three infinite minds , if we understand them of three infinite , intelligent , persons ; and it is certain he could understand nothing else by them , when he unites these three infinite minds into one infinite mind , which can signifie nothing else but three persons and one god. this is enough in answer to the animadverter's arguments , and i belive you are sensible by this time , what a profound reasoner he is ; in the next place we should consider his authorities , but i am very weary of this work , and i guess , you think it a pretty long letter already , but if you desire it , and will have a little patience , neither you nor the animadverter shall long complain for want of an answer , though i can't but think it a needless undertaking ; for no man , who ever lookt into the fathers , can want an answer , and those who cannot consult the fathers themselves , will believe as their inclinations and affections lead them . i will undertake , the fathers shall absolve the dean from the imputation of tritheism , let the animadverter fence as well as he can against sabellianism . his socinian friends and admirers declare , they will not dispute with him about a trinity of meer modes and postures in the singularity of the divine essence ; for though they have too much sence to own and profess such a trinity , yet they think it not worth disputing : it is a real , substantial , subsisting trinity they are afraid of , and dispute against ; such a trinity the dean asserts , and has vindicated from absurdity and contradiction , and this is the trinity , which both the scripture teaches , and the ancient catholick church always taught ; and this i undertake to prove . there is indeed a third part of the animadversions , if that may be called a part , which runs through and inspires the whole , in which the animadverter is by much an over-match for any man who is a christian ; i mean his scolding part , for it would prophane the name of wit to give it that title . this i don't pretend to answer , and you your self confess it should be despised , not answered : let him then here securely triumph , and receive the reward of such heroical actions ; ut pueris placeas , & declamatio sias . and therefore i shall only add , that if you want an answer to the preface , you should read the dean's defence of the knowledge of iesus christ and our union and communion with him , which was published many years since , and silenced all his adversaries then , that he heard no more of that till the animadverter revived the quarrel , who could have given you the dean's answers to his own objections , if he had so pleased ; for they are not new , but borrowed from such wits as mr. alsop , without any new strength given to them . where the animadverter charges the dean with absurdities and contradictions , turn to the place , and read it with it s context , and tell me what you can't answer , and i will. but if you , or any body else , can be perswaded by the animadverter , that the dean understands neither english , latin , nor greek ; neither logicks , metaphysicks , or common sence ; i need wish you no other punishment , than when ever you write to fall into the hands of such an adversary ; for , i believe , there are very few writers , but might be exposed in the same manner by a spiteful critick , not the animadverter himself excepted , who begins his animadversions with a notorious blunder in deriving a mystery from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; whereas a mystery does not signifie in english the word mystery , but the thing signified by that word ; and therefore , though the word mystery may be derived , a mystery is derived from no word ; and to talk of deriving a mystery is neither english nor sence . but though it were justice to return some of his complements to the dean upon himself , yet his example is too scandalous to be imitated , and there is no need to expose him , more than his own pen has done . i am , sir , your very faithful friend . a post-script , concerning the calm-discourse of the trinity in the godhead . sir , since my writing this letter , i have met with a book , entituled , a calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a trinity in the godhead , written , as is said , by a man of great reputation among the dissenters : i do not intend to examine the book , nor to approve , or disapprove it , though there seem to be very obnoxious passages in it , should he fall into such hands as our animadverter : he has taken great care , that no man should suspect that he favours the dean in his notions ; and i believe , the dean will thank him for that , for if i understand him , he would never have said , and would be as unwilling that any man should think he has said , what the enquirer has . but all i design by this post-script , is only this , to let you see , that though the enquirer does not in every particular say what the dean says , yet he says what will justifie the dean against the heaviest charge the animadverter himself could frame against his hypothesis , and that is tritheism . the pretence of this is , what the dean says concerning three distinct , eternal , infinite minds , and the objections and answers you have already heard ; and if i can understand the enquirer , he says this as plainly , and in more obnoxious terms than the dean has done . to prove the possibility of a trinity in the godhead , he argues from the possibility of god's uniting two spirits by as close an union , as he has united spirit and body , which make one man ; and if it were possible to him ( god ) to unite two , would it not be as possible to unite three : so that he represents the trinity in unity , by the union of three spirits ; which are distinguished by their own individual essences , and remain distinct by their singular essences ; so as to be everlastingly united , but not identified , and by vertue of that union be some one thing , as much , and as truly as our soul and body united do constitute one man. now from the possibility of such an union with such a distinction in created spirits , he concludes the possibility of such an union unmade ; or that is original and eternal , in an unmade or uncreated being ; that is , that three eternal , unmade , uncreated spirits may be thus united in one godhead ; that is , that there are , or may be ( for whatever he thinks , which may be easily guessed at , he will not positively assert it ) three eternal , uncreated minds in the unity of the godhead . this he proves from the incarnation , that the union of the two natures , the humane ( made up of an humane body and humane soul , which are two exceedingly different natures ) with the divine ( which is a third , and infinitely more different from both the other ) in one person , viz. of the son of god , cannot certainly appear to any considering person , more conceivable or possible , than that which we now suppose ( but assert not ) of three distinct essences united in the one godhead . and that father , son , and holy ghost have their distinct essences , he proves also from the doctrine of the incarnation , since the man christ is confessed to be in hypostatical union with the uncreated spiritual being of god , not as that being is in the person of the father , nor as in the person of the holy ghost ; for then they should have become man too ; but as it was in the person of the son only , why should it be thought less possible , that three uncreated spiritual beings ( which the animadverter will no more allow of them of three eternal minds ) may be in so near an union with each other , as to be one god , as that a created spirit ( and body too ) should be in so near an union with one of the persons in the godhead only , as therewith to be one person ? will it not hereby be much more apprehensible , how one of the persons ( as the common way of speaking is ) should be incarnate , and not the other two ? will not the notion of person it self be much more unexceptionable , when it shall be supposed to have its own individual nature ? — will it be tritheism and inconsistent with the acknowledged invioluble unity of the godhead ? a great deal more to this purpose you may find in his first letter to dr. wallis , p. 100 , &c. and whether this be tritheism or not , he had best ask the animadverter , who charged the dean's hypothesis with tritheism , with much less reason : and , i confess , i am amazed , that after all this he should so industriously vindicate himself from dr. sherlock's notion of three infinite minds or spirits , for three distinct substances the dean does not assert ; and if the enquirer has not all this while been proving , three spirits , three distinct essences , three individual natures in the godhead , no man living can guess what he means ; for my part , i cannot tell where the difference is , unless it be in the term of infinite ; for his three spirits , and essences , and individual natures , which make up his unity of the godhead , as he has represented it , do not seem to be infinite . but he shelters himself from the animadverter , whom he seems to be terribly afraid of , in academick uncertainty , and thinks he may safely dispute as he pleases , and all on one side , so long as he asserts nothing ; though i cannot see how the dean was more dogmatical than the enquirer , who proposed his hypothesis only as a possible and intelligible notion ; every body indeed might guess , what the dean's private opinion was , and so they may , what the enquirer conceives about it , but he was far enough from imposing upon other men , by asserting , that thus it must be , and it cannot be otherwise : he was only concerned to represent a possible and intelligible notion ; and that the enquirer pretends to as much as he , and therefore falls under the same condemnation : nay , the enquirer is much more exposed to the charge of tritheism , by asserting , three distinct essences , three individual natures , and three spiritual beings , than the dean was , who never said any such thing , and the animadverter charges him with it only by consequence , that three minds are three distinct substances and essences , which he may deny , and i deny for him ; but the enquirer says it in express words . the dean allows but one divine essence , and one individual nature in the godhead , repeated in three persons , but without multiplication , as i have already explained it ; and how to own three essences , and three individual divine natures in the godhead , without making three gods , seems to have some difficulty in it . for three individual natures in the deity , seem to sound very like three individual natures in humanity , which make three men. but though the enquirer has distinguished father , son , and holy ghost by their singular essences , much more than the dean has , yet he thinks he has also made a more close union between them , and therefore is not so liable to the charge of tritheism . for as he says , reflecting upon the dean's notion , an hypothesis in this affair , which leaves out the very nexus , the natural and eternal union , or leaves it out of its proper place , and insists upon mutual-consciousness , which , at the most , is but a consequence thereof , wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the unity of the godhead . if two or three created spirits had never so perfect a mutual perspection of one another , that would not constitute them one thing , tho' it probably argue them to be so , and but probably . this is all a mistake of the dean's notion of mutual-consciousness , as i have sufficiently shown , which is not a mutual-perspection , or mutual-insight into one another , but a feeling each other in themselves ; and if such an internal vital sensation be not an essential union , i believe no man can tell me what it is . it is certain , the dean took it to be so ; and therefore he did not leave out a natural , eternal union . whatever the nexus , as he calls it , be , if they are united into a mutual-conscious life , they are essentially one , and i am sure he can never form any notion of the union of spiritual essences without it . but i have said enough of this already , and therefore shall now briefly consider , how the enquirer unites these three distinct essences , three spiritual beings , three individual natures in the unity of the godhead . and i believe the dean will like his unity of the godhead , as little as his distinction . he represents this by the union of soul and body , which makes one man ; and by the union of the divine and humane nature , which makes one christ , as you see by what i have already cited : but these are personal unions , and therefore cannot be the unity of the godhead , in which is a trinity of distinct persons . and yet , as far as i can possibly understand him ( and if i mistake him , i shall be glad for many reasons to be better informed ) no other unity will satisfie him , but such an union of three spiritual beings , and individual natures , as by their composition constitute the godhead , as the composition of soul and body make the man. for this reason he disputes earnestly against the universal , absolute , omnimodous simplicity of the divine nature , and will not allow , that wisdom , power , and goodness , are the same thing in god , and distinguished into different conceptions by us , only through the weakness of our understandings , which cannot comprehend an infinite being in one thought , and therefore must as well as we can contemplate him by parts . this prepared his way to make three spiritual necessary beings of these three divine attributes , goodness , wisdom , and power , the natural union of which make one god , and a natural trinity in unity . if you object , that this gives us the notion of a compounded deity , or of a composition in it ; he answers this difficulty , by giving us a new notion of a compositum ; which , he says , seems to imply a praeexisting component , that brings such things together , and supposes such and such more simple things to have praeexisted apart , or separate , and to be brought afterwards together into an united state : that is to say , that how many parts soever any thing consists of , you must not say it is a compound being , unless its parts were once asunder , and put together by some other being : that if a man suppose , who consists of body and soul , had been from eternity without a maker , and his soul and body had never subsisted apart , he could not have been said to have been a compound creature , though he would have had the same parts then that he has now , that is , soul and body ; and therefore , though god does consist of parts , of those three spiritual beings , and individual natures , the union of which makes the godhead , yet he is not a compounded deity , because he eternally and necessarily is , what he is , without a maker ; and these three spiritual beings , never did praeexist apart , but were eternally united to each other : the summ of which is no more but this , that god is not a made compound , but an eternal unmade compound ; but a compound he is , as a compound signifies a being , which consists of distinct parts , united to each other . but i always thought , that the whole christian world , who have always denied any parts or composition in god , did not by this mean , that he was not made , but that he had no parts ; and one principal argument against all parts and composition in god , is , that he is eternal and unmade , and whatever has parts must have a maker . there can be but one eternal nature , and yet if there be three eternal parts of the deity , there must be three eternal natures , not only distinct , but different natures , or else they could not be parts in the composition , for they would be the same : three spiritual beings , one of which is goodness , another wisdom , and a third power , are three different eternal natures , how closely soever they are united ; for , as he argues , goodness is not wisdom , nor wisdom power , nor power wisdom or goodness , and three different eternal natures is a new notion among christians . and though we have a natural notion of an eternal being , we have no notion of an eternal union of eternal parts , or of three eternal parts in the deity , which necessarily coexist in an eternal union . once more , we have no notion of an eternal and necessary existence , but in an absolutely perfect and infinite nature ; but if there be three parts in the deity , three spiritual beings of distinst and different natures , neither of them can be absolutely perfect and infinite , ( though we could suppose their union to make such a perfect being ) because they are not the same , and neither of them is the whole ; and therefore they cannot necessarily exist , and yet a deity , which consists of parts , cannot necessarily exist , unless its parts necessarily exist ; for a compounded being can exist no otherwise than its parts exist . but there is something in this , which seems to have a very ill aspect upon the trinity it self , as well as on the unity and simplicity of the divine nature . he professes , indeed , not to iudge , that we are under the precise notions of power , wisdom , and goodness , to conceive of the father , son , and holy ghost ; though he has been for several pages together vindicating such a representation of the trinity , and teaching us thus to conceive of father , son , and holy ghost , and thinks that this gives ease to our minds , by their being disentangled from any apprehended necessity of thinking these ( power , wisdom , and goodness ) to be the very same things , and if they be not the same thing , but three really distinct spiritual beings , we must thus conceive of father , son , and holy ghost ; and then the difficulty is in a compounded deity , by what name to call the three parts of the composition , father , son , and holy ghost , whether , as we are taught in the athanasian creed , we must own each of them by himself , to be god and lord ? for if all three , by this composition are but one god , neither of them by himself is true and perfect god ; no more than a part can be the whole : this might be thought a very invidious consequence , had not he himself expresly owned it . the father , son , and spirit , being supposed necessarily existent in this united state , they cannot but be god , and the godhead by reason of this necessary union cannot but be one. yet so , as that when you predicate godhead , or the name of god , of any one of them , you herein express a true , but inadaequate conception of god , i. e. the father is god , not excluding the son and holy ghost ; the son is god , not excluding the father and the holy ghost ; the holy ghost is god , not excluding the father and the son. as our body is the man , not excluding the soul , our soul is the man , not excluding the body . this comparison of the soul and body , which are the parts of a man , and whose union makes a compleat and perfect man , explains what he means by the inadaequate conception of god , when we apply the name god distinctly to father son and holy ghost , and in what sence he says , the father is god , but not so as to exclude the son , &c. all orthodox christians own , that the father is god , not excluding the son , and the holy ghost ; and that the son is god , not excluding the father , and the holy ghost , &c. but then by this they mean , that the father is true and perfect god , has the whole entire divinity in himself , but yet the same whole entire divinity distinctly and inseparably subsists in the person of the son , and of the holy ghost , that the same whole undivided divine nature subsists entirely in three distinct persons , father , son , and holy ghost , and therefore each of them by himself in the most proper and adaequate conception is true and perfect god , tho' all three are but one and the same god. but the inquirers notion of god , as applied to each person , is a very inadaequate notion , for it signifies only a part of the deity , that the father is god , because he is a part of the godhead , and the son , and the holy ghost , god , as parts also of the same one godhead ; as the soul is the man , because part of the man ; and the body also the man , as part of the man ; and therefore father , son , and holy ghost , are each of them god , but so as not to exclude each other , as no one essential part can exclude the rest . this is such a notion of the unity of the godhead , as neither the scriptures , nor the ancient church knew any thing of ; and i think there is little need to confute it . in short , as it makes a compounded deity , so it makes but one compounded person ; for if the godhead be but one by composition , as the man is by the union of soul and body , if god be a person he can be but one : for if you call the three parts of the godhead ▪ three persons , yet neither of them is god , but in a very improper and figurative sence , as a part is called by the name of the whole ; so that either there is no person in the godhead , who is true and perfect god , or there must be but one compounded person , as there is one compounded godhead , and there is an end of the christian trinity . some late socinian writers have been willing to compound this dispute of a tinity of divine persons , for the three attributes of power , wisdom , and goodness ; and if you have a mind to call these three spiritual beings , i believe , they will not contend much about it ; for they are not so much afraid of three parts of a deity , as of three divine persons , each of which is true and perfect god. this also necessarily destroys the homoousion , or sameness of nature , which the ancient church asserted in the persons of the holy trinity ; for three spiritual beings , which are the parts of this compounded deity , cannot be the same , no more than soul and body are ; for the parts of a compound , how closely soever they are united , cannot be the same ; for three same 's , are not ▪ three parts , but three wholes . as to take his own representation of it : if power , wisdom , and goodness ▪ be father ▪ son , and holy ghost , it is certain ▪ and he ow●● , that power is not the same with wisdom ▪ and goodness ; nor wisdom the same with power and goodness ; and therefore the son is not of the same nature with his father . which is another thing to be considered in the enquirer's notion , that it destroys the relations of the ever-blessed trinity ; for if father , son , and holy ghost , be three parts of a compounded deity , though we should grant , that their union might make one god , yet these parts could neither beget , nor be begotten , nor proceed from each other , and therefore could not be related to each other , as father , and son , and spirit , but only as three parts of the same compositum . if power be the father , and wisdom the son , how comes ▪ wisdom to be the son of power , and not to be power ▪ as the father is , since a father begets his own likeness ? this destroys the natural order and subordination of the persons in the trinity ; if power , wisdom and goodness be three real distinct things , and three spiritual beings , which compleatly constitute the godhead , let any man tell me , which of these three in order of nature is the first , second , or third ; why one is the father , the other the son , and the third the holy ghost . this makes me wonder to hear him talk of promanations ; for an emanative cause never produces any thing but of its own nature , as light naturally flows from the sun. but i will not 〈◊〉 this postscript into another long letter ; this is sufficient to my present design , to give you a 〈◊〉 and plain representation of the 〈…〉 , and leave you ●o judge of 〈◊〉 ▪ sir , yours . finis ▪ advertisement . a commentary on the five books of moses : with a dissertation concerning the author or writer of the said books ; and a general argument to each of them . by the right reverend father in god , richard , lord bishop of bath and wells . in two volumes . octavo . reason and religion : in some useful reflections on the most eminent hypothesis concerning the first principles and nature of things ; with advice suitable to the subject , and seasonable for these times , twelves . a defence of the dean of st. paul's apology for writing against the socinians , in answer to the antapologist . quarto . printed for william rogers . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59810-e230 greg. naz. orat. 36. hil. l. 11. de trinit . damasc. l. 1. deimaginibus . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . greg. nyss. contra eunom . orat. 12. p. 345. petav. de trin. p. 342. & alibi . ambr. l. 3. de fide , c. 7. facundus pro defensione trium capit , c. 1. p 19. hil. l. de synod . vindic. of trin. p. 49. vindic. p. 130 , 131 , &c. p. 122 , 123 , &c. p. 81. p. 83. animad . c. 3. pag. 70. vindic. p. 48. page 71. vindic. p. 268. anim. p. 73 ▪ anim. p. 74. animad . p. 75. animad . p. 76. animad . p. 48. pag. 79. pag. 80. anim. chap. 4. p. 90. pag. 94. pag. 101. pag. 104. pag. 107. vindic. p. 8. pag. 100. anim. chap. 5. p. 118. vindic. p. 66. pag. 119. * ideo ipsa mirabilis simplicitas commendatur quia non ibi , ( in trinitate ) aliud est esse , aliud intelligere , vel siquid aliud de dei natura dicitur . anima verò quia est , etiam dum non intelligit , aliud est quidem esse , aliud est quod intelligit . aug. evod. ep. 102. proinde in unum deum patrem & filium & spiritum sanctum credamus , ita ut nec filius credatur esse qui pater est , nec pater qui filius est , nec pater nec filius , qui utriusque spiritus est — sed haec tria aequalia esse , & coaeterna , & omnino esse una natura . ibid. † deinde quis audeat dicere patrem non intelligere per semetipsum , sed per filium ? ibid. pag. 123. ep. 176 , 177. notes for div a59810-e10640 calm discourse p. 19 , 20 , 21. pag. 23. pag. 25. pag. 40. pag. 45. pag. 28 , &c. pag. 31. pag. 34. pag. 37. pag. 47. a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from bishop overal's convocation-book, with a postscript in answer to dr. sherlock's case of allegiance, &c. by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1691 approx. 225 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 42 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59904 wing s3375 estc r11110 11910371 ocm 11910371 50779 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59904) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50779) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:11) a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from bishop overal's convocation-book, with a postscript in answer to dr. sherlock's case of allegiance, &c. by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [3], 80 p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1691. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng wagstaffe, thomas, 1645-1712. -answer to a late pamphlet entituled obedience and submission to the present government. overall, john, 1560-1619. -bishop overall's convocation book. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers. allegiance -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 rina kor sampled and proofread 2004-04 rina kor text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , jan. 14. 1690 / 1. z. isham , r.p.d. henrico , episc. lond. à sacris . a vindication of the case of allegiance due to soveraign powers , in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , obedience and submission to the present government , demonstrated from bishop overal's convocation-book ; with a postscript in answer to dr. sherlock's case of allegiance , &c. by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church , in fleet-street , 1691. a vindication of the late case of allegiance , &c. in a postscript to an answer to a late pamphlet intituled , obedience and submission to the present government , demonstrated from bishop overal ' s convocation book , the author is pleased to examine what i have said relating to the said subject , in my case of allegiance due to soveraign powers ; he writes with great triumph and assurance , which it seems men may do , who are resolved never to own a mistake ; though he thinks it unpardonable in me , who have been so weak , as to confess , that i am not infallible , ever to believe my own senses again . he threatens an answer to my arguments in due time ; and i will patiently expect till his due time comes , and apply myself at present to his postscript , and answer , as far as i am concerned in it ; but shall beg leave to follow my own method , and justifie what i have said in the same order , i have said it in , his altering of which has more art than honesty in it . the mighty place , as he truly calls it , is chap. 28. pag. 57. where the convocation having given an account of the various and irregular revolutions of government , brought about by the providence of god , who for the sins of any nation or country , altereth their governments and governours , transferreth , setteth up , and bestoweth kingdoms , as it seemeth best to his heavenly wisdom , they add these remarkable words : and when having attained their ungodly desires , ( whether ambitious kings by bringing any country into their subjection , or disloyal subjects by their rebellious rising against their natural soveraigns ) they have established any of the same degenerate forms of government among their people ; the authority either so unjustly gotten , or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor , being always god's authority ( and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it ) is ever ( when any such alterations are throughly settled ) to be reverenced and obeyed , and the people of all sorts ( as well of the clergy , as of the laity ) are to be subject unto it , not only for wrath , but also for conscience sake . this i then thought , and think so still ( though our author thinks not ) a very plain testimony , that all usurped powers , when throughly settled , have god's authority , and must be obeyed : and while i was transcribing this passage , there came to my hand the new observator of friday , dec. 5 , 1690 , vol. 3. numb . 12. containing a letter written by king iames the first , with relation to this very convocation , which he says he transcribed verbatim from the original , communicated to him by an eminent person , in whose hands it is ; the four last lines of which are written with king iames's own hand , and the rest , as he guesses , by the then secretary of state. the letter was written to dr. abbot ; i shall not transcribe the whole , but such passages as may satisfie us , how king iames himself understood the convocation . you have dipt too deep in what all kings reserve among the arcana imperii . and whatever aversion you may profess against god's being the author of sin , you have stumbled upon the threshold of that opinion , in saying upon the matter , that even tyranny is god's authority , and should be reverenced as such . if the king of spain should return to claim his old pontifical right to my kingdom , you leave me to seek for others to fight for it ; for you tell me upon the matter before hand , his authority is god's authority , if he prevail . this makes so much for our author indeed , that king iames did not like the doctrine of the convocation , no more than he does ; but then it proves against him , that k. iames understood the convocation not in his , but in my sence : for when he charges them with saying upon the matter , ( that is , in sence , tho' not in express words ) that tyranny is god's authority , and should be reverenced as such , it is the very interpretation i there give of it , that those princes , who have no legal right to their thrones , may yet have god's authority : for by tyranny the king meant such princes as are tyranni sine titulo , or illegal kings ; for as for tyrants exercitio , who are rightful kings , but govern tyrannically , neither k. iames nor this author would dispute , whether they have god's authority . and if they may have god's authority , whilst they are in the first sence tyrants , or have no legal right to their thrones , then their government may be thoroughly settled as the convocation speaks , without a legal right ; for till a thorough settlement , according to the doctrine of the convocation , they have not god's authority ; and when the king charges them with saying upon the matter , that tyranny is god's authority , he must conclude , that they taught , that such tyrants might be throughly settled in their government ; for if they cannot be settled till they obtain a legal title , they must cease to be such tyrants , before they have god's authority : and it is evident , that k. iames did not apprehend , that the convocation meant by a thorough settlement , ( as this author expounds it ) a settlement by the death or cession of the rightful king and all his heirs , or by a long prescription of an hundred years , of which more presently ; for he was afraid , that by this doctrine , the king of spain , should he claim by his pontifical right , and prevail in it , might , while he himself lived , be so thoroughly setled in the kingdom of england , as to have god's authority , and then his subjects must not fight for him , their old rightful king , against the king of spain , who by a thorough settlement and possession of the throne of england , would be invested with god's authority , and must not be opposed by the subjects of england . the king disliked this doctrine so much , that he thought fit to suppress it , and to reserve it among the arcana imperii ; which was a much wiser course then to palliate it with such forced interpretations , as no impartial reader can think to be the sence of the convocation . if i have mistaken the sence of the convocation , i have done no more then king iames did , who was nearly concerned to know , what they meant : if i err in following the convocation , i err with as great and learned men , as any age of the church has bred ; i err with the church of england , if we may learn the sence of the church from a convocation . but let us set aside the king's letter , and try if we can learn the sense of the convocation from the convocation itself . i observed in the first place , from the words of the convocation , that those princes , who have no legal right to their thrones , may yet have god's authority : which i proved , because the convocation speaks of illegal and usurped powers , and yet affirms , that the authority exercised by them , is god's authority . to this our author answers , the doctor will not , but the convocation distinguishes between the means of acquiring the power , and the power itself ; the means of acquiring power may be very unjust and illegal , and yet the power afterwards may be very legal . but the doctor resolves they must be all one ; and because the convocation speaks of the ambition of encroaching kings , and the rebellion of subjects , as a means , whereby governments have been altered ; therefore by a government being throughly setled , they must mean usurped powers . as if it were impossible for such beginnings afterwards to acquire a right , and to terminate in a legal title ; and till that is , the government is as unjust as the rebellion and encroachment . so that according to this author , a government , which is illegally and wickedly begun , when it is legally setled has god's authority , and this is all , that the convocation meant by it . as for what he says , that i will not distinguish between the means of acquiring power , and the power itself . i do not indeed distinguish as he does , but i distinguish as the convocation does , that the means are wicked ; but the power and authority is gods ; which is all the distinction the convocation makes ; and i desire him to shew me , where the convocation says , that the government which is illegally acquired , cannot be throughly setled , till it becomes legal ; if this had been their meaning , it had been easily said , and had prevented all mistakes about it , which their words without this limitation are very apt to betray men into . i believe all unbiassed men who are not prepossed with other notions , and concerned , that the convocation should be on their side , would never dream of our author's sence of the convocation . for 1. if the convocation meant no more than our author says , that a government illegally begun , when it is legally setled , has god's authority , what a wonderful discovery is this , that legal princes have god's authority ! for who doubts of this ? what need was there to introduce this with such a long pompous preface of the changes of government , by the ambition of princes , and the rebellion of subjects ? for let governments begin how they will , when they are once legally setled , no man , that i know of , who owns the authority of any government to be from god , disputes theirs . which makes me wonder at our author's reason , viz. left it should be thought , that wicked ways of obtaining this right , was a prejudice to the right itself , and people should from thence take occasion to rebel , and disturb all the governments of the world , because they could not shew an express order from god , or derive the pedigree of their government even from adam and noah ; to prevent the terrible confusion that such a notion would make in the world , they say , that the wicked ways of attaining it , or the wickedness of the persons that have it , is no impeachment of the right itself ; but when it is attain'd it is god's authority , and ought to be obeyed . that is to say , a wise and grave convocation write a whole chapter to confute a notion , without naming it , or giving any hint at it , which if ever it entred into any mad man's head , yet never did , never can disturb any government , till a nation is fitter for bedlam , than to be directed by a convocation : whereas the difficulties occasioned by the changes and revolutions of government , especially when a rightful prince is dispossessed , and another setled in his throne , are very great , and worthy of the determination of a convocation to direct mens consciences in such cases ; and which is the most probable account of this matter , let every one judge . 2dly , when the convocation speaks of the settlement of illegal powers , which began by ambition and rebellion , it is manifestly unreasonable , unless it had been expressed , to expound this of a legal settlement , by acquiring a new legal right . settlement , i grant , as our author says , is a term of law , and used by lawyers of a legal settlement , and must always in reason be understood so in law , when the contrary is not expressed ; but yet a firm and stable possession without right , must be confessed , to be a settlement too , though not a rightful settlement : i suppose , our author will not deny , but that the government was setled in fact under the three heneries , tho' in his sense it was not a legal settlement . now as it is reasonable in law , to understand a settlement of a legal settlement , when the contrary is not expressed , because the law must speak of such settlements as are according to law ; so for the same reason , when the convocation speaks of the settlement of powers , which are against law , it must be understood of the settlement of possession , not of right , unless this had been expressed ; for the only ordinary way of setling illegal powers is by possession , not by right , and that ever such powers be afterwards legally setled is a great accident , and therefore the natural and obvious exposition of settlement in such cases , is a settlement of possession ; and it argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sence of the word , which is proper to the subject to which it is applied , for such a sence as is forreign and unnatural . it is plain , that the right and settlement of government are two very different things , for they may be parted ; the first relates to the title , the second to the setled possession , and exercise of government : and whenever a rightful king is dispossessed , our author must grant , that his settlement is gone , tho' not his right ; and if right and settlement may be parted , i desire to know , why there may not be a settlement without right ; and then it is ridiculous to conclude , that settlement must always signifie right . nay , the addition of thorough plainly refers settlement to possession , and not to right ; for there are no degrees of right , no more than there are of truth ; for all right in this case of a legal title is thorough rite ; but there are degrees of settlement , as that signifies possession ; for princes may be more or less setled in the possession and exercise of government ; which is reason enough to expound thoroughly setled of a thorough setled possession of power , and authority , or a compleat and perfect administration of the government . 3dly , let us consider what our author makes necessary to the thorough settlement of such powers as begin by usurpation or rebellion , and try what sense it will make of what the convocation says . now he tells us , that a right to a government may be acquired , by the death or cession of the person in whom the right was : and this ( he says ) is the case : in this chapter the convocation mentions several variations of government , as to the forms , aristocracy and democracy ; and as to the ambitious encroaching of kings upon their neighbours ; and particularly the four monarchies , and the king of babylon upon the jews : all which respective governments ; tho they were begun by rebellion , ambition , and unlawful means ( which the convocation condemns ) yet afterwards they became lawful governments , and had such a right to the respective governments they did possess : and this is to be thoroughly setled . to the death and cession of the person in whom the right was , he adds in another place , when the right to the government is acquired by prescription , and that is a long and uninterrupted possession joyned with the consent of the people ; that is , a possession of an hundred years , as he has learnt from bishop buckeridge . so that to make a legal settlement of a government illegally begun , the rightful prince , and all his heirs , must die , or resign up their government to the usurper ; or the usurper and his heirs must reign about an hundred years , and then he may come to be a legal king ; though this settlement by prescription i do not well understand . for suppose the usurper should have an uninterrupted possession of an hundred years , will this make him a rightful king without the death or cession of the whole royal family ? if it will , how does the royal family come to lose their right by an usurped possession of their throne ? for how long soever it has been , it is an usurpation still , and the right is still in them : and if an usurpation will destroy their right , why not a short usurpation , as well as a long one ? for it is all but usurpation still : and how will our author justifie the people in consenting , that such an usurper should reign , while their rightful king is living ? or how long must the usurper reign before the people must consent to it ? and how long must he reign afterwards with their consent , before he comes to be thoroughly setled as a lawful king ? or if the lawful king must die , or resign his crown to settle the usurper , what need of so long a prescription ? since he tells us , that a possessory right is something , and where there is no better , that ought to carry it ; and the conclusion from hence is this : that any person ( by what means soever ) gaining the possession of the throne , if there be no better claims against him , then he hath a right to it , and then and not till then he is throughly setled . so that according to my understanding , this presciption signifies nothing . if there be no body , that has a better claim to the crown , possession gives a right : if there be , i desire to know of our author , whether an hundred years possession is a good right against a better claim ; or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred years usurpation ? but however , we will take it all together , and see what can he made of it . now i observe , 1. that all the convocation says , relates to the visible and actual alterations of governments and governours , and translation of kingdoms , brought about by the wickedness of men , but disposed by the divine foresight and providence to accomplish his own wise counsels . now this is matter of fact , not of right , unless all alterations of government are rightful and legal : and therefore the settlement of such alteratious is an actual not a legal settlement of them . and this brings the dispute to matter of sense ; for if such alterations of government and translation of kingdoms may he made and setled without the death or cession of the rightful king , and without the prescription of an hundred years , then the death or cession of the king , or a long prescription cannot be necessary to the settlement , the convocation speaks of ; for there may be an actual and visible settlement without it , which is all that is required to an actual and visible translation of kingdoms ; and that is all the convocation intended . and he who will venture to say , that a new prince can't be actually and visibly setled in the throne , while the old rightful king is living and makes his claim , shall dispute by himself for me . 2ly . the convocation expresly teaches , that the authority , which is god's authority , and must be reverenced and obeyed , when such alterations are throughly setled , is the authority , which is unjustly gotten , or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor : and then it is plain , it is not a legal authority by the death or cession of the rightful king ; for we are to obey it , as god's authority , though it be wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor ; and though the present possessor should have no other visible title to it , but such unjust force . the words are these : the authority either so unjustly gotten , or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor , being always god's authority ( and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it ) is ever ( when any such alterations are throughly setled ) to be reverenced and obeyed , &c. now let any man , who understands grammar , construe this otherwise , if he can . what authority is that , which must be obeyed and reverenced ? it is ( says the convocation ) the authority unjustly gotten , or wrung by force , from the true and lawful possessor ; and therefore not a new legal authority gained by death or cession , or a long prescription . what is god's authority , which we must obey ? it is no other , than the authority unjustly gotten , or wrung by force , &c. which can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those , who have it . by what wickedness ? their wicked and ungodly and violent means of getting and having it : for the convocation speaks of no other wickedness , but the wickedness of usurpation : so that we must obey the authority , because it is gods , even when men have it wickedly , and therefore before they have acquired any new legal title to it . and this i think plainly proves , that the settlement , the convocation speaks of , is not a legal settlement , for that would make the authority legal , whereas these alterations may be throughly setled , whilest the authority exercised in such new governments is unjustly and wickedly got and possessed . this , i think , if our author be not very unreasonable , is enough to justifie my first assertion , that the convocation speaks of illegal and usurped powers , and yet affirms the authority exercised by them is god's authority , and therefore those princes , who have no legal right , may have god's authority . i proceeded to prove the same thing from other testimonies out of the convocation book . for they teach , that the lord ( in advancing kings to their thrones ) is not bound by those laws which he prescribeth others to observe , and therefore commanded iehu a subject to be anointed king over israel to punish the sins of ahab and jezebel , ( p. 46. ) and the lord both may and is able to overthrow any kings or emperors , notwithstanding any claim , right , title , or interest , which they can challenge to their countreys , kingdoms , or empires . these passages our author has thought fit to take no notice of ; for if they do not prove god's sovereign authority , to remove and pull down the most rightful kings , and give his authority to those , who have no right , and place them in the thrones of those , who have the right , there is no sense to be made of them . our author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this , as words can make it : for if no prince can have god's authority , nor must be obeyed , unless he have a legal right , either an old hereditary right , or a new acquired right , by the death or cession of the royal family , or by a long prescription ; then god is bound to those laws in advancing kings , which he prescribes to others ; that is , to adhere to humane rights : then god may not overthrow any kings or emperors , who challenge their countries , kingdoms , or empires , by any just claim , right , title , or interest . then he cannot set up any kings , or emperors , who have no just right and claim . for he cannot unmake a rightful king , if he cannot absolve subjects from their allegiance ; nor make a king without a legal right , if he cannot give him his authority , and transfer the allegiance of subjects to him . god can remove the man by death , but cannot unmake the king , unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his crown ; he can set a man upon the throne , but cannot make a king of him , without the leave of the right heir , under an hundred years prescription : whereever our author learnt this doctrine , i am sure , this convocation never taught it him . to confirm this , i observed , that the convocation teaches , that obedience was due to such kings , as never could have any legal right to the government of israel ; as the kings of the moabites and aramites , of aegypt and babylon , and yet says , that the israelites knew , that it was not lawful for them of themselves , and by their own authority , to take arms against the kings , whose subjects they were , though indeed they were tyrants . and that it had not been lawful for ahud to have killed king eglon , had he not first been made by god , the iudge , prince , and ruler of the people . on the other hand our author affirms , that all these kings had a legal right ; and were legal powers ; and that it appears in all and every one of the instances the convocation gives of government , to which they say obedience is due , that these governments had such a right . this is a bold undertaker , unless he only play with equivocal words ; and that i believe is the truth of the matter ; for such legal rights , as he has found for these princes , will quickly transubstantiate all usurped powers into legal governments . but our first inquiry is , what the convocation thought of these kings ; as for instance , the kings of the aramites and moabites , who ruled over and oppressed israel ; whether they thought them the legal and rightful kings of israel ; they call indeed the israelites , their subjects , as our author observes ; and from thence proves , that these kings had a legal power over israel ; but the mischief is , that the convocation in express words owns them to be only kings de facto , to whom they were in subjection , and teaches , that if any man shall affirm , that any person , born a subject , and affirming by all the arguments , which wit or learning could devise , that god had called him to murther the king de facto , under whom he lived ; yea , though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed king , as adonijah did , and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his master , ought therefore to be believed of any that feared god , he doth greatly err . which is spoke with reference to ahud's killing king eglon , who it seems , was but a king de facto , in the judgment of the convocation ; and , i suppose , our author knows what a king de facto signifies , in opposition to a king de iure , one who is king without a legal right : and yet the convocation asserts that such kings de facto must not be murdered by their subjects ; which is an express determination against our author . let us now see what legal right and title our author has found , for the kings of the aramites , and moabites , and babylonians over israel ; and for all the four monarchies , which were successively erected with the most manifest violence and usurpation : and that is , the submission both of prince and people , which he says , i grant , gives a legal right ; whereas i only said , that the submission of the prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal right ; which i think differs a little from granting it does so . the truth is , our author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct notions of what he writes , and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous terms ; which if they were truly stated , would clear all these difficulties . legal powers signifie such powers as are according to law ; but then there are different kinds of laws , and when we speak of legal powers , unless we agree by what law we call them legal , we shall never understand one another . now we may understand legal , either with respect to the laws of nature , the laws of nations , or the laws and constitutions of a particular nation or kingdom ; and in this last sence legal is understood by all men , who understand themselves , in this controversie of legal powers ; that those only are legal powers , who have the rightful authority of government according to the laws and constitutions of the kingdom which they govern : this is the reason of the distinction between a king de iure and de facto , which relates to the particular laws and constitutions of the kingdom ; a king de iure is a rightful king by the laws of the land ; a king de facto , whatever other right he may have , is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the crown , by the laws of succession proper to that kingdom . and if our author will take the controversie off of this bottom , and dispute only about legal powers in general , we will then admit his plea of submission , and joyn issue with him upon that point . and this is all the mystery i intended , when i affirmed , that the moabites and aramites , aegyptians and babylonians , could not have a legal and natural right to govern israel ; that is , that by the constitutions of the iewish commonwealth , they could not give the power of the government to a stranger , nor set up a prince over them , who was not of their brethren ; and therefore no strangers , neither aramites nor moabites , could be their legal kings . as for their submission , when under force , it shall be considered presently . this made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a blow , which was never intended him ; for since the israelites did submit to the aramites and moabites , &c. and according to our author , submission gives a legal right , he could not imagine why i said , that those nations never could have a legal right to the government of israel , unless it were , because god was at that time their soveraign , and he did not submit ; and the submission of the soveraign , as well as of the people , is necessary to give a legal right : and now he had started an objection , which he knew not what to do with ; and his answer is as extravagant as the objection ; for he has found out something , which he thinks equivalent to god's submission to the aramites and moabites , and that is , that god delivered them into their hands : what then ? did god resign his government of israel into the hands of the aramites and moabites , and quit his right and claim to the government of them ? spectatum admissi — but to proceed : i will grant this author , that legal powers may be understood in a larger notion , as that may be said to be legal , which is agreeable to the laws of nature or nations ; and in this sence , submission may make a legal king of him , who , according to the laws of the land , can be only a king de facto . this is worth considering , and therefore i shall briefly explain it : in a state of nature , wherein we must suppose all men free from any government , but that of parents , and heads of families , ( which how far it extended before civil governments were formed , we cannot tell ) they were at liberty to give up the government of themselves to whom they pleased ; and this made such persons their legal and rightful princes and governours by the law of nature : for men who are free , may give the government of themselves to another , and if they may do this , their doing it is a law to themselves . especially nature teaches this , when men are over-powered by force , and must either submit to the government , or suffer the vengeance and fury of an usurping nimrod ; for nature teaches us to preserve ourselves , and therefore justifies whatever may be lawfully done to preserve ourselves ; and in a state of nature men may part with their liberty , and submit to be governed by another ; and such a submission , with respect to themselves , gives a right ; for it is a voluntary consent , tho' extorted by force , as all moralists allow such a mixt choice and election to be . but it will be said , this is nothing to us , who are at such a distance from the first original of government : this can be done but once ; for when we have given up ourselves to the government of another , we have given away our liberty to chuse for ourselves . right ! unless we fall into a state of nature and liberty again , or something like it ; which may be done many ways , but i shall name but one , and that is in case of a new prevailing force ; that is , with respect to a kingdom , when prince and people are conquered , for then the government is at an end , and they are as much at liberty to submit to a conquering prince , as they were in the state of nature ; for every dissolution of government must so far restore us to the state and liberties of nature , as to provide for ourselves ; or if the prince be conquered , and driven out of his kingdom , and the people in the power of the conqueror , they are as perfectly at liberty to submit to the new conqueror , as they were before to submit to their old prince , or his ancestors ; with respect to private subjects , when their prince or the government of the nation is violently changed , and they are as much under the force and power of the new prince , or new government , as they could be under a conquering prince , who had conquered both king and people : for force will justifie submission , and then it is much the same thing from what quarter the force comes : when a man is under the power of a new government , which he cannot resist , and which will not protect him , nay , which will undo and ruine him , if he will not submit , it is all one to him , with respect to his submission , as if both his king and country were absolutely conquered . though we live under a settled government , yet if we happen to fall into the hands of thieves and robbers , where the government can't protect us , we may very innocently for our own preservation , promise and swear to them such things , as are against the laws of the land , and which it would be unlawful for us to do in other circumstances ; and then i think with greater reason , if the government cannot protect itself , nor its subjects , from a greater force , subjects are at liberty to shift for themselves , and to submit to the greater power ; for our obligations to human government are reasonably supposed to except the case of a greater force , since such obligations can last no longer than the government lasts . conquest is the death and dissolution of the government , and dissolves the contract , as the death of either party does the marriage-vow . this is not as some vainly talk to justifie the breach of oaths and promises to save ourselves , and to make self-preservation the only supreme rule of good and evil ; but the dissolution of the government , or of the power of the prince to protect himself or his subjects in his government , puts an end to the obligation of oaths : for in matters of government , it is an unalterable right of nature to submit to force . all men will grant , that no human laws and constitutions are so sacred as the positive laws of god ; i mean that government and polity which god himself prescribed to the children of israel ; which they were religiously bound to observe by vertue of their covenant with god ; which certainly was as sacred as any oath . now these laws did not admit of the authority and government of strangers , but expresly forbad it ; that had they chose to be governed by any foreign prince , they had greatly sinned in it ; but this very law , as sacred as it was , gave way to necessity , and when they were conquered by the aramites , or moabites , or any other nation , it was no fault to submit to them . and if force would justifie this in the israelites , who had god for their king , and were obliged by their covenant with him to accept of no forreign prince to govern them ; it is hard if it will not justifie the subjects of human governments , ( most of which were at first founded in meer force ) whatever their oaths or obligations be , to submit to a new and greater force . and this gives a sufficient answer to what our author adds in the place last quoted : that god's being the king of israel , would be an argument against their submission ; for the doctor tells us , that where god entails the crown , ( he refers to what i say about ioash and athaliah , of which more anon ) the people were not to submit to an usurper , if the right heir was alive ; and therefore much more where god himself was their king , ( as if god were not the king of israel , when he set kings over them ) and then surely they might lawfully resist these kings , whose subjects they were not , nor could be , and they needed no especial commission or direction to destroy the usurpers , as ahud did eglon ; but they might , nay they were bound to do it , as jehoiada slew athaliah . for i hope god s entail is not of greater force than his own immediate government . so that either their submission transferred a legal right , or else their submission was a sin . this looks like something very deep , but it is so very a nothing , that i cannot devise what he would be at : would he prove , that god was not the king of israel , against the scriptures , who say he was ? or would he prove , that the israelites ought not to have submitted to the moabites , but have had all their throats cut by a vain opposition ? or would he prove against the convocation , that they were not the subjects of king eglon , but any israelite might have killed him without any such commission from god , as ahud had ? whatever he intends to prove , if he knows that himself ; yet as far as i am concerned , it is no more but this : that while the israelites were under no forreign force , but had liberty to live by their own laws , they were bound to make him their prince , on whom god had entailed the crown ; while they were under force , they might do as they could , and submit to the conqueror , which submission could not give those usurpers a legal right , according to the laws and constitutions of the iewish common-wealth , but according to the laws of nature , which allow submission unto a conquerour , it did . now if the laws of nature , when we are under the protection of no government , allow us to submit to force and power ; then call it conquest , or what you will , when i am under no protection , and under force , i am at liberty to submit , whatever my former obligations were ; and i become as firmly and entirely bound to such a new power , as ever i was to the most legal prince . thus far the laws of nature go towards making a legal king , and this is confirmed by the laws of nations , which are nothing else but received customs and usages , agreeable to the laws of nature , and right reason : now though different nations have different laws of succession to the crown , yet they seem all to agree in this , that he is the king , who is in possession of the throne , with the consent and submission of the people . the consent and submission of the people , turn that , which was originally no more but force , into a civil and legal authority , by giving themselves up to the government of the prince . by this means kingdoms and empires are transferred , and princes gain a right to those thrones , to which they had no antecedent right . when god intends to pull down one king , and set up another , he gives success to the rising prince , puts the nation into his hands , and so orders it , that by force and power , or other arts , he obtains their consent and submission , and then he is their king , and is invested with god's authority ; especially when he is visibly setled in the throne by the united strength and power of the kingdom . upon these terms , i suppose , our author and i may very well agree ; that the convocation does allow such governments , as were begun by wicked means , when they are throughly setled to become legal and rightful powers , not by the laws of the land , but by the consent and submission of the people , and the authority of god , wherewith they are invested : this i owned before , that the distinction between kings de iure , and de facto , related only to the laws of the land , for upon other accounts , those kings who are set up by god , and have his authority , are rightful kings ; that is , so rightful , that our obedience is due to them . but this is all shuffling and playing with words ; for the single question is , whether the convocation by , throughly setled , means , that such governments as are begun by usurpation or rebellion , or other wicked means , cannot be throughly setled , till they acquire a legal right by the laws of the land ; which he says must be by the death or cession of the rightful king , or by a long prescription : now this i say , the convocation could not mean , as appears by the instances they give of such powers . for the aramites and moabites could never , by the constitution of the iewish commonwealth , be the legal and rightful kings of israel : and a common-wealth where there is a perpetual succession of persons in whom the ordinary power resides , can never die , nor lose their claim to that power , which is given them by god , though they might submit when under force ; so that here was neither death nor cession , and they were far from having such a prescription , as our author makes necessary to give such powers a legal right , and this answers all his other instances , where he argues only from the term lawful . now if submission in such cases will give a right to our obedience in contradiction to the laws of the land ; that which justified the submission of israel , will justifie the submission of any other people to a prevailing power , and will give such powers as good a right , as the aramites and moabites could challenge to israel . all that can be said here , i think , is this : that by submission , which gives a legal right , our author means the submission and acknowledgment of those in whom the right is : that is to say , the submission of the people does not give a legal right , but the submission of the king does . 1. but for answer to this , in the first place i desire to know , what submission of the king it is , that gives a legal right ? is swearing allegiance a submission and acknowledgment ? what became then of the right of the house of york , when the duke of york swore allegiance to henry iv. ? is yielding to force and power , quitting the administration of the government , and leaving the throne , tho' with an intention to recover it again , when he can , a submission ? if it be , does not a king so far submit , when he leaves his country , without any legal authority of government , and leaves his people in the hands of a prevailing prince ? is not this as much a submission , as if he had stayed at home , and laid aside his crown , and submitted to a private life , without renouncing his right and future claim ; but if nothing be a submission , but renouncing his right , and making a formal resignation and conveyance of power , i desire to know , how our author will prove , that the israelites thus submitted to the aramites and moabites ? or what other submission they made , but a bare yielding to force and power ? what other submission did the king , and princes , and people of iudah make to the king of babylon , when they were carried away captives to babylon ? and yet their submission our author confesses gave a legal right . 2dly , can the submission of the king give a legal right to the crown , without the submission of the people ? if not , it seems the people may have some right , if not to government , yet to give away the government of themselves . if the consent and submission of a people can make a king , when they have none , why can it not do so , when they are under a new force and power , which is the same state , as if they had no king ? for power has an immediate effect , and will admit of no delays . 3ly , cannot every private man , or any city or garrison , when they are overpowered , and cannot be relieved by their prince , submit for themselves to the conqueror , without the submission of their kings ? and do they not by such a submission , according to the laws of nations , become the subjects of the conquerour , till they are retaken ? and why cannot a whole nation in the same circumstances do the same thing , though the king has escaped , and does not , and will not submit to the conqueror ? 4ly , for has a nation no right , when the king is gone , to preserve themselves by making the best terms they can with the new powers ? must they ask leave of their prince , whether they shall continue a nation , when he is gone ? whether they shall submit to a new prince , when he can protect them no longer ? all mankind have this natural right to submit for their own preservation , and need ask no princes leave to do it . i urge all this onely to shew , that there are such cases , wherein subjects may submit without the submission of their prince , and when they do so , it gives that prince a right to govern them ; for they have made themselves his subjects , and if the case is such , wherein they might lawfully do it , they confer a lawful right , though they cannot extinguish their former king's claim by it , who has not submitted . 5ly , for what will our author say to the submission of iaddus and the iews to alexander , while darius was living , whose subjects they were , and who had not submitted ? and yet they assert , that by this means alexander gained a lawful authority over them , and that they owed all the duty and obedience to alexander , which they formerly had done to the kings of babylon and persia , ( can. 31. pag. 67. ) and then according to this convocation the submission of subjects , without the submission of the king , gives a lawful authority . our author is much troubled about this story of iaddus and alexander , and spends several pages to confute iosephus , who is the only relator of it . i will not engage in this quarrel , the vindication of iosephus as to this story , being undertaken by a more learned pen , as i suppose our author will know , before he will see this . but this i must say , that if they part with this story , they lose so glorious a testimony ( as they used to account it ) to the indispensable obligation of an oath of allegiance , while the king to whom we have sworn allegiance lives , whether he be in possession or out of it , that they will not find the like again in any records of time : but it seems they are sensible iaddus confuted their sense of it himself , by submitting to alexander , notwithstanding his oath of allegiance , while darius was living , and now they are willing to part with it . well , but as he himself observes ; the dispute is not , whether the story be true or false , but whether the convocation believed it : for if they believed the story true , by their judgment on the case , we may know what their sense was about this matter . this he grants , but says likewise , that their sense is not to be extended beyond their words ; and this i grant : nor are they to be made parties to any more of the story , than they have inserted in their book . but this i deny ; for if they believed any of the story upon iosephus's authority , by the same reason they must believe all ; and if they pass their judgment on a matter of fact , such wise men ought to be presumed to judge upon the whole matter of fact ; especially when different circumstances will alter the nature of the action . according to our author's opinion , it makes a great difference in iaddus's submission to alexander , whether darius were living or dead : and can we think such wise men as made up that convocation , should not consider this ? though , as he says , they take no notice of it : and if they did consider it , and took their story from iosephus , ( and it seems by him , they could have it from no other author ) it is plain , they must believe darius to be living , when iaddus , who was his subject , and had sworn allegiance to him , notwithstanding this submitted to alexander : which shews what their opinion was , that subjects , who had sworn allegiance to their prince , might yet , when under force , as iaddus was , become the subjects of another prevailing prince . what he mentions concerning iaddus's answer to alexander , i answered before in the case of allegiance , p. 8. and he has not thought fit to make any reply to it . but he adds , granting the story true , it is not to the purpose , it is urged for : that is , it will not justifie a subject under an oath of allegiance to submit to another prince , while his own king is living ; and his reason for it is this : josephus tells us , that god appeared to jaddus in a dream , and warned him to submit to alexander , and to meet him in that solemn manner he did : so that this is a singular and exempt case , and falls within the circumstances of iehu and ahud . — it was always the custom in the jewish church , in cases of great extremity and emergency , to have recourse to god for some express revelation , what they should do . and here josephus tells us , were all the preparations to it : they fasted and prayed , and the next night god appeared to jaddus , ( however , as we have the story from josephus , so we must take all from him , and he tells expresly that god appeared to him ) and ordered him so to do , and god's appearing and command stands upon the same authority with all the rest of the story . and then it is wholly besides the purpose it is alledged for : for there is a wide difference between acting by common and standing rules , and by express revelation . and if these gentlemen will shew us any express revelation for what they do , as jaddus had , then they say something ; but till they can shew that , this example of jaddus , if it were true , will do them no service . we are now disputing about the sense of the convocation , and therefore must remember , that the convocation does not assign this reason , why iaddus , after his oath to darius , submitted to alexander ; for they make no doubt at all about the lawfulness of his submission , and therefore never inquire into the reason of it , which they thought visible enough in the force he was under . but i will take no advantage of this , if he will but remember it , when we come to the case of iehoiada and athaliah . but the answer to all this is plain : for as iosephus tells the story , iaddus never questioned , whether it were lawful for him to submit to alexander , when he was coming with a great force to ierusalem ; but his care was , how he might atone for his former contumacy , by an early submission ; and the prayers and sacrifices he commanded the people to offer , were not to beg god's direction , whether he should submit to alexander or not , for that he was determined to do , but that god would be favourable to his people , and deliver them from the imminent danger they were in , from a provoked conquerour ; and when god is said to appear to him in his dream , he answered no question about the lawfulness of submitting to alexander , but directed him , how to do it in such a manner , as should prevent the threatned danger : that he should appear in his pontificial attire , in which , it seems , god himself had formerly appeared to alexander , and promised him success over the persians , by which alexander knew , that he was the priest of that god , to whom he owed his victories , and this made him worship the high priest , and shew all kindness to the iewish nation . so that iaddus had no revelation of the lawfulness of submitting to alexander , nor have we need of any ; but we have the judgment of the convocation upon this , which they intended as a common and standing rule . but the great instance our author depends on , and doubts not to carry the cause by it , is the case of ioash and athaliah . the story as it is related by the convocation is this : after the death of abaziah king of iudah , his mother athaliah finding his children all to be very young , kill'd them all but the youngest , and reigned by usurpation six years over the land. the said youngest child ( whose name was ioash ) was secretly conveyed away by his aunt iehosabeth , his father's sister , and wife to iehoiada the high-priest ; who kept him so secretly in the temple , as that athaliah the usurper could never hear of him . now after the said six years that ioash , the true and natural heir apparent to the crown , had been so brought up , he the said iehoiada , being the king's uncle , and the chief head or prince of his tribe , sent through iudah for the levites and chief fathers both of iudah and benjamin , to come unto him to ierusalem ; who accordingly repairing thither , and being made acquainted by him with the preservation of their prince , ( as is aforesaid ) and that it was the lord's will that he should reign over them ; they altogether , by a covenant , acknowledged their allegiance unto him , as unto their lawful king ; and so disposed of things , as presently after he was crowned and anointed ; which dutiful office of subjects being performed , they apprehended the usurper athaliah and shew her , as before it was by the said states resolved . in all the process of which action nothing was done , either by iehoiada the high-priest , or by the rest of the princes or people of iudah and benjamin , which god himself did not require at their hands . ioash their late king's son being then their only natural lord and soveraign , although athaliah kept him six years from the possession of his kingdom . this is the story , and their canon upon it is this : if any man therefore shall affirm , either that athaliah did well , in murthering her son's children , or that jehoiada and his wife did amiss in preserving the life of their king joash ; or that athaliah was not a tyrannical usurper , ( the right heir of that kingdom being alive ) or that it was neither lawful for jehoiada , and the rest of the princes and levites and people to have yielded their subjection to their lawful king ; nor having so done , and their king being in possession of his crown , to have joyned together for the overthrowing of athaliah the usurper ; or that jehoiada the high-priest , was not bound as he was a priest , both to inform the princes and people of the lord's promise , that joash should reign over them , and likewise anoint him , or that this fact either of the princes , priests , or people was to be held for a lawful warrant , for any afterward , either princes , priests or people to have deposed any of the kings of judah , who by right of succession came to their crowns , or to have killed them for any respect whatsoever , and to have set another in their places , according to their own choice ; or that either this example of jehoiada , or any thing else in the old testament did give then to the high-priest any authority to dispute , determine , or iudge , whether the children of the kings of judah should either be kept from the crown , because their fathers were idolators , or being in possession of it , should be deposed from it in that respect , or in any other respect whatsoever , he doth greatly err . i have transcribed this , because we must have a little dispute about it , and it was fitting the reader should have both the story and the canon before him . our author ' s argument from this story is this : it is plain the convocation does not conceive , that the enjoyment of the crown with all its dignities , &c. is that thorough settlement , to which is due subjection and obedience as to god's authority . athaliah personally enjoyed the crown with all its dignities , &c. and all places of trust and power , &c. were in her hands , and at her disposal , and this also for no less a time than six years , and in as full and ample a manner , as any usurper , or any rightful king ever enjoyed them : but for all that the convocation is so far from urging obedience to her , as to god's authority , that they expresly justifie the resisting , nay , the slaying her . and this is a clear demonstration , that by a thorough settlement the convocation does not mean a full possession of power meerly : for they say , when a government is fully settled , it ought to be obeyed , as god's authority , not only for fear , but for conscience sake : but they say also , that when athaliah was fully possessed of the throne , she ought not to be obeyed , but to be resisted and slain . and the conclusion from these premises is , that to be fully possessed of the throne , is not of it self to be so throughly settled as to make it god's authority , and obedience to become a duty . now it were sufficient here to observe , that he has not given the true notion of a full and settled possession ; for he has left out the principal part of it , as i state it , viz. when the estates of the realm , and the great body of the nation has submitted to such a prince : which in the case of antiochus is one thing , the convocation expresly makes necessary to a thorough settlement , the government of that tyrant ( antiochus ) being not then either generally received by submission , nor setled by continuance : though i cannot blame him for this , because the author , whom he answers , took no notice of it ; but i must blame him for affirming , that the convocation say , that when athaliah was fully possessed of the throne , she ought not to be obeyed , but to be resisted and slain : for they say no such thing , and though he may imagine this to be the consequence of what they say , he ought not therefore to affirm , that they said it , because he may mistake in his consequence , and that he has done so , shall presently appear : the convocation says not one word of the thorough settlement of athaliah in the throne ; but if we may learn the sence of the convocation ( as this author concludes we may ) from what bishop buckridge , a member of that convocation , has written in his defence of barclay , they did not think her settled in the throne : for when bellarmin had objected the quiet possession of athaliah for six years , the bishop , as this author cites him , answers , how quiet soever it was , it was violent , for she was guarded with souldiers ; and affirms , that athaliah had not acquired a right to the crown , ( i suppose he means only such a right as a thorough settlement gives ) neither by the consent of the people , nor by the prescription of six years : six years were not long enough for a prescription , which he says must be a hundred years ; and the consent of the people , it seems , she had not , and therefore being a meer usurper , and no queen , she might be deposed . and thus his whole argument is lost . and here i must observe , that the bishop allows , as the convocation does , that either the consent of the people , or a long prescription gives a right ; that is , such a right as makes obedience due to princes thus settled without a legal title : and therefore our author greatly prevaricates , when he pretends to give the bishop's sence of a thorough settlement ; that is , when a right to the government is acquired by a prescription , and that is a long and uninterrupted possession , joyned with the consent of the people . the bishop distinguishes between the consent of the people , and a long prescription , and says that either of them will give a right : and our author , though he pretends to give the bishop's sence , makes both of them together necessary to give a right , a long and uninterrupted possession , which is what the bishop calls prescription , joyned with the consent of the people ; so that he leaves out neither and nor as insignificant particles , and likes with better , as more agreeable to his design : and at this rate he may make convocations and bishops speak his sence , when he pleases . but to gratifie our author , let us suppose the convocation did own athaliah to have been as throughly settled on the throne , as any usurper can be , while the right heir is living ; and then the consequence is , that the convocation teaches that kings and queens de facto , who have all the settlement that can be had without right , may be deposed and murthered by their subjects : and will this author say , that this is the doctrine of the convocation ? do they not expresly warn us against believing any person who shall affirm by all the arguments which wit or learning could devise , that god had called him to murther the king de facto , under whom he lived ? it seems then the convocation made a great difference between the case of athaliah , and other kings de facto , who had no better title , nor more thorough settlement than she had , ( if they thought her settled in the throne , without which supposition our author's argument is lost ) for they justifie the killing athaliah , and condemn the murder of a king de facto ; and this i gave two accounts of in my case of allegiance . 1. all that this story amounts to is no more than this : that when the legal and rightful heir is actually possessed of his throne , subjects may return to their allegiance , and by the authority of their king prosecute the usurper ; for ioash was first anointed and proclaimed , before any one stirred a finger against athaliah ; now this is a very different case from raising a rebellion against a prince , who is in possession of the throne , to restore an ejected prince . 2. but this was a peculiar case ; for god himself had entailed the kingdom of iudah on the posterity of david ; and therefore nothing could justifie their submission to an usurper , when the king's son was found , to whom the kingdom did belong by a divine entail : and by this iehoiada justifies what he did , behold the king's son shall reign , as the lord hath said of the sons of david . now when god has entailed the crown by an express declaration of his will , and nomination of the person or family that shall reign , ( as it was in the kingdom of iudah ) subjects are bound to adhere to their prince of god's chusing , when he is known , and to persecute all usurpers to the utmost , and never submit to their government : but in other kingdoms , where god makes kings and entailes the crown , not by express nomination , but by his providence , the placing a prince in the throne , and settling him there in the full administration of the government , is a reason to submit to him , as to god's ordinance . this our author answers with great triumph in his postscript , ( p. 4 , 5. ) but with how much reason , i shall now examine ; and i must begin with his answer to the second : this distinction , ( that god himself had entailed the kingdom of iudah upon david's posterity ) he says , is not in the convocation book , and so does not affect their sence : i grant it , and therefore did not concern the convocation-book in the story , nor make any mention of it ; but only raised this objection from the story , and gave that answer to it , by which iehoiada the high-priest justified what he did : for tho' the convocation takes notice of this story , yet they neither make nor answer this objection in direct terms : they had another design in mentioning it , and fitted their answers wholly to that , viz. to prove against the papists , that no priest in the old testament did ever depose from their crowns any of their kings , how wicked soever , or had any authority so to do . and because this example of iehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose , they shew that no such thing can be proved from it . but tho' the convocation does not answer a question which they never proposed , yet this is a good answer to it , and agreeable to the sence of the convocation in that place : for they take notice , that iehoiada , when he had sent to the levites , and chief fathers both of judah and benjamin , acquainted them with the preservation of their prince , and that it was the lord's will , that he should reign over them ; which plainly refers to that divine entail of the crown upon david's posterity ; as iehoiada expresly told them , behold the king's son shall reign , as the lord hath said of the sons of david . so that it is evident , the convocation itself answers the difficulties of this story by the divine entail ; and it is as true and proper an answer to that question , whether we may murther a king de facto , to place the right heir on his throne , since iohoiada anointed ioash and slew athaliah ? to say , that the divine entail of the crown made a vast difference between the case of athaliah and other kings de facto , who are settled in their thrones ; as it is to that question , whether the high-priest have not authority to depose one king , and set up another , since iehoiada actually did so , anointed ioash and killed athaliah ? to say , that this was done not by any ordinary jurisdiction , which the high-priest had over kings , but in obedience to god , who had entailed the crown on david's posterity . he proceeds , they do no not speak of this , when they call athaliah an usurper , and justifie the proceedings of jehoiada and the people against her ; but the reason they give is general , the right heir of the kingdom being alive , which extends to all kingdoms , that are entailed , and go by succession . this author , who would confine me so strictly to the sence of the convocation , even where i don't appeal to it , makes very bold with the convocation himself : for they do not offer to justifie the proceedings of iehoiada and the people against athaliah , by saying , that the right heir of the kingdom was alive ; but only prove by this , that she was an usurper who had no legal right to the throne , the right heir being living : but if our author will think again , i presume , he will own , that they are two very different questions , whether such a prince be an usurper ; and whether he may be deposed and murthered ? the convocation i 'm sure makes them two questions , when they will not allow of the murder of a king de facto . but on the other hand , the convocation justifies iehoiada from the express command of god : in all the process of which action nothing was done , either by jehoiada the high-priest , or by the rest of the princes and people of judah and benjamin , which god himself did not require at their hands ; joash their late king's son being then their only natural lord and soveraign , although athaliah kept him for six years from the possession of his kingdom . how did god himself require this at their hands ? was it only by the principles of reason and natural justice , in setting the right heir upon the throne ? no ; by its being god's will , and god's requiring it at their hands , they plainly mean , god's entailing the crown upon david's posterity , which made it the duty of jehoiada , and the rest of the princes , levites and people , to yeild their subjection to their lawful king ; and having done so , and their king being in possession of the throne , to joyn together for the overthrowing of athaliah the usurper ; and that jehoiada , the high priest , was bound as he was a priest , to inform the princes and people , of the lord's purpose , ( which can refer only to this entail ) that jehoiada should reign over them , and likewise to anoint him . which contains a particular justification of all that was done ; and all resolved into the will and purpose of god , that ioash should reign ; which was no otherwise declared , but by god's entailing the kingdom upon the posterity of david . it was the duty of jehoiada and the rest of the princes , &c. to yeild subjection to their lawful king , who was heir by succession ; for that they expresly make equivalent in the kingdom of iudah to being elected and named by god himself , ( can. 17. p. 28. ) and therefore ch. 19. p. 30. affirm , that they should receive such kings as sent to them by god himself ; which proves , that this cannot extend to heirs meerly by humane succession , which is not equivalent to god's nomination . iehoiada sent thro' judah for the levites , and chief fathers both of judah and benjamin , to come to him to jerusalem , ( ch. 23. p. 41. ) and therehe discovers the king's son to them . thus the convocation says by the constitution of that government it ought to be , that the prince , whom god had appointed , should be made known to the people , and they should chearfully submit to him . ( ch. 17. p. 27. ) and they add , afterwards also the like course was held upon the death of every king , to make his successor known to the people . iehoiada , who was high priest , gave this notice to the people , and took a covenant of them , and anointed their king ; and this also the convocation says was his duty : as we have said of the people , that when the kings of judah were to succeed one another , their duty was to come together with ioy and gladness , to receive them for their kings , ( as sent to them by god himself ) and accordingly to submit themselves unto their authority and government : so at such times the priests for the most part , besides their general duties , as subjects , had some further service to be then by them performed ; the parts of which service are all of them manifest in the advancement of king solomon to the royal throne of his father david ; where the priests , by king david's direction , did give thanks to god , and prayer for king solomon — and zadock the high-priest did himself anoint him . i suppose our author may by this time be satisfied , that the convocation resolves all into the authority of a divine entail , and makes a great difference between a divine and humane entail . he adds , and it is plain , they thought of no such difference as to this matter ; but that a thorough settlement of a government ( and though attained by the same ill means ) was the same thing , and had god's authority in iudah as well as any other nation ; as in the instances of the babylonians , macedonians , and romans , whose government over the iews was not attained by honester means than athaliah's , and was as much contrary to the entail upon david's house , as hers ; and yet they justifie and require obedience to them , but justifie the slaying her : and therefore it is plain , that by a thorough settlement they do not mean a full possession of power in the kingdom of iudah , as had the babylonians , macedonians , or romans , nor do they reckon god's entail upon david's posterity any ground of difference in this matter , for the government of iudah by the babylonias , was as much contrary to that entail , as the government of athaliah . now all this is answered in one word , from what i have before discoursed : the entail god made upon david's posterity , did always oblige the iews , when they were at their own choice , and had power enough to take the king , on whom god had entailed the crown ; which was evidently their case when iehoiada anointed ioash , and slew athaliah ; but when they were under force , ( as they were under the babylonians , macedonians , and romans ) no entail , tho' made by god himself could bind them ; and then i hope it will be granted , that no humane entails can bind any people , who are under force , if a divine entail can't do it . and thus our way is prepared to answer what he objects against the first account i gave of this case of athaliah , viz. that all that this story amounts to , is no more than this , that when the legal and rightful heir is actually possessed of his throne , subjects may return to their allegiance , and by the authority of their king prosecute the usurper . our author answers , the story amounts to a great deal more ; and that is , that subjects may set the rightful heir upon the throne , altho' it be in the actual possession of the usurper ; for so iehoiada and the people did . it is true , it does signifie something more with reference to ioash , but i had regard only to the case of athaliah ; but yet it does not signifie so generally , as he puts it ; but it signifies only this , that subjects by the express command and authority of god ( as the convocation teaches ) may place the rightful prince upon his throne , though it be possessed by an usurper : and this will do our author no service , for it will not reach to all hereditary kings , but to those only of god's appointing and nomination , or where god himself has made the entail , as it was in the kingdom of iudah . i shewed this was the case here , that the rightful heir was actually possessed of the throne ; for joash was first anointed and proclaimed , before any one stirred a finger against athaliah . to this he answers , but is the doctor sure , that joash was actually possessed of the throne ? he was anointed indeed , but is anointing actual possession ? and it will not be easie to prove it according to the doctor 's notion of possession , of having the whole administration of affairs , and all the authority of the kingdom in his hands . i reply : the convocation arffims , that king ioash was in possession of his crown , before athaliah was slain ; and i believe , if our author thinks of it again , he will confess , that anointing gives actual possession to a rightful king , thô a thorough settlement of his government is necessary to the full possession of an usurper : and the reason of this difference is manifest ; for where there is right , nothing more is necessary to give possession , but that subjects actually own and recognize that right , and accept him for their king ; for his right makes their obedience a duty , when he is in possession , how weak and unsettled soever his government be : but when a prince has no legal right to the crown , nor consequently to the obedience of his subjects , it is only a thorough settlement , which makes obedience a necessary duty . and yet if that will satisfie our author , the whole administration of affairs , and all the authority of the kingdom was then in ioash's hands , and athaliah had none of it : for all the princes , and levites , and people , that is all who had the administration of affairs , and the power of the kingdom in their hands , yeilded their subjection to ioash as to their lawful king ; and that put the whole authority and administration into his hands : and what authority athaliah had left , appeared in her tragical end. he proceeds : but howev●r , who anointed ? and who proclaimed him ? and who put him in possession ? why truly no body else , but his own subjects , and those very men that had lived six years under the usurper . and then i perceive , that subjects may stand by the rightful heir against an usurper , though possessed of the throne for some years : but then where is that fidelity , allegiance , and obedience , that the doctor says , we are bound to pay to usurped powers answ. truly just where it was before , in the convocation book , and in the scriptures , which requires our subjection to the present powers , and in the reason and necessity of things ; but this was an exempt case , upon account of a divine entail ; and where god himself has made the entail , no usurpation can cut it off , nor absolve subjects from their duty to him , whom god himself has made their king ; but it is not so with humane entails , of which more presently . now i said , that for subjects to return to their allegiance , and by the authority of their king to prosecute the usurper , when the rightful heir is actually possessed of his throne , is a very different case from raising rebellions against a prince , who is in the possession of the throne , to restore an ejected prince . to this he answers : was not athaliah in possession of the throne , when jehoiada anointed joash ? i answer as i have before done : she was in the actual and visible possession of the throne , but against a divine entail , and therefore her possession was a nullity , and when they knew the king's son was living , to whom by the law of god they were to submit , they were bound to look upon it as a nullity , and not to consider her as their queen ; but this is not the question ; the question is , whether athaliah were possessed of the throne after ioash was anointed , when iehoiada gave orders to kill her : and that i suppose our author will not say , that she was in possession of the throne , when the rightful heir was actually possessed of it . but , he says , the question is concerning allegiance to an usurper in the possession of the throne , and as to that there is no difference : for these pay as little allegiance to an usurper , who anoint a king , and then depose him , as those who do it to restore an ejected one : and i would fain know , what difference there is ( as to allegiance to an usurper ) between anointing a new king , and upon his authority dispossessing an usurper , and doing the same thing upon the authority of one already anointed . now i grant , there is no difference between anointing a king , and upon his authority dispossessing an usurper , and doing the same thing upon the authority of one already anointed , in such cases wherein it is the duty of subjects either to anoint a new king , or to restore an old anointed king , in opposition to the usurper , who is setled in the throne ; but this is a duty only , where the usurpations , how thoroughly setled soever it be , is against god's entail , which was the peculiar case of ioash ; and yet even in this case the convocation thought it very considerable , that the princes , levites , and people , yielded subjection to their lawful king , and having so done , and their king being in possession of his throne , joyned together for the overthrowing of athaliah the usurper ; if the convocation had not thought , that there was some difference between killing athaliah before or after the anointing of ioash , they would not have laid so much stress upon the time , when she was slain ; that having so done , and their king being in possession of his throne , they joyned together for the overthrowing of athaliah the usurper . and i wonder our author should perceive no difference between these two : for though it had been the same thing to athaliah , whether she had been killed , before or after the anointing of ioash , yet it greatly altered the nature of the fact ; and that upon two accounts , both with respect to the authority , whereby it was done , and to the character of the person , who suffered . the convocation will not allow a private man to kill a king de facto , and that was the case of the iews during athaliah's reign , before ioash's title was recognized , and he anointed , and placed on the throne ; but when this was done , they had the visible and actual authority of their king , to slay the usurper , which is a parallel case to that of ahud and king eglon. before ahud was made by god the judge and saviour of his people , they teach , that it was unlawful for him , or any one else , to have killed king eglon ; but the case was altered , when god himself immediately had made him iudge , and had given him a full and absolute authority , ( independent upon any , but upon him that gave it ) to undertake any thing , that by god's direction appertained to his place . thus whatever authority athaliah had before , when ioash was anointed , she sunk into the state of a subject , and then to kill her , was not to kill a queen de facto , but a subject who had been an usurper , but now was a subject again , and therefore no fidelity , or allegiance was due to her . this is the case of iehu , who was a subject , but commanded by god to be anointed king over israel ; and accordingly elizeus the prophet caused jehu to be anointed , and god's message to be delivered unto him ; who presently upon the knowledge of god's will , and the submission of the princes and captains of israel to him , as to their lawful king , did put in execution the said message , by killing joram ( before that time his soveraign , , but then his subject ) , &c. now , i suppose , our author will confess , that there is a difference between killing with authority , and without ; and between killing a soveraign prince , and killing a subject by the authority of the prince ; and this was the case of athaliah , when ioash was anointed . the convocation was very careful not to encourage subjects to rise up against their prince , though he were but a king de facto ; and therefore from these examples of ahud and iehu , expresly observe , that god foreseeing in his heavenly wisdom , and divine providence , what mischief private men , under the colour of these examples , might otherwise have pretended , or attempted against their soveraigns ( as being either discontented of themselves , or set into some fury by other malitious persons ) he did so order and dispose of all things , in the execution of these such his extraordinary iudgments ; as that thereby it might plainly appear to any ( that should not wilfully hood-wink himself ) never to be lawful for any person whatsoever , upon pretence of any revelation , inspiration , or commandment from his divine majesty , either to touch the person of his soveraign , or to bear arms against him ; except god should first advance the said person from his private estate , and make him a king , or an absolute prince , to succeed his late master in his kingdom or principality . if our author will not , yet i hope , all impartial readers will think this a sufficient answer to the case of ioash and athaliah . but however he will not give it over thus ; but undertakes to prove , that my arguments will equally justifie submission to athaliah in the kingdom of judah , notwithstanding such entail , as to any usurper in any other nation . well! and suppose he can prove it ; what then ? did i ever deny that it was lawful to submit to athaliah , while she was possessed of the throne , and ioash , the true heir , concealed ? does he find in scripture , that the jews are condemned for submitting all this while to athaliah ? if any one should have been condemned for it , iehoiada the high-priest was the man , who knew that ioash was living ; and yet for six years together , while he thought fit to conceal this secret , he submitted himself to athaliah , and acted under her authority , and neither blames himself , nor any of the nation for doing so . surely iehoiada had not the same notions of loyalty , which our author has , for then he durst not have submitted to athaliah , when he knew ioash was living , and was in his own keeping . for , ( says our author ) while the government is as unjust as the rebellion and encroachment , a man cannot justly become a party to the government , no more than to the rebellion , for they are both equally unjust ; unless the stealing of a purse is very unjust ; but the keeping it after it is stolen is very just . — he that partakes with injustice ( as he certainly does , that joyns with it ) partakes with the guilt too . and if the power be unjust , then to abet , to defend , support and maintain that power , must be unjust likewise . and i add , to do this for six years is unjust likewise ; and yet this iehoiada did , and is no where condemned for it . so that our author mistakes the question : it is not enough for him to prove , that my arguments will justifie submission to athaliah , while she was in the possession of the throne , and of the power of the kingdom ; for let the entail be what it will , a divine or humane entail , it is always lawful to submit to power ; but the question is , whether my arguments give as irresistible authority to athaliah , who usurped the throne contrary to a divine entail , as they do to other kings de facto , who are throughly setled in their thrones , contrary to meer legal rights , and humane entailes ; if they proved this , i should confess my arguments were naught , as proving too much ; but if they only justifie the present submission of the jews to athaliah , while ioash was concealed , and they thought all the king's sons had been cut off , i see no hurt in this : the scripture does not condemn them for it , and it is certain , they ought to be justified in it , and i desire to know , how our author will justifie them according to his principles . for we must observe , the convocation does not meddle with that question , when it becomes lawful to submit to usurped powers , but when it becomes our duty : it is lawful to do it , when we are under a power , which we can't resist , but when such usurped and illegal powers are throughly setled , then it becomes our duty to submit , and to pay all that obedience , which subjects owe even to the most rightful powers . now we know , the general submission of the people is necessary to a thorough settlement of such new governments , and therefore if such governments may be setled without the sin of the subjects , it must be lawful in some cases , to submit , before the government be setled ; for the government cannot be setled without their submission : but when the government is setled by such submission , then submission , which necessity justified before , becomes a duty ; and those who would not submit at first , or might have refused to do so without sin , when the government is setled by a general submission , are then bound in conscience to submit themselves . the question then between us is , or ought to be this , if he intends to oppose me ; not whether the iews might lawfully submit to athaliah , while she was possessed of the throne , for this i grant they might lawfully do ; but whether they having sosubmitted , and she being thoroughly setled in her throne ( for that our author will suppose ) it were not as unlawful upon my principles , for the iews to set up ioash , and to kill athaliah , as it is for any other people to depose and murther a king de facto , whose government is throughly setled among them . and here he takes notice of two arguments i make use of , the argument from providence , and from the necessity of government , for the preservation of human societies , which , he says , will equally serve athaliah , as any other king or queen de facto ; and if they will , i will give them up for lost . 1. as for providence ; the sum of all , he says , is this , that according to my principles , athaliah was placed in the throne by god , by his counsel , decree , and order , and peculiar order ; well! i must own it ; for i know none but god , who can advance to the throne ; and i know no more hurt in owning , that god exalted athaliah to the throne , than that he exalted baasha , who slew nadab the son of ieroboam , and reigned in his stead ; and yet god himself , by his prophet , tells baasha , i exalted thee out of the dust , and made thee prince over my people israel , 1 kings 16. 2. and what does he prove from this ? now athaliah ( says he ) had the actual administration of soveraign power , and therefore according to the doctor she was queen by god's authority , tho' not by the law of the land ; and allegiance must be due to her , as well as to any other : and all the doctor 's arguments are as conclusive and valid for submission to athaliah , as for submission to any body else . grant all this , and what then ? why then this justifies the submission of the iews to athaliah , while she was possessed of the throne , and no rightful heir appeared : and what hurt is there in this ? will our author condemn them for this submission ? or does the scripture , or convocation do it ? if he would have concluded any thing to the purpose , he should have said , and therefore it was unlawful for jehoiada to have anointed joash , and to have killed athaliah . but this he knew did not follow from my principles ; for i expresly distinguish between god's making kings by a particular nomination , as he made kings in jewry , and entailed the kingdom of judah on david ' s posterity , and his making kings by his providence , as he does in other nations . now what i say about the rights and prerogatives of kings advanced to the throne , and setled there by the divine providence , concerns only such kingdoms , where god makes kings only by his providence ; not such kingdoms where god ordinarily makes kings by a particular nomination of the person , or by a divine entail , which is equivalent to a particular nomination : for this greatly alters the case . to make this plain , let us consider the state of the kingdom of iudah , and of the kingdom of israel , after the ten tribes were divided from the house of david . god first made kings by an express nomination of the persons , as he did soul and david , and afterwards entailed the kingdom on david's posterity ; when the ten tribes were divided from iudah , he still reserved to himself the prerogative of nominating their kings when he pleased ; but yet he did not so strictly confine himself to nominate whom he would have to be king , or to an entail of his own making ; but that he sometimes set up kings by his providence , without a particular nomination , or any successive right , as he did in other nations ; let us then consider what the right of these providential kings was in iudah and israel . now these kings , when they were setled in their thrones , had all the rights of other soveraign princes of iudah or israel , excepting this , that they were liable to be divested of their kingdom by god's nomination of a new king , or by the revival of an old entail . when god nominated any king , and gave command to his prophets to anoint him , it was always for life ; and tho' during his life he might nominate another to succeed him after his death , as he did david to succeed saul , yet he never nominated another to take his life and his crown from him : and when he had made a perpetual entail , tho' he might for a time interrupt the succession , he did not cut it off ; but it was otherwise with meer providential kings , as it must necessarily be in such kingdoms which were under the immediate disposal and nomination of god : a new nomination , or the appearing of the right heir , put an end to their reign . as for example . ieroboam was placed on the throne of israel by god's nomination , and reigned as long as he lived , but for his sins god would not entail the kingdom on his family ; but baasha slew his son nadab , and succeeded in the kingdom , and was the first providential king of israel without a divine nomination or entail . elah , baasha's son , was slain by zimri , and the children of israel , without any divine appointment , made omri king ; ahab his son succeeded omri , and ioram ahab , who were all advanced by the divine providence , without god's nomination ; but now their sins being very provoking , god commands his prophet to anoint iehu king over israel , to destroy the family of ahab ; and iehu as soon as he was anointed , immediately takes possession of the kingdom , kills ioram , and destroys the house of ahab . for tho' ioram was advanced by the providence of god , and was the third successive king of his family , and therefore had a good right against all human claims ; yet he could have no unalterable right in the kingdom of israel , because that kingdom was at god's immediate disposal , when ever he pleased to nominate a king. and this is the reason of the different behaviour of david and iehu : david was anointed as well as iehu , but he never pretended to the crown while saul lived , because there was then an anointed king on the throne : but this was not ioram's case ; he had no more than a providential right , which in the kingdom of israel must give place to god's anointing ; and therefore iehu was king of israel as soon as he was anointed , and ioram was his subject . and this was athaliah's case ; she took possession of the throne by very wicked means , but must be allowed to be placed there by the providence of god ; and if she had as thorow a settlement , as other usurpers can have , had a right to the submission and obedience of the iews , while it was not known that the king's son was living ; but iudah was an hereditary kingdom by god's entail , and therefore as soon as the true heir appeared , she fell from her power , as much by the express ordinance and command of god , as ioram did when iehu was anointed ; for a divine entail , as the convocation asserts , is equivalent to an express nomination . this shews a manifest difference between kings set up by the divine providence in the kingdoms of iudah and israel , which were subject to the divine nomination , or to a divine entail ; and king 's set up by the providence of god in other nations , where god makes kings only by his providence : the first may be , and are deposed when ever god nominates a new king , or the right heir appears ; tho' they had all the rights and settlement of the regal power before ; in other nations , those kings , who are placed in the throne , and setled there , are , and continue kings , till the providence of god displace them again ; for where kings are made only by the providence of god , they can be unmade by providence too . had our author considered this , he would not have said , that it is meer trifling to talk of god's entailing the crown , as if god was tied any more to the entails of his own making , than he is to humane entails , and his own decrees and orders would not cut off his own entails as well as those of men. for tho god may cut off his own entails , if he pleases , yet men can't , and the meer events of providence can never prove , that god has done it ; for we must never interpret providential events to contradict an express revelation : and therefore , tho the providence of god in placing a king on the throne in iudah or israel , who neither was anointed by god's command , nor had an hereditary right by god's entail , justified their submission to him ; yet whenever god was pleased to anoint a new king , or to discover their hereditary prince , and to put it into their power to place him on the throne , the right and authority of these providential kings was at an end . and now there will be no great occasion to take much notice of what he answers to my second argument , from the necessity of government , to the preservation of humane society ; for i readily grant what he contends for , that these arguments will equally conclude for submission to athaliah , as to any other vsurper ; and what then ? the iews did actually submit to athaliah , and this argument from the necessity of government justifies their submission . but our author disputes , as if it were manifest that the iews did not submit to athaliah ; but it is evident from the story , that they did , and yet are not blamed in scripture for so doing ; but i suppose his mistake is , that because they owned ioash for their king , when he was anointed by iehojada , and slew athaliah , therefore they never submitted to athaliah's government ; as if they could not very innocently and lawfully submit to the government of athaliah , while they knew of no other king they had , and yet own their king , who was their king by a divine entail , when they knew him ; but indeed , here is the fundamental mistake of all , that he supposes the iews all this while knew , that ioash the true heir to the crown was living , and therefore out of loyalty to their prince , they did not all this while submit to athaliah ; whereas it is evident from the story , that they knew nothing of this matter , till iehojada sent for the princes and levites , and discovered the king's son to them ; and i would desire him to consider , how athaliah should be ignorant of this for six years , when all the people of israel knew it ; and yet , if he was not guilty of this mistake , i know not what sense to make of what he says , ( p. 8. ) about swearing an oath of fidelity to her , to defend her against all men , even against him whom they owned and acknowledged had a right to the throne ; that is , against ioash , who was their rightful king , but they could not own and acknowledg him to be so , without believing him to be alive and safe : and yet , if they knew nothing of ioash , and did believe that the royal line was extinct , i desire to know of our author , by his own principles , had it been customary in those days , what should have hindred them to have sworn allegiance to athaliah ? for he allows possession to be something , when there is no better claim against it . and yet though they had sworn allegiance to athaliah , they might without perjury have owned their lawful prince , when iehoiada had discovered him to them ; for no oath can oblige against a divine entail ; and therefore such cases are always supposed to be excepted . i asserted in the case , that government and allegiance are such relatives , as do mutuò se ponere & tollere , the one cannot subsist without the other : if the prince can't govern , the subject can't obey ; and therefore as far as he quits his government , he quits their allegiance , and leaves his subjects , as he does his crown , to be possessed by another , and must recover them both together . this our author says , is as plain a fallacy , as ever he met with , and proves from the example of ioash , that it is so ; but i have said so much already to that case , that i will trouble my reader no further with it . divine and humane entails give very different rights to princes ( as will appear more presently ) and yet even in divine entails , it was lawful for subjects to submit to , and obey usurped powers , either when they were under force , or when they knew not their rightful king ; that is , whenever their king could not govern them . he says , by government , i mean the actual administration of it ; and then government and allegiance are so far from being such relatives , that they are no relatives at all ; they are only the acts of relatives ; and to say the acts of relatives , are relatives , is so far from being as certain as any proposition in logic , that it is logical non-sense . well! logical non-sense , i hope , is the best sort of non-sense however . but my meaning is plain enough , and certainly true , which is as much , as any proposition in logic can be : by government , i do mean the actual administration of government , not as that signifies the particular acts of government ; but the actual possession of power and authority to govern : by allegiance , i mean that obedience and subjection which is due to government ; and if our author will be so severe , as not to allow me to call these relatives , yet they are the relations which make the relatives , and do mutuò se ponere & tollere ; for what is the relation of a king to a subject ? his dominion and government : what is the relation of a subject to a king ? his due allegiance and subjection : then dominion and government makes a king , and allegiance a subject ; and allegiance has as necessary a relation to dominion , as a subject has to a king ; if there be no king , there can be no subject ; if no dominion and government , there can be no allegiance . paternity is the relation that makes a father , and filiation a son , and paternity and filiation have as mutual and necessary a respect to each other , as father and son ; these are called by logicians , relative acts , and why then may not i call government and subjection relative duties , by which i explained what i meant by relatives ; but this i 'm sure is only a logical banter , and so let it pass . but as to the matter in hand , since we are got into logic , i desire to know of our author , whether the relative continues to be a relative , when the relation is destroyed ; for we are told , that the whole nature of relatives , relata secundum esse , ( for i must speak cautiously ) consists in their relation : if the relation then of a king to his subjects be dominion and government , does he continue a king , when he has lost his dominion and government ? or do subjects continue subjects , when he ceases to be king ? do they owe him allegiance , when he has lost his dominion ? that is , can one relative subsist by its self , without its correlate ? he tells us indeed , that the relation is only between king and subject , and the actual administration of government of the one hand , and paying allegiance on the other , are but the acts of that relation , and consequential to it , but are not relatives themselves : but i desire to know , what he calls the relation between king and subjects ; for king and subjects are not the relation , but relatives ; as father and son are relatives , paternity and filiation the relation ; now i desire to know what is the relation between these relatives , king and subjects ? the particular acts of government , and the particular acts of allegiance , i grant , are but the acts of that relation , but still we want to know what the relation is , to which these particular acts are consequential , and let our author think of anything else , wherein to place this relation , if he can , besides actual dominion , and sovereign power , on the one hand , to make a king , and the obligations to subjection and allegiance , on the other hand , to make a subject : from whence flow the particular acts of government and allegiance : now if the relative ceases with the relation , where actual dominion and government ceases , the kingship is lost , and the obligations to subjection and allegiance with it . all that i know of , that can be said in this cause ( and which those men must say , who make allegiance inseparable from right ) is only this , that the relation continues , as long as the fundamentum relationis , that whereon the relation is founded , continues ; and that being a legal right , while this right remains , such a legal king , though he be fallen from power , is king still , and subjects are subjects still , and owe allegiance to him . now to shorten this dispute , i shall only observe , that a legal hereditary right is not the fundamentum relationis , the foundation of that relation , which is between prince and subjects , for then there would be no foundation of this relation between prince and subjects in any but hereditary kingdoms ; for the same relation can have but one foundation ; and yet there are a great many ways whereby princes are advanced to the throne ; an hereditary right , the election of the people , the nomination of god , a divine entail , and conquest , which very much differ from each other ; and if all these be different foundations , there must be different kinds and species of kingship ; whereas the relation between king and subjects is the same in all . and therefore we must find out such a foundation for this relation , as will serve all sovereign princes , by what means soever they are setled in the throne ; and that can be no other but the authority of god , by which kings reign , and to which subjects owe obedience : the several ways of advancing princes to the throne , are but the several ways of investing them with god's authority ; but the authority of god with which they are invested , is the foundation of this relation ; and this is not always annexed to a legal right , but is always annexed to a full and setled possession of the throne . no man can have god's authority , who has not the actual power and authority of government ; for god's authority is the authority of government ; and when princes fall from government , so far they lose god's authority , whatever becomes of their legal right ; and all logicians grant , that relations are dissolved , when the foundation of such relations cease . and therefore as in the nature of the thing , subjects cannot obey a prince , when he can't command , nor submit to him , when he can't govern ; so when he falls from his government , and another prince is setled in his throne , the foundation of this relation at present ceases ; for when god has taken away his government , he has taken away his present authority to govern ; for god never gives the civil authority ▪ without the civil sword. i grant in all other relations , where the relation it self does not consist in the authority of government , nor the foundation of the relation cease by falling from the actual authority of government , the case is different , as between parents and children , masters and servants , where the relation is founded in nature , or purchase , or civil contracts , under the superior direction and government of the civil authority ; tho the master of the family , as he says , be spirited away , or taken captive , his servants , and house , and family , do not presently fall to the lot of the next possessor , but must be disposed of by the laws of the countrey , and by the authority of the prince ; for such private and particular interests are subject to publick laws , and a superior authority . but the authority of god is at his own disposal , and sovereign power and dominion , to which the divine authority is annexed , is the relation of a king to his subjects ; and when his sovereignty is lost , the relation is so far dissolved , and there is no higher tribunal to appeal to , but to that god who removeth kings , and setteth up kings . and this shews , how inconsequent his argument is , from the incapacity of a subject to pay allegiance , and a king to govern . if ( says he ) a subject be taken captive , or otherwise hindred from paying actual allegiance , is the relation lost , and does he therefore immediately cease to be a subject ? and therefore neither doth a king , if he be hindred from the actual administration of government , cease to be a king , but hath the same right to our allegiance , in , and out of possession . now to wave all other answers ( though , i suppose , our author will not deny , that such a captive may become a subject to another prince ) these two cases are not parallel ; in the first case , tho the subject is taken captive , yet the foundation of the relation is not destroyed , for his prince is on his throne still , in the actual administration of the government , tho he be violently torn from him ; so that this relation may continue , because he has a prince to whom he is related : but when the prince is fallen from his kingdom and power , the foundation of the relation is at present destroyed ; the kingdom is translated to another prince , and the subjects , and their allegiance translated with it . our author proceeds to argue from the case of ioash . the doctor 's distinction ( that is , about a divine entail ) is against him . 't is true , god did entail the kingdom of judah on the family of david , and for that reason they ought not to submit to an vsurper . but this is so far from being a reason , why they may submit to one in other kingdoms , where entails are made by laws that it is a reason , and a very good one , why they ought not . but before we hear his reason , i must observe that he mistakes the use of my distinction ; which was not to prove , that because god had entailed the kingdom of iudah on the posterity of david , and had reserved to himself a right in the kingdom of israel , to nominate their king , and entail the crown , when he pleased ; that therefore the subjects of those kingdoms might not submit to any other kings , whom the providence of god placed in the throne , without such a divine nomination and entail ; for it appears from what i have already discoursed , that they both actually did , and lawfully might submit to such providential kings , when either there was no king by god's nomination or entail , or no such king was known ; but the use of the distinction was to shew , that in such theocratical kingdoms , where god challenged a peculiar right to make kings by his express nomination or entail , though god may see fit sometimes to set a providential king upon the throne , yet whenever he nominates a new king , or discovers the right heir to whom the crown belongs by a divine entail , the reign of such providential kings is at an end , and the subjects may and ought to depose or kill them , and own the king of god's nomination : so that if he will prove any thing from my distinction with reference to other entailed kingdoms , he must shew , that my distinction proves , that in such kingdoms , where god makes kings only by his providence , a humane entail of the crown will justifie subjects in deposing and murthering a new king who is placed and setled in the throne by providence , while the legal king , or legal heir is living , as much as god's express nomination or entail would justifie the deposing a providential king in the kingdoms of iudah and israel . and now let us hear his reason : for ( says he ) god's entailing the crown of judah , was the law of that kingdom in that respect ; and the people of other kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own laws , as the people of iudah were theirs . all humane laws that are just , bind in conscience , and ( according to the doctor 's own principles ) these laws were made by god's authority . so that the doctor mistakes the question ; we do not oppose humane laws to god's authority , but we oppose laws which are made by god's authority , and which are rules to us , to providence , which is no rule . when god entailed the crown upon david's posterity , they had then a legal right to it , and so hath every family in other kingdoms , upon which an entail is made by the respective laws of the countrey . but what would our author prove from this ? that in every hereditary kingdom the legal heir has a legal right to the crown , as well as in iudah ? and did i ever deny it ? or that the standing laws of every countrey are the rule for subjects in setting up kings , when it is their own free act and choice ; and who denies this too ? there is a dispute indeed whether the laws of england do oblige subjects in all cases to make the next lineal heir to the crown their king ; but no man ever denied , but that in making kings , subjects are bound by the laws of the land , when it is their own free and voluntary act. i am sure my hypothesis is not concerned in this question , and therefore be it how it will , it can prove nothing against me . or would he prove , that when an entail is setled either by divine or humane laws , god never interposes by his providence to set up a king , who has not this entailed legal right ? this was manifestly false , both in the kingdom of iudah and israel , which god had reserved for his own nomination , or entail , and yet he set up several providential kings , athaliah in iudah , and baasha , and omri , and ahab , and ioram and others in israel ; and in all other kingdoms , at one time or other . or would he prove , that when god by his providence has setled a prince in the throne without a legal right , subjects ought not to obey him , and submit to him as their king ? this is confuted by the examples of iudah and israel , who submitted to athaliah , and their providential kings , who had no legal right , by a divine nomination , or entail , and are yet never blamed for it . or would he prove , that a human entail of the crown does as much oblige subjects in conscience to pull down a king , who is setled in his throne by god's providence , with a national consent and submission , but without a legal right , to set the legal heir on his throne again , as iehoiada was , by virtue of the divine entail , to anoint ioash , and slay athaliah ? this is the single point he ought to prove ; but i do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it . the sum of his argument is this ; that a human entail of the crown , made by the laws of any countrey , does in all cases , and to all intents and purposes , as much oblige subjects , as a divine entail , which is only the law of the kingdom too . for the people of other kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own laws , as the people of judah were theirs . the dispute in general about the authority and obligation of humane laws , is very impertinent to this purpose ; for no man denies it ; but yet we think divine political laws much more sacred , and universally obligatory than any meer human laws , tho they are made by men , who have their authority of government , and consequently of making laws from god ; and i believe our author is the first man who has equalled humane laws , with those laws which are immediately given by god. but the dispute between divine and humane laws , and a divine and humane entail of the crown , are of a very different nature , though they be both the laws of the countrey for which they are made , as will easily appear , if we compare god's making kings by a providential settlement of them in the throne , with a divine and with a humane entail a divine entail is god's setling the crown on such a family by the express revelation of his will ; and though god should after this , settle a prince in the throne by his providence , to whom the crown did not belong by this entail , such a providence would not justifie subjects in submitting to such a providential king , when it is in their power to set the right heir upon the throne ; for this would be to expound providence against the express revelation of god's will : but a human entail is only a providential settlement of the crown on such a family ; and what is setled only by providence , may be unsetled by providence again ; for where god makes kings only by his providence , he can unmake them by his providence also , and make new ones . this discovers the fallacy of what he adds ; we do not oppose human laws to god's authority , but we oppose laws that are made by god's authority , and which are a rule to us , to providence , which is no rule . now i would ask our author , whether the laws of england , which entail the crown , are not humane laws ? if they be , i ask , whether they do not oppose these humane laws to the authority of god in making kings by his providence ? for do they not refuse to obey a king , whom the providence of god has placed and setled in the throne , upon a pretence that he is not king by law ? and then i think , they give greater authority to the laws of the land , than to god in making kings , which is to oppose humane laws to god's authority . to avoid this , he will not call them humane laws , but laws made by gods authority ; but the question is , whether they are humane or divine laws ? it is a childish piece of sophistry , and argues a great contempt of his readers , to call humane laws , laws made by god's authority , because sovereign power , which makes these laws , is god's authority ; as if there were no difference between humane and divine laws , because they are both made by god's authority ; though the one are made by the immediate authority of god , the other are made by men , who receive their authority from god ; whereas in the first case the authority of god gives an immediate divine authority to the laws made by god , which therefore are said to be made by god's authority ; in the other case the authority of god terminates on the person , and does not immediately affect his laws ; sovereign princes have their authority from god , but their laws are the laws of men ; and the difference between them is this , that divine laws , which are made by god himself , have a superior authority to men , and to all humane laws , though made by a delegated authority from god ; for god grants authority to men only in subordination to himself , and the authority of his own laws : he might as well have said , that all the by-laws of a corporation are the king's laws , because made by his authority granted to them by charter ; and therefore there is no difference between the private laws of the city , and the laws of the kingdom , as being both made by the authority of the king. this may satisfy our author , that though humane laws in some sense may be said to be made by god's authority , yet when men oppose a legal entail of the crown to the authority of god in making kings , they oppose humane laws to the authority of god. well! but these law are our rule ; they are are so , when they are not over-ruled by a superior authority ; but that they may be by the authority of god : and the providence of god is no rule to us ; if by this he means , that we must not make providence the rule of good and evil to us , i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the providence of god does , i grant it ; for the laws of god are the rules of good and evil , not his providence : but if he means , the providence of god cannot direct our duty cannot lay some new obligations on us , and discharge our old ones , this is manifestly false in a thousand instances ; every new condition providence puts us in , every new relation it creates , it requires some new duties , and lays some new obligations on us . i shall instance only in the case before us : if the providence of god can remove one king , and set up another , tho this does not alter the duty of subjects to their prince , yet it changes the object of their allegiance , as it changes their prince : the laws of god prescribe the duty of subjects to their prince , but the providence of god makes him . and now let us consider the opposition he makes between humane laws of entail , and providence ; for he confesses , they do oppose laws made by the divine authority , that is , the laws of the land , which entail the crown , to providence , or to the providence of god in making kings : that is , they think themselves bound in conscience to adhere to that king , tho out of possession , who by the laws of the land has a legal right to the crown , against that king , who is actually setled in the throne by the providence of god : now if we will consider the sense of things , and not the words , this is no more than to say , that they oppose the providence of god against providence ; his former providence against his later providence ; that is , they will not allow the providence of god to change and alter , whatever reasons the divine wisdom sees for it ; but what god has once done , that they are resolved to abide by , whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards , which is to oppose god's authority , and to shackle and confine providence , that it shall not alter its usual methods in the government of the world ; or when it has disposed of the crown once , shall never be at liberty , while that family lasts , to dispose of it again to any other . for what are these laws , which , he says , are made by the divine authority , and are our rule ? they are the laws of succession , which entail the crown . and how does god settle the crown on any family by such laws ? no otherwise but by his providence , so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of men , as to consent to such an entail , which gives a humane right to the crown , and bars all other humane claim . so that an hereditary king , by a humane entail of the crown , with respect to god , is only a providential king ; as much a providential king as the first of the family was , who obtain'd it by election , or conquest , or worse arts , not by god's express nomination of the person : so that to opppose the laws of entail made , not by god's immediate authority , as they were in the kingdom of iudah , but by the over-ruling influence of providence , against god's setting up a new king on the throne , by other acts of his providence , is to oppose providence against providence ; god's providenee in setling the crown in such a family by a legal entail , against his providence in setling a new king upon the throne : it is all but providence still , and i desire to know why the providence of an entail is more sacred and obligatory than any other act of providence , which gives a setled possession of the throne ? what follows is pretty , and nothing more : the land of canaan was divided among the twelve tribes by god's express command , and this answers to god's entail of the crown on david ' s family ; the possession in all other countries is only by providence , and this answers to a humane right and title to the crown : well! there is something of likeness between them , and what then ? and therefore according to the doctor 's way of reasoning , every man who wrongfully possessed himself of another man's estate in that land ( canaan ) must be made to restore it ; for god had expresly given it to the other , and to his family . but in all other countries , if a man by providence get his neighbour's estate , he must have it ; for the event is god's act , and it is his evident decree and counsel that he should have it . now the fundamental mistake , which runs through all these kind of arguments , is this ; that they make the events of providence in private injuries , thefts , robberies , encroachments of one subject on another subject's rights , to be the very same with god's disposal of kingdoms , and to have the same effects ; whereas all private injuries are reserved by god himself to the correction and redress of publick government , and humane courts of justice ; and therefore his providence has no effect at all on such personal rights ; but the very nature of the thing proves , that such disputes , which are too big for a legal decision , or any humane courts , for the decision of which , god has erected no universal tribunal on earth , he has reserved to his own judgment , such as the correction of sovereign princes , and the transferring kingdoms and empires ; and here the final determinations of providence in setling princes on their thrones , draws the allegiance and submission of subjects after it ; and in such cases god does not confine himself to determine on the side of humane right , but acts with a soveraign authority , and gives the kingdoms of the world to whom he pleases , as he can best serve the wise , and many times the unsearchable designs of his providence by it ; which shows how much our author is out , in applying what i said of god's making kings , to god's disposal of private estates . it is to say , that god , as well as men , is confined to humane laws ; in making kings , i said ; in disposing of estates , saith our author ; as if disposing of estates , and making kings , were the very same thing ; whereas god has erected humane judicatures to judge of the first , but has reserved the second to his own judgment ; and when god himself judges , he judges with authority , with wisdom , with justice , superior to all humane laws . our author might as well have said , that we must not resist private men , or inferior officers , when they are injurious , because we must not resist a sovereign prince , when he illegally oppresses us , as that we must not dispossess a private subject , who has injuriously possessed himself of our estates , because subjects must not pull down a prince , who is setled in the throne without a legal right . the poet would have taught him the difference between these two cases . regum timendorum in proprios greges . reges in ipsos imperium est iovis . subjects are under the government and correction of princes ; princes under the government of god. and besides this , according to my principles , kings must be thoroughly setled in their government before it becomes unlawful for subjects to dispossess them ; and then if he will make the cases parallel , he who unjustly seizes another man's estate , must be throughly setled in it , before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him ; but that no private man can be , who is under the government of laws , and has not the possession of his estate given him by law ; and when he has , whether right or wrong , he must not be violently dispossessed again ; but in causes superior to laws , as the revolutions of government , and the translations of kingdoms are , there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without law ; and must be so , where laws cannot determine the controversy , that is , where there is no superior tribunal to take cognizance of it . so , that as our author has stated the case , it signifies nothing to the present purpose ; for whether private mens estates be setled by a divine or humane entail , it is the same case ; if they suffer any injury from their fellow-subjects , they must seek for redress from publick government ; but i could have told him a way , how to have applied this case to the purpose ; but then it would not have been to his purpose , but to mine . in canaan , where god allotted every tribe and family their inheritance , none could pretend a right to any portion of land , but what was allotted them : but in other countries , which were left in common , possession and occupation gave a right . thus in iudah , none had an ordinary right to the crown , but those who were nominated by god , or had the crown descended on them by a divine entail ; but in other countries , possession and occupation gave a right to the allegiance of subjects . in canaan , when god had setled such an inheritance in a family , it could never be perpetually alienated ; but tho it were sold , it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of iubilee , when all estates were to return to their old proprietors again ; but in other countries , men may part with their estates for ever . thus in the kingdom of iudah , tho god by his sovereign authority might set up a providential king , yet this did not cut off the entail , but when ever the true heir appeared , subjects , if they were at liberty , were bound to make him king , and dispossess the usurper ; but in other kingdoms , a kingdom may be lost , as well as an inheritance sold for ever . in answer to that objection , that the laws of the land in such cases as these , are the measure of our duty , and the rule of conscience ; and therefore we must own no king , but whom the laws of the land own to be king , that is , in an h●reditary monarchy , the right heir ; i granted . that the laws of the land are the rule of conscience , when they do not contradict the laws of god ; but when they do , they are no rule to us , but their obligation must give place to a divine authority . suppose then there were an express law , that the subjects of england should own no king but the right heir ; and notwithstanding this law , ( as it will sometimes happen , and has often happened in england ) a prince , who is not the right heir , should get into the throne , and settle himself there ; if the divine law in such a case commands us to pay all the obedience and duty of subjects to a prince in the actual possession of the throne , and the law of the land forbids it , which must we obey , the law of god , or the law of the land ? to this our author answers , where is this law of god , that commands us to obey vsurpers ? where is it ever affirmed in scripture in express terms , or deduced from thence by evident consequence ? this i had shewed before , and it is in my boek still , and there he may see it . but this law had need be very clear and evident , and the doctor had need be very sure of it , when he builds not only his book , but his practice upon it , in plain contradiction ( by his own confession ) to the laws of the land. but i never confessed , this was contrary to the laws of the land ; but on the contrary , that the laws of the land , if we will believe learned judges and lawyers , do allow and justify it ; and i think the scripture is very plain in the case ; and if he would give me leave to be sure of any thing , i think i am pretty sure of it . but he proves the scriptures cannot be clear in the point , from the controversies about it , in the late dismal times of vsurpation ; that is to say , nothing can be clear in scripture , which is matter of controversy ; and thus we must either be scepticks in religion , or seek for an infallible interpreter . thus hereticks oppose the articles of faith ; thus papists dispute against the scriptures being the rule of faith ; and whither these arguments will carry our author , i cannot tell , but they look very kindly towards rome ; and if that be his inclination , i can pardon his zeal in this cause . but no learned men could ever espy this law before the time of john goodwin . what then does he think of mr. calvin and grotius , who have both passed for learned men ? and they espied this law before the time of iohn goodwin , as he may see , if he pleases , in their commentaries on daniel , and the romans ; or that he may not seek for it , i have given him a tast of their judgment in the margin . what thinks he of bishop overal's convocation ? were there no learned men in it ? and yet they espied this doctrine , before iohn goodwin was thought of ; what iohn goodwin thought of this matter i cannot tell , for i am not much versed in his writings ; but if some men abused a true doctrine to wicked purposes , must we therefore deny the doctrine , or rather vindicate it from such abuses ? but what thinks he of the primitive christians , whose sense he may guess at , from what grotius has cited ; and their practice in all the revolutions of the empire does more fully declare it ; for they always submitted to the reigning emperor , by what means soever they gained the throne ; and that is an argument , that they owned the doctrine , because they practiced it ; as our author will quickly be informed by a learned pen. i grant indeed , that the resolution of conscience ought not to depend on such nicties of law and history , as learned men cannot agree about ; and that is a reason , why legal rights and titles should not be the rule and measure of our obedience to princes , who are possessed of the throne ; but is this a reason to reject the directions of scripture too , because some men will dispute the plainest texts ? this has nothing but either scepticism or infallibility at the bottom . our author proceeds to consider the scripture-testimonies , which i cite in this cause . and first , from the old testament , that god giveth kingdoms to whomsoever he will ; that he removeth kings , and setteth up kings , 4. dan. 17. 2. 21 , 37. now the whole of his answer to this , is , that usurpers are no kings ; and therefore , tho god removes kings , and sets up kings , he does not set up usurpers ; and the whole of his proof is , that athaliah , who was an usurper , was no queen . as for athaliah , i suppose our author has enough of her already ; she was god's providential queen , tho an usurper , as much as baasha was god's king. and to say , that a king without a legal title , or an usurper , who has a setled possession of the regal power , is no king , is nonsense . for regal power and authority makes a king , as st. austin tells us , regnum à regibus , reges à regendo ; that a kingdom is so called from kings , and kings from governing ; it is certain , he who has the exercise of the regal power and authority , is king , whether we will call him so or no ; and he is no king , who has no regal power , whatever his title be . if this be not so , our laws are nonsense , which distinguish between a king de jure and de facto , if a king de facto be no king , tho it signifies one who is actually king. but pray , what sense does this make of what the prophet daniel says , that god changeth times and seasons , removeth kings , and setteth up kings ? by kings here , according to our author , the prophet means not usurpers , but rightful and lawful kings ; and then the meaning is , that god removeth , or pulleth down rightful kings , and that he setteth up rightful kings . now , as for setting up rightful kings , our author likes it very well ; but how does he like pulling down rightful kings , which is as much against law and right , as to set up kings without right ? and that it seems god does . he will not allow us to pay allegiance to a king , who is set up without right ; will he then allow us to withdraw our allegiance from a rightful king , whom god has removed and pulled down ? if he won't , as it is plain he won't , then god can no more remove a rightful king , than he can set up an illegal usurper ; but when the prophet says , god removeth kings , and setteth up kings , to reconcile it to our author's hypothesis , the removed king must signifie an usurper , and the king set up , a rightful and legal king. i doubt not but our author would be ashamed to say this ; but whether he be or no , he dares not say it ; for then he must allow , that king may signify an usurper , as well as a rightful king , which overthrows all he says , for then it is reasonable to expound the text of all kings , whatever they be , who are removed or set up . and this is evidently the prophet's meaning , to attribute all the changes and revolutions of government , when ever they happened , not to chance or fate , but to the divine providence , that whenever we see one king removed , and another set up , whoever they be , they are removed and set up by god , who ruleth in the kingdom of men , and giveth it to whomsoever he will ; does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal right ? does giving suppose an antecedent right in him to whom it is given ? does giving to whomsoever he will , signifie , giving it only to those to whom the law gives it ? do we use to say , a man may give his estate to whom he will , when his estate is entailed , and he cannot alienate it from the right heir ? we should think this a very absurd way of speaking among men ; and yet thus our author must expound god's giving a kingdom to whomsoever he will , to signify his giving the kingdom to the right heir . he may , if he please , call this expounding scripture ; but i doubt every body else will give it some other name , and i hope he himself upon second thoughts will be ashamed of it . but it is more absurd still , if we apply it to the occasion , viz. those great revolutions and changes of empires , which the prophet foretold , and which he attributes to god ; and when kingdoms and empires are overturned by violence , it is nonsence to talk of god's setting up only rightful kings , not usurpers ; when all those revolutions were nothing else but force and usurpation : men may talk of law and right of succession in a setled government , but kingdoms are not transferred , nor kings removed , nor set up by law ; and therefore when the prophet tells us with respect to such violent revolutions , that god changes times and seasons , that he removeth kings and setteth up kings , an ingenious man must be hard put to it , to say , this is not meant of usurpers , but of rightful and legal kings ; whereas if but one of these must be meant , we must expound it of such kings , who ascend the throne by force and usurpation ; and if when god is said to remove kings , he will allow this to be meant of rightful kings , who were legally possessed , i wonder how he should fancy , that those kings who dispossess the rightful kings , and place themselves in their thrones , should in his sense be legal and rightful kings too . my testimony from the new-testament is , rom. 13. 1 , 2. let every soul be subject to the higher powers , for all power is of god. now by powers , our author says , i understand vsurped as well as lawful powers : i do so ; by powers i understand the powers in a setled government , whatever their claim and title be : he says , this is contrary to the current of all good interpreters ; that i deny : i have shewn him already , that i have mr. calvin and grotius on my side , and the convocation ; and if that will not satisfy him , it is no hard matter to produce more . my reason , he says , is , because the scripture makes no distinction between kings , and vsurpers . one of my reasons is , that the scripture has given us no directions in this case , but to submit and pay all the obedience of subjects to the present powers . it makes no distinction , that ever i could find , between rightful kings , and vsurpers , between kings whom we must , and whom we must not obey . these last words he conceals , because they spoil all his argument : for he adds , i thought the case of athaliah had been a distinction ; and had this precept been given in those days , i wonder whether any body would have doubted of whom it ought to be understood , of athaliah or joash . but the answer is plain , there was a distinction between athaliah and ioash , that she was an usurper , and he the rightful king ; and i hope our author had not that mean opinion of me , to think that i made no distinction between an usurper and a rightful king , with respect to their usurpation and their right ; but i say , the scripture makes no distinction between a rightful king and an usurper , with respect to the obedience of subjects , while they are setled in the throne ; the scripture does not tell us , that there are some kings whom we must obey , and other kings , viz. kings by usurpation , whom we must not obey : and with reference to this , the case of athaliah is no example of such a distinction ; for the iews were not forbid either by the standing law of the kingdom , or by iehoiada , to submit to athaliah , while she was possessed of the throne , and ioash was concealed ; but they actually submitted to her , and are no where blamed for it : that iehoiada afterwards anointed ioash , and slew athaliah , was owing to the divine entail of the crown , and was peculiar to iudah , and affects no other providential kings , who are setled in their thrones . so that had this law been given to the iews at that time , while ioash was concealed , it must have been expounded of athaliah , who had possession of the throne ; when ioash was known , and anointed , it must have been expounded of him , as having a divine right to the throne of iudah . he proceeds ; but ( saith the doctor ) if the apostle had intended such a distinction ; he ought to have said it in express words ; and why so , i pray ? i gave him a reason for it , which he is pleased to conceal ; why should we think the apostle here intends a distinction unknown to scripture ? had there been any such rule before given , to submit to lawful powers , but not to submit to vsurpers , there had been some pretence of understanding st. paul's all power , of all legal power ; but there being nothing like this any where else in scripture , if he had intended any such distinction , he ought to have said it in express words , or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this precept of subjection to the higher powers , only of powers that had a legal right . this i thought a very good reason , and did not expect to have been asked for more , till this had been answered . but , says our author , does not the nature of the thing sufficiently distinguish it ? the nature of the thing distinguishes between a legal king , and a usurper , but the nature of the thing does not prove , that usurped powers are not the higher powers , and ought not to be obeyed ; but , i think , proves the quite contrary . but are there not several rules about right and wrong , which extend to all persons and cases ? yes , there are ; such is the apostle's rule in this chapter , to give to every one their due ; but then the question returns , what is their due ? whether obedience and subjection be not due to the prince , who governs , not to the prince who does not , and cannot govern , whatever his legal right to the government be ? but because this argument of right , and our obligations to do right to every man , especially to princes , is that whereon this controversie turns , i shall particularly , but briefly consider it . the argument is this . he who by the laws of the land has a right to the crown , has a right to our allegiance ; and whether he be in or out of possession , to own any other king , to submit and pay allegiance to any other , though actually possessed of , and setled in the throne , is great injustice to our natural prince , and a violation of that precept , to give to every one their due . and whatever force and necessity we are under , we must not do so wicked and unjust a thing , to preserve our selves , nay , to preserve the nation from ruine . this objection has been answered more than once in my case of allegiance ; but because i find some men very unwilling to understand it , i will try whether i can set it in a clearer light . now here are two things to be considerred . 1. the right to the crown . 2. the right to allegiance . as for the first , the fundamental prejudice and mistake seems to be this , that men make no difference between a legal right to the crown , and the legal right of subjects to their estates : and therefore think it as wicked and unjust , for subjects , whatever their circumstances are , to own any other prince , but the legal heir , as it would be for tenants to pay their rent to any but their true legal lord. but i apprehend a great difference between these two cases , and it is this ; that in setling an estate , there is nothing more required but a meer humane right ; but to make a legal king , besides an humane right to the crown , he must have god's authority . there is nothing but a legal descent , and a legal possession , that gives right to a legal estate , and therefore the law must have its effect , and is the only adequate rule of right and wrong in such cases . and though the providence of god allots mens private fortunes ; though he makes rich , and makes poor ; yet he gives no man a right to an estate , which he has got by fraud , injustice and violence ; nor exempts them from legal punishments and prosecutions ; but leaves all such meer legal rights , under the general influence of his providence , to the care of publick government . but now if a meer humane right cannot make a king , but it is god's authority which makes a king ; if god reserves this authority in his own hands , to the free disposal of his own sovereign will and counsel , and does not inseparably annex it to humane entails of the crown ; if god's authority , without a humane right , can make a king , but humane laws cannot make a king without god's authority ; this may satisfy us , that when god thinks fit to interpose his authority , a meer legal right is not a sufficient reason to adhere to a prince whom god has removed from the throne , nor the meer want of a legal right , a sufficient reason to disown a prince , whom god has set upon the throne : if meer law made a king , as it makes an heir to an estate , it were very unjust in subjects to own any but a legal king ; but if the sovereign authority of god can remove a king , who has the legal right , and set up a king , who has no legal right , then meer humane laws are not the only rules of right and wrong in this matter : and there is no reason to charge any man , who upon these terms submits to a new prince , with the least injustice , either in disowning his old legal prince , or in submitting to a new one . secondly , as for the right to allegiance , it was the great design of my book to prove , that allegiance is not immediately due to a legal right to the crown , but to government ; and therefore a prince , who has a legal right to the throne , but has it not , cannot have a right to my allegiance , till he gains the throne ; and i deny him no right which he can justly claim , tho i deny my allegiance to him , while he is out of the throne : and methinks our author should have answered all that i said upon this argument , before he had so dogmatically told us , that the general rules about right and wrong , which extend to all persons and cases , made it needless for st. paul to have told us , that by the higher powers , and the powers that are , he meant only legal powers ; for if illegal powers , in his sense , may be the highter powers , and the powers , that at present are , who have the actual administration of government , and allegiance be immediately due only to the governing powers ; then notwithstanding the general rules of right and wrong , the apostle might mean our author 's illegal powers . i am sure the reason of things does not prove the contrary ; for when the allegiance and obedience of subjects , is a duty only for the sake of government , for the ease and safety of it , it is very strange that it should not be due to a setled government , but due to a prince who does not , and cannot govern. and if i may have liberty to dispute with this author upon his own principles , i desire to know of him , whether allegiance be due to any prince upon any other account , than his being invested with god's authority ? let him say it is at the utmost peril of his cause . how then does god invest any prince with his authority of government , whom he does not immediately nominate , as he did in the kingdom of iudah ? it must be either by annexing his authority to the legal office , or by placing such a person on the throne , by what means soever he does it , or by both : and then it is certain no prince can have god's authority , who is not in possession of the throne , and then no allegiance can be due to him . if god's authority be annexed to the regal office , a prince must be in the actual administration of the regal office and power , before he can have god's authority : as a man must be actually married , before he can have the authority which the divine laws give to a husband . if god's setling a prince in the throne , gives him this authority , then no prince who is removed from the throne , can have god's authority : and this is agreeable to the language of scripture , when god is said , to remove kings , and set up kings , which when it does not signifie the express revelation of his will , but the acts of his providence , can mean no more , than the removing one king from the throne , and placing another in it ; as it is elsewhere expressed , he pulleth down the mighty from their seat , and exalteth the humble and meek . the truth is , the authority of government is always god's authority ; and that is the reason bishop overal's convocation book gives , why any degenerate forms of government , when throughly setled , must be reverenced and obeyed ; because the authority so unjustly gotten , or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor , is always god's authority ; which they offer no proof at all of , but what is supposed in their reason , that the authority of government , when it is once setled , is god's authority ; and then how those princes , who , whatever their right be , have no authority of government , should have god's authority , i cannot guess : for to call a right to the crown , the authority of government , is contrary to the sense of mankind , when they speak of sovereign princes : for he has the actual authority , who actually administers the government ; and it is actual authority , which is god's authority , not authority in fancy and idea ; for god does not give authority to govern , without the power of government , which is a very fruitless and insignificant authority . but to proceed , our author proves by a parallel case , that st. paul by the higher powers could mean only lawful powers , for the apostle exhorts ( 13. hebr. 17. ) obey them that have rule over you , meaning the ministers of the gospel ; now the apostle makes no distintion between lawful ministers and intruders , and yet we must understand it of lawful ministers ; and by the same reason , though st. paul makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful powers , yet he means only lawful powers ; for this is the force of his argument , though he has not expressed it . but these cases are by no means parallel . for the apostle to the hebrews had no reason to make any such distinction , which yet was necessary for st. paul to have done , had he intended his precept of obedience , should be understood only of lawful powers . the apostle to the hebrews knew , who had the rule over them at that time , that they were lawful ministers , and exhorts the hebrews to obey them ; and had he added such a distinction , it would have insinuated , that he knew some among them , who were not lawful ministers , and such a suggestion without naming the persons , would have made them jealous of them all , and spoiled his exhortation of obeying them : the hebrews knew whom st. paul meant by those , who had the rule over them , st. paul knew , they were such as ought to be obeyed ; and therefore there was no need here of any distinction between lawful pastors , and intruders . but st. paul gives a general charge to be subject to the higher powers , and generally affirms , that all power is of god , and therefore if he had not intended , that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it , of all powers , however they came by their power , he should have limited it to legal and rightful powers . he adds , in short , the dr's reason is against him . there has ever been a distinction in the world between legal and usurped powers , and 't is probable enough that st. paul ( who was so learned a man ) knew it , and if he had intended to enjoin obedience to usurped powers , 't is probable he would have said so in express terms , but since be never said so , we have reason to conclude he never intended it . now i doubt not but st. paul did know this distinction between legal and usurped powers , and knew also , that the pharisees made this objection against their submission to the romans , and for that reason he affirms , that all power is of god , and that they must be subject to the higher powers , without any distinction ; which he would not have done , if any distinction ought to have been made ; when he knew the dispute was about the romans , whom they looked upon as usurpers over israel , who were god's peculiar people and inheritance : and yet though there was a distinction between legal and usurped powers , there was no distinction made in point of obedience to them , but only by the pharisees ; and therefore with respect to the rest of the world , he ought to have made this distinction in express words , if he intended any distinction should have been made . i have insisted the longer on this , because it gives a full answer to his next objection ; that the interpretation i give of the convocation book , justifies an unreasonable and impious doctrine , by making the acts or permissions of providence a rule for practice , against right and iustice. now this , i confess , is a very unreasonable and impious doctrine , and were i sensible , that any thing i have said , would justifie this doctrine , i would immediately renounce it ; but i hope when our author considers again , that i have evidently proved , that the interpretation i have given , is the true sense of the convocation , he will be more favorable to it , for their sakes . but i have already stated this matter about right and justice , and have shewn the difference between the right of private men to their estates , and of princes to their thrones , and to the allegiance of subjects ; between a thief 's taking a purse , and an usurper a crown , by the providence of god ; between the providence of god in such matters , as he refers to the correction and redress of publick laws , and publick government , and what he reserves to his own cognizance and disposal , as he does the revolutions of government , the removing kings , and the setting up kings . the truth is , our author writes at that rate , that it is to be feared , some people will suspect , that he does not believe a providence , or does not understand it , or has a mind to ridicule it . for let me ask him , does god make kings in england , or not ? if he does ( which i hope our author will grant , or he renounces the jure divino with a witness ) how does he make kings ? he sends no prophets among us to anoint kings , and to tell us , whom he has nominated to reign over us , and therefore he can make kings no other way among us , but by the events of providence : and how does god make kings by his providence ? truly this can be done no other way , but by placing them in the throne , and setling them there with the general consent and submission of the people : does then this providential settlement in the throne , which makes a king , invest such a king with god's anthority ? if it does not , then it seems god makes a king without giving him his authority , makes a king without any authority to govern , which is a contradiction ; if he does , does not this make it the duty of subjects to obey such a king ? are not subjects bound to obey such kings , as have god's authority ? again , suppose a prince ascends the throne , and obtains the consent and submission of the people , by the most unjust force , and the most ungodly arts , that can be thought on , who places such a prince on the throne , if god don't ? our author according to his principles must answer , that by god's permission he usurps the throne , but is no king , much less a king of god's making . well , let him call him king , or usurper , or what he pleases , but it seems a prince may ascend the throne , and govern a kingdom for many years ( it may be a hundred years , for so long a prescription our author requires to give a just title to an usurper ) without god's authority ; and then i desire to know , whether god rules in such a kingdom , while an usurper fills the throne ; the reason of the question is plain , because the prophet daniel pronounces universally , that god ruleth in the kingdom of men , and as a proof of it adds , and giveth it to whomsoever he will , and then it should seem , that god does not rule in these kingdoms , which he does not dispose of by his own will and counsel , which he does not give to whom he will , but suffers usurpers to take the government of them . for indeed will any man say , that god governs such a kingdom , as is not governed by his authority , or minister ? does providence and government signifie only his permission ? that god looks on , and sees men snatch at crowns , and take them , and keep them , and exercise an authority , which he , who is the universal lord of the world , never gave them ? to resolve providence into a bare permission , especially in matters of such vast consequence , as the disposal of crowns , is to deny god's government of the world. but it is objected , that to say , that prosperous usurpers , when they are setled in the throne , are placed there by god , and have his authority , is to make god a party to their wickedness . now this is another argument , not merely against god's making kings , but in general against god's providence and government of the world : for if god cannot direct and over-rule the wickedness of men to accomplish his own wise counsels and purposes , without being the author of those sins , whereby such events are brought to pass , there is an end of the providence of god , or of his holiness and justice ; for the most glorious designs of god's grace and providence , have been accomplished by very wicked means , even the crucifixion of our saviour himself . but to confine my self to our present case of transferring kingdoms and empires , as it was in the four monarchies . it is possible this may sometimes be done by very honest means , but it is commonly done by great injustice and violence in men , and yet god very just and righteous in doing it . no man , i suppose , will deny , but that god , as the supreme lord and sovereign of the world , may give the kingdoms of the world to whom he pleases , without doing injustice to any prince , who can have no right but by his gift : no man will deny , but that god may be very just and righteous in removing some princes from their thrones , and in setting up others : and then the translation of kingdoms , the pulling down one prince , and setting up another , is no act of injustice with god ; but is his prerogative as the king of kings , and when it is done for wise , and holy , and just reasons , ( as we ought always to presume of what god does ) is a plain demonstration of the wisdom , and holiness , and justice of his providence . the only dispute then can be , about god's bringing such events to pass by the wickedness of men ; and what hurt is there in this , if god can so over-rule the ambition of princes , or the faction and rebellion of subjects , as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts , which god for wise and holy reasons , thinks fit to have done : it cannot be denied , but that god does permit men to do very wickedly , and if he can permit the wickedness of men without being guilty of their sins , i hope to direct and over-rule their wickedness to wise purposes , to bring good out of evil , and order out of confusion , can be no blemish to providence . indeed i should be much puzzled to justifie the divine providence , in permitting the sins of men , especially such sins , as do great mischief to the world , were i not very well satisfied , that god over-rules all to wise and good ends. let us suppose an ambitious prince spurred on with fame and glory to grasp at an universal empire ; our author will not say , but that god may permit this man , to ravage and depopulate countries , to pull princes from their thrones , and to bring their kingdoms into subjection to himself : such men there are in all ages , did not god think fit to restrain them , and to fling difficulties in their ways to make them tame and quiet . now i would ask any man , which most becomes the divine wisdom , to suffer such men when they please to overturn kingdoms , and to bring horrible desolations on the world , only to gratifie their own lusts ; or to give the reigns , and to give prosperous success to them , when he sees fit to new model the world , to pull down such a prince , or to chastise and correct such a nation : i am sure this much more becomes the wisdom and justice of providence , than a bare permission of such violence , without any farther design , which does not become the wise governor of the world. and if god may permit such wickedness and violence without contributing to their sin , or being a party to their wickedness ; much more may he over-rule their wickedness for wise ends , make them the executioners of his justice in punishing a wicked age , and transferring kingdoms ; and then why may not god give them those kingdoms , which he has overturned by them ? for i suppose , it is as agreeable to the sovereignty , wisdom and justice of god , to give a kingdom to a violent usurper , as to suffer a wicked , impious , tyrannical prince to ascend the throne , with a legal title : and yet this god often does , witness many of the roman emperors , whom i know our author will have to be legal princes ; and those who will not allow them to be legal princes , need not want examples of this nature in hereditary kingdoms . but our author says , that to own an usurper , who is setled in the throne by providence , and to obey and submit to him as our king , justifies an unreasonable and wicked doctrine , by making the acts or permissions of providence , a rule for practice against right and justice ; as for his right and iustice , it has been considered already , let us now consider how far the providence of god may be the rule for practice . it is indeed an impious doctrine to justifie every action , and every cause which has success ; god many times prospers very evil designs , when he can serve a good end by them ; and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success , to conclude , that is god's cause , which the providence of god prospers , confounds the difference of good and evil , and destroys all the standing rules of right and justice : but yet it is so far from being an impious doctrine , that it is a necessary duty , to conform our selves to the divine providence , and to discharge those duties and obligations , which the providence of god lays on us , according to the nature and intention of the providence : and thus the providence of god in some sense may be the rule of our practice , and may make that our duty , which was not , and that cease to be our duty , which was our duty before : and thus it always is when the providence of god changes our relations , or condition of life ; as to mention only our present case , when he removes one king , and sets up another ; for he must transfer my allegiance , when he changes my king. the truth is , as far as i can perceive , the great , if not the only fault of my case of allegiance , is this unreasonable and impious doctrine of providence : for some men cannot endure to hear , that god makes kings by his providence , for that argues there is a god ; others cannot bear the thoughts , that kings reign by god's authority , for then they cannot make and unmake kings , as they please ; others will by no means allow , that the providence of god can make a king against the laws of the land , can remove a rightful king , and set up a king without a legal title , at least not without the death or cession of the rightful king , or a hundred years prescription ; but to say , that the providence of god gives his authority to a king de facto , who is setled in the throne ; this is an impious doctrine . so that had i left out providence , i might have had fairer quarter on all hands , though in effect the thing had been the same , and i had taught the same thing , viz. that when a rightful king is dispossessed , subjects may own and submit to the king , who is setled in the possession of the throne , which is all i undertook to prove . had i only said , that conquest in a just war , by the law of nations , gives a right to the conqueror , though the former king be alive , and has made his escape . had i only said , that unjust force and violence makes it lawful for subjects to submit , when the prince cannot protect them , and such submission and consent of the people settles a prince in the kingdom , i might have escaped very well , as others have done . or had i only said , that the laws of the land allow and require subjects to pay allegiance to a king de facto in possession of the crown , most of our non-swearers themselves would have allow'd this a good plea , could i have persuaded them it was true ; for the laws of the land they must allow to be the rules and measures of our allegiance . but now to add , that god by all these ways and means makes kings , and settles them on their thrones , and gives his authority to them , this spoils all , and is an impious doctrine : that is , any of these waies will make very good kings without god ; but it is a very wicked thing to say , that god makes them kings , or gives his authority to them : for it is a dangerous thing to allow , that god makes kings , or that kings have his authority , or that the providence of god does not barely permit , but govern all the changes and revolutions of the world. but i had learnt from scripture ( and b. overal ' s convocation book proves , that those learned men were of the same mind ) that kings are made only by god , and that it is god's authority , which makes them kings ; and therefore i could not think it enough to say by what visible means princes are advanced to the throne , without adding , that the providence of god by these means settles them in the throne , and gives his authority to them , on which the true resolution of conscience depends in all such revolutions : and if this be my only fault , that i assert the right and prerogative of god in making kings , and the wisdom and government of providence in all the revolutions of states and empires , i am contented to suffer obloquy and reproach for maintaining such impious doctrines . our author in his answer has another argument to prove , that we misrepresent the sense of the convocation , which he has thought fit to leave out in his postscript , viz. that the interpretation we give of it , is inconsistent with the main and fundamental doctrines of the convocation book , viz. passive obedience and non-resistance . but if the convocation taught both ( as they certainly did ) it is a sign , that whatever our author thinks , or whatever he can prove , the convocation did not apprehend any inconsistency between them . i observed in the case , that the doctrine of obedience and allegiance to the present powers , is founded on the same principle with the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience , viz. that god makes kings and invests them with his authority , which equally proves , that all kings who have received a sovereign authority from god , must be obeyed , and must not be resisted : and therefore all setled governments , as the convocation asserts , having their authority from god , must be obeyed , for the same reason , for which we must not resist sovereign princes , viz. because they have their authority from god ; but this our author thought fit to pass over . for it is a plain case , that non-resistance and passive obedience , can be due only to him who is our king , and if god can remove one king , and set up another , non-resistance must be due , not to the king , whom god has pulled down , but to the king whom god has set up ; and therefore he may harangue as long as he pleases upon this argument to no purpose , unless he can prove , that god hath not pulled down one king and set up another . his next argument against this interpretation of the convocation book is this : that it reproaches the virtue and loyalty of those admirable men , who suffered between the years 42. and 60. and therefore this cannot be the sense of the convocation ; for no doubt the convocation in 603. had great regard to the loyalty of those who suffered between 42. and 60 ; by a spirit of prophesie i suppose . and here our author grows very angry , both in his answer and postscript , and gives many hard and spightful words to his adversaries , but be that to himself , i am resolved not to be angry . this i answered at large in the case of allegiance , ( p. 46. &c. ) and shall now take a brief review of it . i said , it is a great prejudice but no argument ; for if these principles be true , and according to these principles they might have complied with those usurpations , that they did not , is no confutation of the principles . he answers , i thought an argument from example had been an argument , though not always a very good one ; right ! but example is only a prejudice , not an argument against plain reasons , which cannot otherwise be answered ; let reasons be first answered , and then when there is no reason against a thing , the examples of great and wise men without any other reason carry some authority with them : especially when we have other good reasons for doing any thing , example gives some new strength to them ; and thus the example of iaddus may be an argument , when other examples are none : though he knows the example of iaddus was alledged by me only to prove the sense of the convocation , and how iaddus himself understood his oath of allegiance to darius , which is a very different case from what he urges . but to let pass his transport of zeal , and to forgive the froth and folly of it , when he urges the examples of these great men , there are many things he ought to have considered . as 1. he should have considered whom he reproach'd in all this as well as whom he commended . he reproaches all those , who in those times of confusion submitted to the usurped powers , and lived quietly and peaceably under them , and yet the king found a great many true friends , and loyal persons , at his return among those men : he reproaches all those loyal persons both of the nobility , gentry , and clergy , who suffered chearfully under those usurpations , and as chearfully comply with the present revolution , which , as i observed before , is an argument , that they make a great difference between these two cases : but if as our authour argues , to justifie our present submission and compliance be to reproach those worthies , who suffered for their king in that horrid rebellion and usurpation ; then he must upon his principles accuse those worthies , who suffered for their king then , with falling from their loyalty , by their present compliance . he reproaches all the nobility , gentry , and clergy , who have now sworn allegiance to their present majesties ; and tho the clergy , he says , are only a company of weather-cock divines , and therefore it is no great matter for them , yet i doubt the nobility and genty will not take it well from him , to be thought weather-cocks , or less loyal , than those who suffered for k. charles were . and if it moves our author's indignation to see the worthies of the world , and of our church mocked and diminished , and represented as fools and knaves ( which no body has done but himself ) a much cooler man than he is , may be a little moved , if not with indignation , yet with contempt , to see all our present worthies in church and state so maliciously libelled . 2ly . if our authour will argue from examples , he ought not only to consider what was done , but upon what principles they did it , whether they were all of our authour's mind , that it is absolutely unlawful in any case whatsoever , to submit to a prince , who is possessed of the throne , while the legal king , or his true heir is living , tho dispossessed . it is probable some few might be of this mind ; but that this was their general sense , can never be proved ; and that it was , is very improbable ; for it was neither the doctrine of the church , nor the law of the land : and yet if our authour cannot prove this , he proves nothing to his purpose ; if they did not act upon his principles , though they suffered for their king then , they might have complied now , as some of them have done , and yet don't think they have recounced the true principles of loyalty by it . 3ly . when he resolved to argue from example , he should have carefully considered , whether there are not more and greater examples on the other side , whether supposing the case to be as he represents it , there be any thing like it in all story , either sacred or profane , whether both iews and christians did not always submit to the present powers , when the government was settled by what wicked means soever it began : but i shall not enter upon this argument now , which will be managed by a more learned pen. i shewed what a vast difference there was between the late times of rebellion and usurpation , and this present revolution ; this he cannot deny , but says , it makes no difference in the argument ; let us then try that . but to state the matter so plain , that our authour himself , had he never so much mind to it , shall not be able to mistake or misrepresent it , i must first premise , that they are two very different questions , as i have observed above , when it is lawful to submit to usurping powers ? and , when it becomes a duty to do it ? it is lawful to submit , when we are under such force as can compell us ; it is our duty to submit , when , as the convocation says , the government is throughly settled ; now while we are in this state , that we are under mere force , but the government not setled , we may either submit or not submit without sin ; and then that which must turn the scale , are arguments from interest . now , what i said upon this occasion in the case of allegiance , had reference to both these , viz. that subjects were not in those days bound in conscience to submit to these usurped powers , and not being bound in conscience to do it , there were many reasons which might move the royal party not to do it . now this is so far from lessening and reproaching their loyalty , that it is greatly for the commendation of it ; that when they were not bound in conscience to submit to those usurpations , tho by submission , our authour intimates , they might have made better terms for themselves , yet they rather chose to venture their lives and fortunes to restore the king , which is not , as our authour insinuates , to prefer their interest to their conscience in serving the king ; but where conscience was not concerned to the contrary , to venture their interest ▪ their lives and fortunes , to restore the king. tho men are but men , and if what i said be true , that there were many reasons which touched their interests , why they should not submit to those usurpations ; i cannot see what dishonour it is to them , to say that it may be supposed , that the utmost despair under a violent usurpation , and the only possible prospect of bettering their condition by the return of the king , might , not influence their consciences , but inspire and quicken their loyalty . now that they were not bound in conscience to submit to those usurpers , i proved , because their government was never setled ; and tho the convocation does not deny the lawfulness of submitting to power before a settlement , yet they do not make it a necessary duty , and matter of conscience to submit , till the government is throughly setled . the convocation alledges two ways , whereby a government wickedly and unjustly begun , may be throughly setled , viz. by a general submission , or by continuance ; that they had not continuance enough to make a settlement , i proved , because the government was frequently changed and new moddelled , which was no argument of settlement ; and as for settlement by a general submission , they could not pretend to that , for they never had a national consent and submission . that they had no such national consent , needs not be proved to any man , who remembers the story of those days . i suppose no man will pretend such a consent to the government of the rump-parliament , when all the representatives of the nation were flung out of the house , excepting those few rumpers , because they would not consent . nor will it be pretended that cromwells dissolving the rump-parliament , and summoning some select persons out of every county , nominated by himself and his council of officers , without any election of the people , to be the representative of the nation , had a national consent : nor had the council of state chosen by this mock-house of parliament , any greater authority than their masters ; nor did their resignation of their power to cromwell again give any authority to him , or carry a national consent with it . nor will it be pretended , that the instrument of government , agreed on by cromwell and his officers , which made cromwell lord protector of the three nations , had any national consent : it is plain , it had no national consent in framing it , and it is as plain , that it was never afterwards confirmed by any national consent and submission . the parliaments called according to the directions of this instrument , never could make a national consent or submission ; for they were not chosen according to the ancient customs and usages of the nation , nor were they the representatives of the nation , but only of a prevailing party and faction in it ; for by article 14. it is provided , that all and every person and persons , who have aided , advised , assisted , or abetted in any war against the parliament , since the first day of jan. 1641. ( unless they have been since in the service of the parliament , and given signal testimonies of their good affections thereunto ) shall be disabled , and be uncapable to be elected , or to give any vote in the election of any members to serve in the new parliament , or in the three succeeding triennial parliaments . so that a great part of the nation were hereby wholly excluded from choosing , or being chosen members of parliament : when they were thus chosen , this election did not make them parliament-men , unless they were approved of by the major part of the council , to be persons not disabled , but qualified as aforesaid . artic. 21. when they were thus chosen and approved , they had no authority to reject this new model , but it is provided , art. 12. that the persons elected shall not have power to alter the government , as it is hereby setled in one single person and a parliament . the first parliament met sept. 3. 54. and began to be very busie about the new government , but the protector sent for them to the painted chamber , and taught them better , that the same government that made them a parliament , made him protector , and that as they are intrusted with some things , so is he with other things . that there were some thing in the government fundamental , and could not be altered ( tho this instrument had no other authority but his own , and his council of officers ) as 1. that the government should be in one person , and a parliament , — and therefore he was sorry to understand that any of them should go about to overthrow what was so setled , ( it seems then this parliament at the beginning was so far from giving their submission and consent , that they were about to overthrow this new settlement ) and to prevent such great inconveniences , he was necessitated to appoint a test , or recognition of the government , which was to be signed by them , before they went any more into the house , and it was this , i a. b. do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the lord protector , and to the common-wealth of england , scotland , and ireland , and shall not ( according to the tenor of the indenture whereby i am returned to serve in this present parliament ) propose or give any consent to alter the government , as it is setled in one single person and a parliament . that day 130 members subscribed it , and took their places in the house , how many more did afterwards is not said . and yet this very parliament spent near five months in their debates about the new government , and the protector was glad to dissolve them at last ; and this does not look like a national submission and consent : especially considering the plot , which was ready to break out upon it , and the declaration of the free and well-affected people of england , now in arms against the tyrant oliver cromwell . in the second parliament sept. 1656. many persons who were returned by the country for members were not admitted into the house , as not approved by the council , which occasioned their publishing a remonstrance , subscribed by near one hundred of them , the reading of which will satisfie any man , how far that new government was from having a national consent and submission . but this is enough for my present purpose , to shew that those usurpations were never setled by a national submission and consent , but all the settlement they had was mere force : and now let us hear what our author says to this . as for the government being frequently changed , he says , every one of these changes was a settlement , if the dr's notion of a settlement be right : but it is plain according to my notion none of them were settlements ; for none of them had the general consent and submission of the people ; and though the power of the nation was for some time in their hands , the continuance of none of these changes was long enough to make a settlement by prescription without consent . he adds . but as the national consent in parliament , that is indeed part of our constitution , but what is that to usurpation , which may usurp as well upon all branches of the constitution as upon one . but i do not urge a national consent in parliament , considered as part of our constitution , but barely considered as a national consent , for a national consent and submission is necessary to the settlement of any new government , and this must be declared by one means or other . the consent of a parliament freely chosen by the body of the people , must be allowed to be a national consent , and that consent the present government has : but where there is no consent in parliament , in a nation which never gives their consent any other way but by their representatives , when a government dares not call such a parliament , nor ask their consent , or if they do ask , are denied it ; it is evident there is no national consent . what he says indeed is true , that had cromwell possessed himself of the authority of kings , lords and commons ; had he been setled in this possession by the general consent and submission of the people ; he had had god's authority in all those respects , and ought to have been obeyed ; but without such a consent , though the people might for a while have silently submitted to power , they were at liberty to cast off the yoke , when they had power and opportunity to do it . this is my notion of a thorough settlement , to which he appeals ; and let any man try , whether ( as he says ) it will fit cromwell in all respects , just as if it had been made for him , viz. when the whole administration of government , and the whole power of the nation is in the hands of the prince , when every thing is done in his name , and by his authority ; had i added no more , the author might have pretended , that the government of the rump-parliament , and of oliver cromwell had this settlement , but what follows spoils this conceit , when the estates of the realm , and the great body of the nation has submitted to him . so that here was no such settlement of these usurpations , as could oblige subjects in conscience to obey them and to submit to them ; and when it was not matter of duty and conscience to submit , i shewed that there were other very great reasons , why they should not submit ; not such reasons as ought to have over-ruled their consciences , had it been matter of duty , for there are no such reasons to be had , but such as were very reasonable and almost invincible prejudices against submission , when conscience was not concerned ; and this answers all his little objections . as , 1. the great villanies of those days in an open and bare-fac'd rebellion — and in the barbarous murder of one of the best princes in the world — this , he says , makes no difference in my arguments . what! not to prejudice wise and good men against all compliances ? for who that could possibly avoid it , ( that is , where strict duty does not oblige , nor irresistible force constrain ) would submit to such men ? 2. the barbarous usage the kings friends met with . this he confesses makes some difference in point of interest , but none in point of conscience ; nor did i say it did , but it justly created a great aversion to those usurpations , and was a reason not to submit , when they were not obliged in conscience to do it , since all the interest they had in the world engaged them , not to settle by their submissions , but to do all they could to overturn those usurpations . 3. the church of england was overturned , bishops , deans , &c. turned out , and their lands and revenues sold ; the loyal clergy were malignants for what they had done , and had no way to keep their livings , but by renouncing the church of england . to this he answers ; the case is concerning civil government , not ecclesiastical . but yet whoever loves the church , will not chuse to submit ( when they are not obliged in conscience ) to such usurpations on the state , as overthrow the church : whether they were obliged to renounce episcopacy or not , they saw it destroyed , and not so much as an indulgence allowed to the worship or government of the church of england . what he adds , i would desire him carefully to consider , for it did not concern them ; that to be disabled to keep a living , though a very good one , is no reason to rebel against a settled government . 4. the whole government in church and state was overturned , which was the fundamental constitution of the nation ; but this , he says , is only changing the form of government , as the dr. knows the convocation says , when such degenerate forms of government are throughly settled . i grant it , but when such degenerate forms of government are not throughly settled , the subversion of the fundamental constitution of the nation , is a reasonable prejudice against submission , when it is not a duty . his parting objection is so very ridiculous , that had he begun with it , i should have thought he had only intended it for a jest , but i am now so well acquainted with his way of reasoning , that i am satisfied , he is capable of thinking it an argument ; and it is this . if possession of sovereign power contary to law , be god's authority , and ought to be obeyed , then whatever sovereign power a prince possesses himself of , is likewise god's authority , and ought to be obeyed . — if therefore a prince in a limited monarchy resolves eo be arbitrary — to make his will the law , and to exercise an illegal power , he must be obeyed as gods authority . but where do i say , that possession of sovereign power contrary to law is gods authority ? he does not pretend , that i say it in express words , but this he supposes is the sense of what i say : but i desire he would keep to my words , for i will answer for none of his senses , unless i were better satisfied both of his understanding and honesty . i say indeed , that a prince who is settled in the possession of sovereign power , though he have no legal title to the crown , has god's authority ; and what then ? therefore the possession of sovereign power contrary to law is god's authority ; how does this follow ? cannot god settle a king upon the throne without a legal title , but he must be presumed to give him authority , when ever he has power , to govern by an arbitrary will , against the laws of the land ? cannot god make a king , without giving him authority to do all that he has power to do ? but the formal reason of obedience to such a prince is because he hath god's authority , and the evidence that he hath god's authority , is because he is possessed of sovereign power . suppose this , though god's authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a prince , yet it is not the rule of our obedience , and therefore we are not bound to obey every thing he commands , though he have god's authority . the authority of god is only an authority to govern according to the laws of god and nature , or the laws of the land ; and tho sovereign princes may have such an authority , as must not be resisted , yet in a limited monarchy they have no more authority from god to transgress the laws of the land , than in an absolute monarchy they have to transgress the laws of god and nature . indeed arbitrary government is not the possession of sovereign power , which is god's authority , but the arbitrary exercise of it : and tho we must obey god's authority , it does not hence follow , that we must obey the exercise of arbitrary power . and yet i do not attribute gods authority ( which we must obey in conscience ) to the bare possession of power , but to the setled possession of it ; that is , with the consent and submission of the people ; and could any prince change a limited into an absolute monarchy by a national consent , subjects were then as much bound in conscience to submit to an arbitrary power in all matters , which have no moral evil in them , as they are now to obey the laws ; but then this would not be an authority against law , but the law would be changed : thus it is not yet , and we are in no danger now it should be so ; and therefore the case of the declaration , and of magdalen-colledge , &c. are very impertinently alledged by our authour , and he had better reserve them , till he can bring us under the government of a french power . but do not i say , that when the laws of the land contradict the laws of god , they are no rule to us , but their obligation must give place to divine authority . he should have cited the whole , that the laws of the land are the rule of conscience , when they do not contradict the laws of god ; but when they do , they are no rule to us . so that the laws of the land must be the rule of our obedience to princes , unless they contradict the laws of god , and i do not know that any of our laws do that , and then there is no danger in a limited monarchy , that we should be obliged by god's authority to obey arbitrary will and power . it is a certain truth , as our authour must confess , that if the laws of the land contradict the laws of god , they are no rule to us . but this proves nothing in particular , without proving what laws of the land are contrary to the laws of god : if then he can prove , that by the law of god , we are bound to obey the arbitrary will of the prince against the laws of the land , whenever he will command things against law , and has power to crush us , if we will not obey , i will readily grant , and so must he , that it is our duty to do it ; but till he prove this , he must not take it for granted there is such a law , and then we need dispute this matter no further at present . but what he means by this argument i cannot tell ; if he does think , there is such a law of god , i suppose he intended in good earnest to prove , that we must submit to the arbitrary will of our prince against law , and to condemn the opposition that was made in the late reign to such arbitrary proceedings ; if he did not believe there was any such law of god , how ridiculous was it to pretend , that we must submit to arbitrary will and power against law , because when the laws of the land contradict the laws of god , they are no rule to us . i shall only observe farther , that our authour charges me with saying in the case of resistance , that this may easily be ( that a prince in a limited monarchy should resolve to be arbitrary ) when he has all the power of the kingdom in his hands , and must not be resisted . whereas i bring this in by way of objection against non-resistance , and only say , it is possible , but shew by several arguments how difficult it is , and that the doctrine of non-resistance does not destroy the distinction between a limited and absolute monarchy : but at this rate he uses to cite authours , that unwary readers will easily be imposed on , if they give too much credit to him . thus i have particularly answered all the little appearances of reason and argument in the postscript , and made it appear , that according to the sense of the convocation , those princes who have no legal right , may yet have god's authority , and have so , when their government is thoroughly setled . and now had been the proper time to enquire what the convocation meant by a thorough settlement , but he did not like this order , and therefore chose to begin with the notion of thorough settlement ; for when once it had appeared , that the convocation spoke of the settlement of illegal powers , he must have been ashamed to have pretended , that they meant a legal settlement , by acquiring a new legal title , either by the death or cession of the right heirs , or by a long prescription . i shall only add , that when the convocation speaks of a settlement , they mean the settlement of the government within it self , not with respect to foreign force and power ; for so they express it , when they have established any of the said degenerate forms of government amongst their own people , and then the government may be throughly setled within it self , before it have a peaceable possession and settlement ; so alexander's authority was setled at ierusalem , before darius was finally conquered ; and so are k. william and q. mary setled on the throne , notwithstanding all the expectations some have of a french invasion and conquest . and since our authour insists so much upon a legal settlement , possession of the throne , with the consent and submission of the estates of the realm , gives a legal settlement in england , if we will believe our best iudges and lawyers , as i shall be inclined to do , till i see a fair answer to what i have said in this cause , in the case of allelegiance ; and then we have the opinion of our lawyers for a settlement , and of the convocation for obedience to a setled government . for the conclusion of his answer , he alledges the authority of bishop andrews and bishop buckeridge , two members of this convocation , and of dr. iackson , a very learned divine , against that sense we give of the convocation . the thing then he is to prove from these reverend and learned men against our sense of the convocation is this , that those who ascend the throne by usurpation without a legal right have not god's authority , and must not be obeyed ; and that such princes can never , in the sense of the convocation , be setled in their thrones , or have god's authority , till they gain some new legal right , by the death or cession of the rightful prince , or by a long prescription : let us see then , how he proves this to be the judgment of these learned men. now what he quotes from b. andrews has not one word of this matter . the whole of it is no more but this ; that the bishop will not allow the name of king to any but kings of lawful and true descent ; they are kings , the they reign not , as ioash was ; others are no kings , but usurpers , tho they reign , as athaliah did ; and what is this to the purpose ? does not the convocation allow ioash to be the true heir , while he was kept from the crown , and athaliah an usurper , tho she reigned six years ? does not the convocation call such kings , kings de facto , which is a little softer name than vsurper , but signifies much the same thing , viz. one who is possessed of the throne without a legal right ? and yet what the convocation's doctrin was about obedience to such kings , i have already proved ; and bishop andrews might be of the same mind , tho he would not allow them the name of kings . but the bishop will not allow , that such kings reigned by god. right ; but then he does not mean , that such kings do not exercise god's authority ; but that god did not by his antecedent will and appointment place them on the throne . thus s. chrysostom , on the 13. rom. allows all power and authority to be of god , and to be ordained by god , and therefore not to be resisted , whoever has it ; but yet will not say , that all princes , who exercise this power wickedly and tyrannically , whatever their title be , are ordained of god : he thought it a reproach and blemish to the goodness and justice of providence , to say , that wicked , impious , tyrannical princes were ordained by god , but yet granted that the authority they exercised was gods , and must be obeyed : the bishop and others will allow what s. chrysostom would not , that the most wicked tyrants , who have a legal title to their thrones , are ordained by god , but are afraid to own , that princes who ascend their thrones by unjust and wicked means , are set up by god ; but it does not hence follow , that they denyed their power and authority to be gods , or that subjects ought to obey it . the convocation it self affirms no more , in that mighty place , as our authour calls it , than that the authority which is exercised in those governments , which begun by the ambition of princes , or the rebellion of subjects , is always god's authority , and therefore can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it , and therefore must be obeyed . so that learned men may differ in this point , whether illegal usurpers are placed on the throne by the over-ruling counsels and appointment of god , or only by his permissive providence , and yet agree in the main conclusion , that the authority they exercise , when setled in their thrones , is god's authority , and must be obeyed . we have a very express determination of this matter by doctor iackson , ( to whom our authour appeals ) in that very sermon to which he refers ; and tho the passage be long , it is worth transcribing , and it is this : but doth this rule of our apostle hold as punctually of the magistrate , as of the magistracy ? doth every one which resists the magistrate , or men invested with the power of jurisdiction resist the ordinance of god as directly , or in as high a degree , as he that resists the power it self wherewith he is invested ; as he that seeks to overthrow the magistracy ? it is the observation of s. chrysostom , and oecumenius upon this place , that s. paul does not say , there is no magistrate but from god , or that the magistrates that be , be ordained of god , but that there is no power which is not from god , and that the powers that be , are ordained of god : that he purposely speaks not of this or that magistrate in particular , or of the person to whom the power is annexed , sed de re ipsa , but of the power it self . but here a man might well demand of them ; is there any power here meant by the apostle , which is not inherent in some mens persons ? is there any magistracy without a magistrate ? or how can the power be resisted , unless the party be resisted in whom it is seated ? and so he goes on to prove that s. paul meant the magistrate , even nero himself , not merely the magistracy : so that as magistracy , or the power of jurisdiction is from god , and must be obeyed , so must the magistrate who has this power . and yet in the next section he makes a great difference between the power it self , and the acquisition or exercise of power , that our apostle's rule doth not so punctually hold of the means or acquisition of power , or of the exercise of it , as it doth of the power or magistracy it self . albeit the power or magistracy be always god's positive and primary ordinance , always an effect of his gracious providence , always a blessing towards any land or people , or the award of his antecedent will : yet the manner of acquiring this power , or the annexing it to this or that person , one or more , is not always the positive ordinance of god , no effect of his bounty and benignity , no consequent of his antecedent will , but sometimes rather the award of his consequent will , and an act at least permissive of his punitive iustice. so that all princes are not from god , in the same sense that all power is , but all princes have that power , which is from god , and must be obeyed . his next testimony is from bishop buckeridge , and he speaks exactly the sense of the convocation , that athaliah had not acquired a right to the crown , neither by the consent of the people , nor by the prescription of six years , which shews what his judgment was , that such an usurper as athaliah , might acquire a right to the crown , either by the consent of the people , or by long continuance , as the convocation asserts in the case of autiochus , the bishop i think not with the same reason in the case of athaliah ; but whether his application be proper or not , his doctrine is the same with the convocation's . our author did well to cite this passage honestly , but he did not well to corrupt it with his comment , as i observed before ; for he turns a disjunctive into a conjunctive : the bishop says neither by the consent of the people , nor by the prescription of six years ; which supposes , that either the consent of the people , or a long prescription would give a right , and he expounds it of both together , that a right to the government is acquired by a prescription , and that is a long and uninterrupted possession , joyned with the consent of the people . his last appeal is to dr. iaekson , and i allow the doctor does say what he quotes from him , that a mere vsurper or a tyrant by title may be resisted by violence even to deposition or death — our author confesses dr. iackson will not allow resistance to be made by every body , but he says it with this qualification , save in the right and interest of the right heir , or by his commission and command ; where he has turned the tables , and made a conjunctive a disjunctive , or for and , little particles , which make no difference with our author : but since he has not thought fit to give us this entire paragraph , i will do it for him , and let the reader judge , on which side dr. iachson is : it is this . so then a tyrant or vsurper may be deposed or resisted ; but thus resisted or deposed he may not be by every man , who knows him to be an vsurper . for a man may trangress this rule of the apostle , and resist gods ordinance , by resisting the power , wherewith he is invested , though not simply by resisting him ( so that an usurper has that power which is gods ordinance , and must not be resisted by every body ) aliud est magistratum esse , aliud est in magistratu esse , aut magistratum gerere : it is one thing to be a ture and lawful magistrate , another thing to bear or execute the office of a true magistrate . the acts of a false magistrate or intruder , whilst he is in magistratu in the office it self , are of validity ( let our author remember this too . ) his person is to be obeyed , not resisted by every man , until he be declared to be an vsurper or intruder by some higher power or authority . few tyrants have gotten investiture or admission to royal power by more indirect means , thou richard the third in this kingdom did , yet many acts and exercises of royal power , though proceeding from him , were legal and of validity . nor did they resist the ordinance of god that bore office under him , that obeyed his summons , whether for parliament , or other business of state. ( this confutes great part of our author's book , and undermines the fundamental principles of it . ) it had been a sin for any man of his own private head to have killed him , albeit all the space of his reign he did resist the ordinance of god : for every man is not an avenger of such as resist the ordinance of god : this belongs to the higher powers only , or unto them to whom the supreme power is by right annexed . and so henry of richmond was authorized by gods ordinance to execute vengeance , or to bring condemnation on this tyrant , which every one might not have done , which perhaps no other might have done save only in his right and interest , and by his commission and command . now who ever doubted , but that a rightful prince , when dispossessed unjustly , may recover his throne again if he can , and dispossess the usurper , or that those who lawfully receive commission from him , may lawfully fight in his quarrel : but the great question still remains , whether subjects may lawfully take commissions from the dispossessed prince , to fight against the prince , who is settled in the possession of the throne ; this dr. iackson does not say , and therefore he can do our author no service . his next citation from dr. iackson is the case of jehoiada ' s deposing of athaliah , urged by the papists for the power of the pope to depose kings . but this he has so shamefully mangled , that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out , than to have betrayed so much dishonestly in his quotations , i shall give the reader the entire passage . first , jehoiada in that he was high-priest , was a prime peer in the realm of judah , and invested with the power of iurisdiction next in order and dignity to the higher power . this our author leaves out , though very material , because it shews by what authority he did it , as the ordinary supreme magistrate in the vacancy of the throne ; that is , not merely in right of his priesthood , as the papists pretended , nor merely as a subject , but as being the higher power and authority , to whom the judgment of such matters belonged , as he had observed before . and this is the very account the convocation gives of it , that iehoiada did this being the kings vncle , and the chief head and prince of his tribe , that is , not a private subject , but a chief prince in the kingdom of iudah . the doctor proceeds . secondly , the power royal , or supreme , was by right , by the express ordinance and positive law of god , annexed unto the infant prince , whom jehoiada ' s wife had saved from the tyranny of athaliah , as being next heir now alive unto david . in the right of this prince , and for the actual annexion of the supreme power to his person ( unto whom it was de jure annexed ) jehoiada , being the chief magistrate in the vacancy , did by force and violence depose her , who had usurpt the royal scepter by violence , and cruel murder of her seed royal. all these words , in a different character , are left out by our author , and some of them very material ones , especially those , by the express ordinance , and positive law of god , and the next heir now alive to david , which plainly refers to the divine entail on david's family , and distinguishes this from the case of other usurpers , which is the very account the convocation gave of it , as i shewed before , and overthrows all that our author has said about the case of athaliah , and for that reason he suppressed them , as any one will easily guess . thus he leaves out , jehoiada being the chief magistrate in the vacancy , which shews this was an act of authority and jurisdiction , which private subjects must not pretend to ; and therefore would not serve his purpose , and i believe by this time , he thinks he had better have let it all alone . he concludes his postscript with rage aud venom , and i have no answer to that . i have indeed changed my opinion about the authority of usurpers , who are setled in the throne by the general consent and submission of the people , and of the estates of the realm , and i have scripture and reason , the authority of the church of england , and the laws of the land ( for any thing our author has said to the contrary ) to justifie this change ; and i assure him , i will change my opinion in any thing else upon the same terms , and despise his censures of my honesty for doing so ; and as for authority , i never pretended to any my self , and will never own any mans authority , much less my own opinions , in opposition to scripture and reason , the church of england , and the laws of the land. but what a charitable opinion our author has of the present government , and of all that comply with it , we may see in the parallel he makes between my case and that of hazael : as if swearing allegiance to king william and queen mary were as great , as notorious , as self evident an impiety and wickedness , as all the villanies , which the prophet elisha foretold hazael , that he would be guilty of : i know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of israel , their strong holds wilt thou set on fire , and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword , and wilt dash their children , and rip up their women woth child . but let our author consider , who are most likely to be guilty of these villanies , those who quietly submit to the government , which is now setled among us , or those who are for overturning all by bringing in a french power , to devour and consume with fire and sword , and to enslave their native country : if this be allegiance and passive obedience , i am sure , what our author calls perjury and rebellion are the greater vertues . as for his parting request , i do affirm it again , that i never was factious against taking the oaths , nor made it my business to dissuade men from it ; when my opinion was asked , i declared my own thoughts , but never sought out men to make proselytes : and in this profession i am not afraid of his or any other mens memories so much as of their inventions , for there are some great wits among them . let them produce the man , if they can , whom i endeavoured to dissuade by word or writing from taking the oaths , where my opinion was not first asked ; and if my opinion had any authority with them then , our author knows , it is more than it ought to have had , and that was none of my fault ; unless he means , that my authority was considerable against taking the oath , but none for it ; which is the way , that all parties and factions judge of mens authorities . but though our author seems very well acquainted with the thing called faction , yet he is not willing to understand the word ; and therefore i must tell him , that when i say , i was never factious against the oath , i do not mean , that i was never hearty and zealous against taking the oath ; for i hope there may be zeal without faction ; or that when i was pressed to discourse the matter , i did not talk with as much warmth and concernment as other men. but faction is quite another thing , it shews it self in separations , and schisms , in rancour and bitterness , envyings and emulations , in violent oppositions to government , in changing and confining friendships with a party , in censures and reproaches , in stigmatizing all persons of another perswasion , as perjur'd knaves ; whereas tho there had been a material perjury , a different opinion may excuse from formal perjury ; for no man is formally perjured , who does not know it : i shall not explain this by instances ; for if our author is for writing secret histories , i am not so at present . and now i am at leisure to attend his motions , and to consider his threatned examination of all my arguments , whenever his due time for it comes ; and if he will promise to examine them well , before he answers , i shall expect to hear no more from him . the end . books published by the revered dr. sherlock , and printed for william rogers . an answer to a discourse entituled , papists protesting against protestant popery . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer , 4 o. a sermon at the funeral of the reverend benjamin calamy . d. d. a vindication of some protestant principles of church unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests , first part , 4 o 5th edition . a second part of the preservative against popery . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuite , 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature , vnity , and communion of the catholick church . first part. 4 o. a sermon before the right honorable the lord mayor and aldermen of the city of london , on sunday , nov. 4. 1688. 4 o. a practical discourse concerning death . fifth edition . 8 o. a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59904-e250 cast of alleg . p. 5. case of alleg . p. 5. postcript , p. 3. answer , pag. 21. answer , pag. 19. ibid. p. 27. ibid. p. 19. case of alleg . p. 6. ibid. postscript , p. 3. ans. p. 19. postscript , p. 2. postscript , p. 3. answ. p. 5. answer , p. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , &c. ibid. p. 11. ibid. p. 12. ioseph . l. 11. cap. 8. convocat . ch . 23. p. 41. answer , p. 17. convocat . p. 69. answer , p. 27. convocat . car. 27 ▪ 26 p. 55. case of allegiance , p. 34 , 35. 1 chr. 23. 5. convocat . ch . 23. p. 41. p. 24 , 25. postscript , p. 4. convocat . ch . 27. p. 52. ibid. ch . 25. p. 46. ch. 27. p. 53. postscript , p. 5. ibid. p. 3. postscript , p. 7. case of allegiance , p. 11. case of allegiance , p. 42. postcript . p. 7. postscript . p. 10. postscript ▪ p. 11. case of alleg. p. 51 , 52. postscript , p. 11. imperia omnia post vocationem gentium deus regit & mutat non communi tantùm illâ providentiâ , per quam multa relinquit naturali ordine ; sed sapientiâ attemperatâ subditorum utilitatibus , aut si ita meruerint poenis . fecit hoc & olim deus aliquoties , psalm . 75. 6 , 7. prov. 28. 2. dan. 2. 21 , 37. at christus hoc universaliter à christianis credi , & pro certo haberi voluit . joh. 19. 11. quem sequens hoc loco paulus , nullum ait imperium nunc contingere , nisi deo authoritatem ei suam dante , sicut rex dat praesidibus . quod ut rectius intelligatur , addit , omnia imperia quae sunt , i. e. quam diu manent ac durant , à deo constitui , i. e. authoritatem suam accipere , non minus quàm si reges illi per prophetas uncti essent , ut quidam syriae reges . in clem. const. habemus , tòv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . iren. 5. 24. cujus enim jussu homines nascuntur , hujus jussu , & reges constituuntur , apti illis , qui illis temporibus ab ipsis regnantur . tert. apol. nos judicium dei suspicimus in imperatoribus , qui gentibus illos praefecit , grot. in 13. rom. 1. ac sanè hoc verbo mihi videtur apostolus voluisse tollere frivolam hominum curiositatem , qui sape solent inquirere quo jure adepti fuerint potestatem qui rerum potiuntur ; satis autem nobis esse debet quod praesunt : non enim conscenderunt suâ ipsi virtute in hoc fastigium , sed manu dei sunt impositi , calv. in 13. rom. 1. postscript , p. 12. aug. de civitate dei , l. 5. c. 12. case of . alleg. p. 18. convocat . chap. 28 p. 57. postscripe p. 13. ans. p 21 , 22. case of alleg . p. 36. post. p. 14. whitlock's memorials , p. 555. ibid. p. 587. ibid. p. 600. ibid. p. 640. postscript p. 15. postscript . p. 15. answer , p. 27. iackson , vol. 3. p. 963 , &c. pag. 965. convoc . c. 23. p. 41. 2 kings 8. 12. a vindication of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church in answer to a late pamphlet entituled, the use and great moment of the notes of the church, as delivered by cardinal bellarmin, de notis ecclesiae, justified ... de notis ecclesiae sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 119 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 36 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59903 wing s3374 estc r18869 12283621 ocm 12283621 58807 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59903) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 58807) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 823:13) a vindication of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church in answer to a late pamphlet entituled, the use and great moment of the notes of the church, as delivered by cardinal bellarmin, de notis ecclesiae, justified ... de notis ecclesiae sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 69 p. printed for richard chiswell ..., london : 1687. reproduction of original in huntington library. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bellarmino, roberto francesco romolo, -saint, 1542-1621. -use and great moment of the notes of the church. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -brief discourse concerning the notes of the church. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-04 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a vindication of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church . in answer to a late pamphlet , entituled , the use and great moment of the notes of the church , as delivered by cardinal bellarmin , de notis ecclesiae , justified . imprimatur , aug. 11. 1687. guil. needham . london ; printed for ri●hard chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard , mdclxxxvii . a vindication of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church . when we are almost tired with grave and serious disputes , it is very comfortable to meet with a pleasant and diverting adversary , who serves instead of a praevaricator , or terrae filius , to refresh and recruit our spirits with a scene of mirth . and though this iustifier of bellarmin's notes looks very demurely , and argues very logically , and seems to be in very good earnest , yet a merry andrew will be a merry andrew still , though he be drest up in the habit of a philosopher ; and therefore i must beg my readers pardon , if i cannot forbear smiling sometimes , though to pay due respect to my adversary , and to maintain a just decorum , i will do it very gravely too . he begins very movingly . the world is come to a fine pass , when it shall as good as deny christ's one holy catholick church . this is very wicked indeed ! but who are these miscreants , that dare do such a thing ? a company of senseless wretches , who deny christ's church , and yet confess , that there is no remission of sins , or eternal salvation out of it . then i suppose , they are men , who don't care much for salvation , nor sence : for to deny a church , out of which they confess there is no salvation , is to resolve to be damned ; and to say , that salvation is not to be had out of the church , and yet that christ has no such church , deserves damnation , as much as nonsence does . and therefore i suppose by as good he does not mean , that they altogether deny it , but do something as good , or rather as bad as that ; but what this should be , i cannot guess , unless it be to deny the roman-catholick church to be this one holy catholick church of christ , and that indeed is a very sad thing too . and they seek to baffle those , who by prayer and guidance of god's good spirit , search to find it out , i. e. they confute bellarmin's notes of a church , and that must be confessed to be a very sad thing also , and as good as denying christ's one holy catholick church . well! cardinal bellarmin ( after others ) hath to very good purpose lent his helping hand , to shew us the city built on a hill. but it had been better he had lent us his eyes ; for protestants see with their eyes , and not with their hands ; and notwithstanding his pointing to it , we cannot see what he would shew us , unless it be the church built on seven hills . but this is all to little purpose with the obstinate , who will not agree , neither what the church is , no nor what a note may be . this is unpardonable obstinacy , that we desire the cardinal or any one for him , first to tell us , what a true church is , before he tells us , which is the true church , to explain the nature before he gives us the external notes and marks of a church , which is as unreasonable as to ask , what a hind , and a panther is , before we ask , of what colour they are , whether white or spotted : and who would think any one should be so perverse , as to ask what a note is , which our author will give us a learned definition of presently . the discourser had said , pag. 3. that a church is a society of christians united under christian pastors for the worship of christ , and wherever we find such a society as this , there is a christian church , and all such particular or national churches all the world over , make up the whole christian church , or the universal church of christ. that is ( says the justifier , pag. 2. ) whatsoever therefore is the denomination of believers , abassine or armenian , greek , roman , let us add , lutheran , calvinist , with a wide , &c. they are each of them churches of christ ( suppose this , of which more presently , and if we allow the roman , they may modestly allow all the rest ) and the church universal is nothing else but the aggregate , or omnium gatherum ( very elegantly ! ) of all such professions . and what then ? the church universal is made up of all particular churches . what then do you say ? why pray , consider , whoever thou art , good reader , the church catholick consisting of all nations , iew and gentile , and therefore primarily called catholick , ( and therefore not from their union to the bishop of rome , as the head of catholick unity ) had its plantation by our blessed lord and his apostles , in one faith , and one communion , antecedently to all such divisions that now or then were made by the craft and policy of satan . a notable observation this ! that the faith and communion of the church was one , before it was divided : what then ? and therefore far is the universal church from being an aggregate of all such breaches of faith and charity . an aggregate of breaches , an union of divisions may possibly be as good a church as it is sense . but though breaches cannot very well be aggregated , it is possible that two divided churches may both belong to the one body of christ , as quarrelling brethren may still be the children of the same father , and owned by him too , though corrected and punished for their quarrels . churches consist of men , who are liable to mistakes and passions , and therefore may quarrel and separate from each other , while they are both united to christ in faith and worship . for though the bishops , and pastors , and members , of distinct and coordinate churches ought to maintain a brotherly correspondence , and exercise all acts of communion , that distant churches are capable of with each other ; upon account of that common relation they all have to christ , in whom they are united into one body ; and our common head will exact a severe account of those who cause divisions ; yet if such divisions happen , as separate us from each other , but do not divide us from christ , each church may continue a true church still , and belong to the one mystical body of christ , though there may be some scandalous breaches and divisions among them . what is it then that unites any church to christ but the true faith and worship of christ ? and if contending churches may both retain the true christian faith and worship , at least in such a degree , as not to be unchurched , the external peace of the church is broken , which is a very great crime , and will fall heavy upon the authors of it , yet if they both belong to christ , this aggregate of breaches , and omnium gatherum of professions , as our author very wittily speaks , may be united in christ's mystical body . for though they fling one another out of the church , our common saviour may chastise their follies , but own them both , as in such a divided state of christendom , we have great reason to hope he will. but let us hear what our author says is the catholick church . 't is only a comprehension of all those churches which keep to the unity of the faith , and persist in their first undivided estate in the bond of universal peace . by the unity of the faith , i hope he means , that one faith , in which , as he tells us , christ and his apostles planted the church ; and then i doubt this will fall hard upon the church of rome , which rejects all other churches , who do retain this one apostolick faith , if they disown the new articles of the trent creed : and the first undivided estate of the church was settled in an equality and brotherly association of bishops and churches , not in the empire of one over all the rest , and then this is more severe upon the church of rome , than protestants desire ; for she has destroyed this first undivided state by challenging such a supremacy , as enslaves all other churches to her , and therefore is so far from being the one catholick church , that if this definition be true , she is no part of it . and as for the bond of universal peace , what claim she can lay to that , let the cruel persecutions of those innocent christians , whom she calls hereticks , the excommunication of whole churches , the deposing of princes , and all the blood , that has been shed in christendom under the banners of holy church , witness for her . and thus we come to the notion of a note or mark , which he says is clear by its definition , page 3. and therefore i hope he will give us such a definition , as is self-evident , or which all mankind agree in ; for a definition , which the contending parties do not agree in , can clear nothing . let us then hear his definition : that it is a most sensible appearance in or about the subject enquired after , whereby we are led toward the knowledg of the present existence or essence of the said subject . and from hence he concludes ; 't is manifest then , that a note of a thing must be extra-essential of it self , because by it , and the light from thence , we arrive to the knowledg of the essence . and he adds , upon which grounds you see the reasonable demands of those , who challenge , first , that a distinctive mark or note must be more known than the thing notified . secondly , that a note must be in conjunction at least , in some measure proper , not common or indifferent to many singulars , much less to contraries . now all that i can pick out of this , is , 1. that the existence or essence of things must be known by notes . 2. that such notes whereby we discover the existence or essence of things must be extra-essential , or not belong to the essence of it . and yet , 3. that these notes must not be common , but proper to the thing , of which it is a note . which are as pretty notions as a man shall ordinarily meet with , and therefore i shall briefly examine them . first , that the existence or essence of things must be known by notes . for if the existence and essence of things may be known without notes , this dispute about notes is to no purpose . and yet how many things are there , whose existence and essence are known without notes ? who desires any note to know the sun by ? to know what light , or taste , or sounds , pain , or pleasure is ? the presence of these objects , and the notice our senses give us of them , that is , the things themselves are the onely notes of themselves . the use of signs or notes , is only to discover the existence of such things , as are absent , visible , or future ; but what is present and visible , exposed to the notice of sense or reason , is best known by it self , and can be rightly known no other way : and therefore since all the dispute is about marks of the church , he ought to prove , that the church is such a society as can be known only by notes , and then it must either be absent , invisible , or future ; for all other things may be known by themselves without notes . secondly , especially since he will allow nothing to be a note but what is extra-essential , or does not belong to the essence of the thing ; which seems to me a very extraordinary way of finding out the existence or essence of things by such notes as do not belong to their essence ; and then i think they cannot prove their existence . for how can i find out any thing , without knowing in some measure what it is i find ? or , how can i know what the essence of any thing is by such notes as are not essential ? there are but two sorts of notes , or signs , that i know of , natural , or instituted ; and they both suppose that we know the thing , and the note and sign of it , before we can find it out by signs or notes . as for natural signs , the most certain signs we have are causes and effects , but we must know both the causes and effects , before the one can be a sign of the other . thus smoke is a sign of fire , but it is no sign of fire to any man , who does not know what fire is , and that it will cause a smoak , when it seises on combustible matter , and that nothing else can cause a smoak but fire . thus in univocal effects , the effect declares the nature of the cause ; as we know , that a man had a man to his father , but then we must first know what a man is , and that a man begets in his own likeness . but this i suppose is not our author's meaning , that the notes of the church are natural causes and effects , or natural concomitants or adjuncts , because the church is not a natural , but a mystical body , and therefore can have no natural notes . let us then consider instituted signs , and they we grant must be extra-essential ; but then there never was , and never can be an instituted sign to discover the essence and existence of what we did not know before : the use of such signs is to distinguish places or persons , by different names , or habits , or colours , &c. or to serve instead of words , as the sound of the trumpet , or the beat of the drum , or to be for legal contracts and securities , and the like ; but instituted signs are no signs till we know the thing of which they are signs ; which shews how ridiculous it is to talk of such extra-essential notes , as shall discover the existence and essence of things , which we knew not before ; for if we must first know the church , before we can find it out by notes , these extra-essential notes may be spared . to be sure this shews how far this definition of a note is from being clear , since it does not suit any kind of notes which mankind are acquainted with ; and if the notes of the church are a peculiar sort of notes by themselves , he should not have appealed to the common notion and definition of signs and notes , because there are no other notes like them . thirdly , he adds , that these notes must not be common to other things , but proper to the thing of which it is a note . now i defie him to shew any such extra-essential notes in nature , which are not common to other things ; for what in logick we call propria , do immediately result from the nature of things , and therefore are not extra-essential notes , nay are no notes at all to find out the essence or existence of things by , for we must first know what the nature and essence of things is , before we can know their essential properties ; and as for inseparable accidents , how inseparable soever they are from such a thing , yet they may be common to other things , and then by his own rule cannot be notes . but this is not the case , as i observed before , for the church is not a natural , but a mystical body , and therefore its nature depends upon its institution ; and though in natural beings we may distinguish between the essence and the essential properties , yet where institution alone is nature , whatever is made proper , necessary , and inseparable by institution , is of the nature of it ; and there is no distinction that i know of between the essence and essential properties . in natural beings we call that the nature , and form , and essence of the thing , by which every thing is what it is , and without which it would cease to be that kind of being , which now it is , as rationality is of the essence of a man , for man is a reasonable creature , and without a principle of reason he cannot be a man. now in allusion to natural beings , we apply the same terms to matters of institution , and call that the nature and essence of a church , without which according to the laws of its institution it would not be a church . and therefore whatever by institution is so proper , peculiar to , and inseparable from a church , that without it , it cannot be a church , is of the nature and essence of the church , and not an extra-essential property , which indeed is non-sence . the observing this one distinction between nature and institution , will confound this whole doctrine of the notes of the church . for , 1. there can be no notes of an institution but the institution it self : notes must signify either by nature or institution : there can be no natural notes of an institution , which is not the effect of nature , but of the divine will ; and therefore if there be any , they must be instituted notes , that is , the institution of the church must be the mark or note , whereby to know it ; unless we will say , that there must be a second institution to be the notes of the first , and by the same reason there must be a third to be the notes of the second , and there will be no place to stop at , unless we stop at the first institution , which needs no other notes to prove it self by . 2. that in matters of institution there is no distinction between nature and properties . in natural beings indeed there is a distinction between the nature and properties of things , because there are some properties , which by a natural causality spring from nature , as visibility from rationality . but now in matters of institution one part of the institution is not the natural cause of the other , but the whole institution and every part of it immediately depends upon the will and pleasure of god : and therefore there can be no extra-essential properties of a church , but whatever is proper and inseparable by a divine institution , is the essence of the church ; for it has no other nature and essence but its institution . 3. hence it evidently follows , that there can be no extra-essential notes of a church ; that nothing can be a note of a church , but what is essential to it by institution ; for whatever institution makes proper and necessary , it makes essential . i confess , this is a very improper way of speaking , to call the nature and essence of any thing the note of it ; for a note or sign ought to be different and distinct from the thing shown or signified by it ; and thus we ought roundly to deny , that there are any notes of a church , or that the church can be found out by notes ; but the protestants in compliance with the popish way of speaking , called that the notes of the church , which is not properly notes and signs , but the rule and standard of the church , by which all societies of men , which pretend to be christian churches , are to be tried . and it is certain there can be no other rule or standard of the church , but its institution , as to faith , and worship , and government . common sense will tell us that there is no way to try an instituted society , but by the rules of its institution : that church which conforms to the original rule and standard of its institution , is a true church , and every church is more or less corrupt , as it varies from it : and here we ought to fix the controversy , that the church is not to be found out by notes , but to be tried by the rule of its institution ; and then farewel to cardinal bellarmin's notes , which , i believe , he himself , though a jesuit , would not have had confidence to say , that they belonged to the institution of a church . in the next place he says , i have reckoned up the cardinal's notes , now here , now there , piece-meal , but durst not let them pass by in their majestick train , lest the reader with saba's queen should be dazl'd at the glory , transported as she was , that there was no life in her . if rhetorick would do the business , we were certainly undone , and should have no more life left than the queen of sheba : but the truth is , the cardinal's notes may possibly lose something of their majesty when they are shown by hereticks , and there is no help for that : but as for their train , to supply the defects of the discourser , they have been since shewn in very good order , and we live still : but whether they be triumphant notes still of the church-militant , as he calls them , is somewhat doubtful ; and indeed it seems somewhat unreasonable that the notes should be triumphant , while the church is militant ; tho triumph it seems they do over some slavish and servile minds ; but their triumph would be very short , were not the church so militant as it is . but as if there were some charm in this majestick train , nothing will serve him , but to reckon them up in their order ; and i must confess , he has given such a new grace and majesty to them , that i believe bellarmin himself could not know them again . 1st . the name catholick how sacred to all those , who own any of the three creeds , really and veritably ! o , how sacred indeed ! for hereticks themselves own and challenge the name . 2dly . it s antiquity , how indubitable , and above all suspicion of novelty . yes , yes ! antiquity is not novelty , but a pretence to antiquity may : for how old is the council of trent ? which is the true antiquity of many popish articles of faith. 3dly . perpetual duration , out-lasting all earthly empires and kingdoms . for it plucks them down as fast as it can . 4thly . amplitude ; being a great body according to prophecy . but not so big as paganism yet . 5thly . succession apostolical , the very iews confessing it ; as they do transubstantiation . how strong , invincible , clear , and undeniable by gainsayers ! then i suppose it has no gain-sayers , if they do not deny it . 6thly . primitive consent , how great and how manifest to those good men , who enquire ! yea , how great indeed ! for no body can find it but the vicar of putney . witness the multitudes that return to the catholick church upon that account . monsieur de meaux's french converts , i suppose , who never heard of the dragoons . 7thly . intimate union with their head christ , and with one another : but bellarmin's visible head of unity is the pope , not christ ; so that this is a new note , and it seems the churches union with christ is extra-essential also , or else it could be no note . 8thly . sanctity of doctrine , as revealed by god , in whom is light , and no darkness at all . in teaching men to break faith with hereticks ; to depose heretical princes , and absolve their subjects from their oaths of allegiance , and arm them against their leige lord ; to prefer the caelibacy of priests ( tho the manifest cause of so many adulteries and fornications ) as a more holy state than matrimony ; and such like doctrines , wherein is darkness , but no light at all . 9thly . efficacy upon infidels . witness the spanish converts in the golden indies . but why not upon hereticks as well as infidels ? i fear the conversions in england are so slow , that he dares not yet make that a mark of the church . 10thly . the holiness of the fathers . whose lives we wish to be legends , ( though unquestionably true ) when we see , how far they have out-done us . ay! that makes hereticks call them legends . 11thly . the glory of miracles , which a man would be wary of contradicting for fear of blasphemy and sinning against the holy ghost : especially when they are such miracles as no body ever saw , but the monk who relates them ; or miracles to prove both parts of a contradiction to be true ; as for instance , that the virgin mary , was , and was not conceived in original sin. but if ever they had suffered poor ietzer's fate , they would rather hereafter believe , than feel such miracles . still continued , and denied by none but scepticks , in dispossession of devils : i suppose , he means the boy of bilson , and curing the struma , the kings-evil , but this is a protestant , as well as popish miracle , and is a better proof , that the king , than that the pope , is the head of the church . 12. the gift of prophecy . witness the maid of kent . to say nothing concerning the confession of adversaries , and unhappy exit of the churches enemies . which may very well be spared ; for there have been confessions , and unhappy exits on both sides . tho hen. 8. queen elizabeth , and king iames 1. were no examples of such unhappy exits . these , these are the notes , which ( like a bill in parliament ) deserve a second reading , and then to be thrown out , though i hope they will never come in there . the way being thus prepared , the court fat , and the jury of notes empannell'd , which i suppose is the reason why he calls but 12 of bellarmin's 15 , the rest being supernumeraries , the discourser is summoned to make his appearance . enter discourser . which , i can assure you , put him into a fright on the sudden , fearing it might be the inquisition ; but he recollected himself , and thus began his plea. is not the catholick church visible ? and if we can see , which is the church , what need we guess at it by marks and signs ? ( and that by such marks and signs too , as are matter of dispute themselves ? cannot we distinguish between the christian church , and a turkish mosque , and a iewish synagogue ? ) cannot we without all this adoe distinguish a christian from a turk , or a iew , or a pagan ? and it will be as easy to find out a christian church , as it will be to find out christians . and what now is the hurt of this ? oh! says the justifier , what spirit is that which envies the christian the felicity of finding the true church , and casts an evil eye upon the notes conducing to it , let any christian judg ? a very evil spirit doubtless ! but does the discourser do this ? who says , that the church is visible , and may be known without disputable notes ? for notes are only to discover things absent and invisible , but what is visible is best known by it self . yes , for whereas he pretends 't is visible ( besides that he flatly denies it after , p. 14. ) nay say i , not among counterfeits ; is it visible at sea , which is the royal navy , when the enemy puts up the english colours ? first , then , let us reconcile the discourser with himself . he asks , whether the church be not visible ? and therein appeals to the confession of his adversaries , that the church is visible , and wonders , what need there is of notes , of disputable notes , to find out a visible church , in pag. 14. he desires to know , how they will prove , that there is a church without the scripture . he answers for them , that the church is visible , for we see a christian church in the world ; but says he , what is it i see ? i see a company of men , who call themselves a church , and this is all , that i can see , and is this seeing a church ? a church must have a divine original and institution , and therefore there is no seeing a church without seeing its charter , and is this to deny the visibility of the church , because it cannot be seen or known without its charter , when it charter is as visible as the society , which calls its self the church ? and surely that church is visible enough , whose society and charter are both visible , tho the church cannot be known without its charter . but now the answerer will not allow the church to be visible among counterfeits , and then it has not been visible this hundred years at least ; and then what becomes of bellarmin's notes , which are none , if the church be not visible , for they are notes not of an invisible , but of a visible church . but the comparison whereby he proves this , is an eternal confutation of such extra-essential notes . is it visible at sea which is the royal navy , when the enemy puts up the english colours ? which shows how fallible notes are ; for colours are notes of the royal navy , and these may deceive us ; but if you go aboard and see the ships and the company and their commissions , you cannot be mistaken . the natures of things cannot be counterfeited , but notes may . the discourser says , a christian church is nothing else but a society of christians united under christian pastors for the worship of christ. this the justifier thinks a very slight way of speaking , nothing else but ! and if he does not understand english , i cannot help that . but christian pastors for a need will take in presbyters , who renounce episcopacy , nay congregational , who renounce presbytery ; it takes in indeed all christian pastors be they what they will. whether presbyterian and independent ministers are christian pastors , the discourser was not concerned to determine ; for he did not undertake to tell in particular , which are true christian churches , but what is the general notion of a christian church ; who are true pastors , but that the union of christians under true christian pastors makes a church : tho the pastores ecclesiae in the ancient language signified only bishops , who had the care of the flock , and the government of the inferiour presbyters . thus the worship of christ , he says , may signify with liturgy , or without it , with the apostles creed , or without it , &c. and so it may if both with and without be the true worship of christ. what a long definition must the discourser have given of a christian church , had he been directed by this . author , and stated all the controversies about episcopacy and presbytery , and the several kinds and modes of worship in his definition ; which , when he had done it , had been nothing at all to his purpose . the discourser proceeds . all such particular or national churches all the world over , make up the whole christian church , or universal church of christ. yes ( says the justifier , pag. 6. ) and all such churches of christ ( if they could meet ) would be like the men in the market-place , one crying out one thing , and another another , and no authority could send them home peaceably to their dwellings . i confess , i am of another mind , that could all the churches in the world meet , how much soever they differ at a distance , they would agree better before they parted ; and this i think , all those should believe , who have any reverence for general councils , which certainly such a meeting as this would be in a proper sense . well! but there is schism lies in the word national church . how so , good sir ? as if nations here were at their own disposal . and pray , why may not all the churches in a nation unite into one national communion ; and how is this a schism , if they maintain brotherly communion with other christian churches ? or as if christ begged leave of the potentates of the earth to plant his truth among them . why so ? cannot there be a national church without christ's begging leave of potentates to plant his gospel among them ? suppose there be churches planted in a nation without the leave of the potentates , may not all these churches unite into a national communion without the leave of potentates too ? and is not such a national union of churches a national church ? suppose princes voluntarily submit their scepters to christ , and encourage and protect the christian churches in their dominions , and unite them all into one national church ; is there any need of christ's asking leave of such potentates , who willingly devote themselves to his service ? but he says , the greater mistake is , that these churches all put together make up the universal church of christ. but are not all the churches the universal church ? what then is the universal church but all ? yes , he says , universal enough , i confess , but where is the unity ? why , is it impossible that all churches should be united in one communion ? if it be , then unity is not necessary , or the universal church does not include all churches : if it be not , then all churches may be the universal , the one catholick church of christ. we ( says he ) look for unity , they shew us multitude and division . is multitude and division the same thing ? or is unity inconsistent with multitude ? how then could the churches of ierusalem , of antioch , of corinth , of ephesus , of rome , be one church ? we desire unity , they shew us universality : as if there could not be unity in universality ? i wish this author would first learn grammar and logick , or , which i fear is harder to teach him , common sense , before he pretends again to dispute in divinity : but now we have him , we must make the best of him we can . and here the answerer spends several pages in proving that the church must be one , which no body that i know of denies , and which he may find truly stated in answer to cardinal bellarmine's seventh note . but what is this to the discourser , who was not concerned to state this point ? he gives such a definition of a church , as belongs to all true particular churches , as every man ought to do , who gives the definition of a church ; for a particular church has the entire nature and essence of a church ; and there can be no true definition of a church , but what belongs to a particular church . he says indeed , that the universal church consists of all true particular churches , and so most certainly it does ; no , says the answerer , all particular churches are not at unity , and therefore they cannot be the one catholick , or universal church . but suppose this ; is there any other notion of the universal church , but that it is made up of all true particular churches , which is all that the discourser asserted , without considering how all particular churches must be united to make the one catholick church , which was nothing to his purpose . in such a divided state of christendom as this , meer external unity and communion cannot be the mark of a true church , because all churches are divided from each other . if we are not at unity with the church of rome , no more is the church of rome at unity with us ; and if meer unity be the mark of the true church , neither part of the division can pretend to it . and therefore either some churches may be true churches , which are not at unity with all others , or there is no true church in the world. and therefore though cardinal bellarmine makes unity the mark of a true church , yet not the unity of all churches with each other , for he knew , there was no such thing in his days in the world , and i fear is not likely to be again in haste ; but the unity of churches to the bishop of rome , who is the visible head of the church : and thus the catholick church signifies all those churches which are united to the bishop of rome , as the center of unity . but this is such an unity as the scripture says nothing of , and which protestants disown , and which this answerer has not said one word to prove ; for this is the unity of subjection , not the unity of love and charity , which christ and his apostles so vehemently press us to . now if the unity of the catholick church does not consist in subjection to a visible head , and all other external communion is broken and divided , we must content our selves to know , what it is that makes a particular national church , a true , sound and pure church ; for whatever divisions there are in the world , every true church is part of christ's one catholick church . and whatever unity there be among other churches , if they be not true churches , they are no parts of christ's catholick church . and this was all the discourser intended , or was obliged to in pursuit of his design . and thus i might pass over what he talks about church-unity , but that he has some very peculiar marks which are worth our notice . he says , pag. 7. protestants salve the unity of the church , mainly because christendom is divided and separated from heathenism ( which i wish heartily all christendom perfectly were ) not considering so much the unity with it self . but pray who told him , that protestants do not place the unity of the church in unity , but in separation ? all true christian churches are united in the most essential things : they have one hope , one lord , one faith , one baptism , one god and father of all , and this makes them one body animated by the same holy spirit , which dwells in the whole christian church ; ephes. 4. 4 , 5 , 6. but still they are not one entire communion , but divide and separate from each other : this we will grant is a very great fault , but yet if they communicate in such things , as makes one church , whatever their other divisions are , they are one church still ; their quarrels and divisions may hurt themselves , but cannot destroy the unity of the church ; for the church is one body , not meerly by the unity and agreement of christians among themselves ; but by the appointment and institution of christ , who has made all those who profess the true faith , and are united in the same sacraments , to belong to the same body , to be his one body . and therefore christians are never exhorted to be one body ; for that they are if they be christians , as the apostle expressly asserts , that christians are but one body ; but they are exhorted to live in unity and concord , because they are but one body : i therefore the prisoner of the lord , beseech you , that ye walk worthy of the vocation , wherewith you are called , with all lowliness and meekness , with long-suffering , forbearing one another in love : endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace . there is one body , and one spirit . — because there is but one body and one spirit , therefore they must endeavour to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace . which supposes the christian church to be one body by institution , though the external peace of the church be broken by schisms and factions ; because our obligation to preserve the peace of the church , and the unity of ecclesiastical communion , results from this unity of body ; which makes schism a very great evil , and very destructive to mens souls , as all other vices are ; but the church , which has but one hope , one lord , one faith , one baptism , one god and father of all , is but one church still , though christians quarrel with each other . thus st. paul asserts , that as the body is one , and hath many members , and all the members of that one body being many , are one body ; so also is christ. but how do all christians come to be one body in christ ? that he answers , for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body — and have been made to drink into one spirit . and from hence he shews , what tenderness all christians ought to express for each other , as being members of each other . pag. 25. that there should be no schism in the body , but that the members should have the same care one for another . but suppose christians have not this mutual care one of another , do they cease to be members of the same body ? no such matter : these quarrels between the members of the same body are very unnatural , but they are the same body still . pag. 15 , 16. if the foot shall say , because i am not the hand , i am not of the body , is it therefore not of the body ? and if the ear shall say , because i am not the eye , i am not of the body , is it therefore not of the body ? that is , though the members of the same body out of discontent , and envy , and emulation , should separate from each other , and deny that they belong to the same body , yet they are of the body still . for we must consider , that the schisms in the church of corinth were occasioned by an emulation of spiritual gifts , and unless every one of them could be an eye or an hand , that is , have the most eminent gifts , they envied and divided from each other , as if they did not belong to the same body ; which the apostle tells them , was as absurd , as if the eye and the hand and the foot should deny their relation to the same natural body , because they differed in their use and honour : however if such a thing were possible in the natural body , they would all belong to the same body still ; and so it is in the christian church . which shews , that the whole christian church is the one mystical body of christ , united to him by faith and baptism , notwithstanding all the divisions of christendom . for let us consider , what the divisions of christendom are , and whether they be such , as wholly destroy the unity of the body . all the churches in the world are divided from the church of rome by disowning the authority of the pope , as the visible head of the catholick church ; but this does not destroy the unity of the body , because the unity of the body does not consist in the union of all churches to one visible head , but in their union to christ , who is the one lord of the church . some churches are divided in faith ; not but that they agree in the necessary article of the christian faith , ( for to renounce any essential article of the christian faith does so far unchurch ) but some churches believe only what christ and his apostles taught , others together with the true faith of christ teach heretical doctrines , contrary to that form of sound words once delivered to the saints . and though this must of necessity divide communions , for if any church corrupt the christian faith , with new and perverse doctrines of her own , other orthodox christians are not bound to believe as they do ; yet both of them are true christian churches still ; for the true faith makes a true church ; but only with this difference , that those who profess the true faith of christ without any corrupt mixtures , are sound and orthodox churches ; other churches are more or less pure according to the various corruptions of their faith. and thus it is with respect to the christian sacraments , and christian worship ; every church which observes the institutions of our saviour , and worships god the father through our lord jesus christ , is a true church ; but those churches which corrupt this worship , though they are true , are corrupt churches ; as the church of rome does in the worship of saints and angels , and the virgin mary , and the adoration of the host , and the sacrifice of the mass , &c. and in this case , though what they retain of the essentials of christian worship is sufficient to denominate them true churches , yet other churches are not bound to communicate with them in their corruptions . the plain state then of the case is this . all churches which profess the true faith and worship of christ , though intermixed with great corruptions , belong to the one body of christ ; and to know whether any church be a true church , we must not so much enquire , whom they communicate with , or separate from , but what their faith and worship is . that external unity is so far from being the mark of a true church , that we may be bound not to communicate with true churches , which are corrupt ; because we are not bound to communicate in a corrupt faith or worship : and that in this case the guilt of separation lies on that side where the corruptions are . and yet all the christian churches in the world , that retain the true faith and worship of christ , though they are divided from each other upon the disputes of faith or worship or discipline , are yet the one church of christ , as being united in the essentials of faith and worship , which by the institution of christ makes them his one mystical body , and one church . some lines after he has a very notable remark about the unity of the church . that the church admits not , but casts out some , though they profess christianity , schismaticks , hereticks ; which being cast out , if you mark it well , she is united with her self . and i assure you , it is worth marking ; for if you mark it well , every conventicle in christendom is thus united with it self . but is this the unity of the catholick church , to cast all out of our communion , who are not of our mind , and then call our selves the catholick church , when there are a great many other churches which profess the faith of christ as truly and sincerely as we do , and are as much united among themselves , as we are ? why may not the church of england upon this principle call her self the catholick church ? for she has more unity in this way , than the church of rome has . when all hereticks and schismaticks are cast out , she is united with her self ; and if this unity be a mark of the catholick church , all the churches and conventicles of christendom are the catholick church , for they are all united with themselves . but then the difficulty will be , how all these churches , which are united with themselves , but separated from one another , make one catholick church ? or , which of these churches , which are thus united with themselves ( which it seems is catholick unity ) is the one church ? for every one of them have this mark of the catholick church , that they are united with themselves . he proves ( pag. 8. ) that schismaticks are not of the church , one holy entire church , from their very name , which signifies rending and tearing , not the seamless coat alone , but the blessed body of our lord. and i must confess , the name schismatick is as good a mark of a schismatical church , as the name catholick is of the catholick church : but we must consider , who are the god-fathers , and whether they have given proper names or not . now the church of rome is the common god-mother , which christens her self catholick , and all other churches schismaticks , but whether she be infallible in giving names , ought to be considered . but schism signifies rending and tearing ; and yet a schismatical church signifies a church too , and how they are a church without belonging to the one church , when there is but one church , is somewhat mysterious . and therefore schism is not tearing off a part of the church , but one part dividing from the other in external communion , which supposes that both parts still belong to the same church , or else the church is not divided . for apostacy and schism are two different things ; apostates cease to be of the church , schismaticks are of the church still , though they disturb the peace of the church , and divide the external communion of it ; which differ as forsaking the church , and going out of it ( which no man does , who does not renounce the faith of christ ) and raising quarrels and contentions in it , to the alienating of christians from each other . but that schismaticks are not of the church , he proves from st. paul ' s rebuking his siding corinthians with this quick interrogatory : is christ saith he ( he means his catholick church ) divided ? how ! nothing more absurd , than to grant division in the church . an excellent paragraph ! does st. paul , who reproves these corinthians for their schisms , shut them out of the church for them too ? does he deny them to belong to the church , when he directs his epistle to the church of god at corinth ? is it so very absurd , to grant that there are divisions in the church , when st. paul rebukes them for their divisions , which surely supposes that they were divided ? and is it absurd to suppose that to be , which at the same time we confess to be ? to say that christ is divided , or that there are more christs than one , would be very absurd indeed ; to say , that the church of christ is divided , is no adsurdity , because it is true ; but the absurdity or unreasonableness , and indecency , which st. paul charges them with , is the absurdity in practice , that when there is but one christ , one lord , whom they all worship , that the disciples of the same lord should divide from each other , as if they served and worshipped different masters . but he has a very choice note about the unity of the church , ( pag. 9. ) that it is the unity of a body , a living animate body ; but not i hope of a natural , but a mystical body , animated by that divine spirit which dwells in the whole , and in every part of it , and therefore nothing can cut us off from the unity of this body , but that which divides us totally from the quickning and animating influences of this spirit , which it is certain all external divisions do not . well! but it is not the unity of a mathematical body which is divisibile in semper divisibilia , but animate . this i believe every body will grant him , that the church is not a mathematical body ; but what hurt is there in mathematical unity ? oh! that is divisible without end , and that i confess is an ill kind of unity : but i hope it is one , till it be divided , and i fear a living animate body is divisible too ; and if that cannot be one , which is divisible , i fear there is no such thing as unity in nature , excepting in god ; and then it is not sufficient to prove the catholick church to be one , because it is united , unless he can prove , that it is not divisible . but indeed he is a little out in applying his axiom , for as much as he despises this mathematical unity , he can find this indivisible unity only in a mathematical point ; and possibly this may be the reason , why the church of rome makes the pope the center of catholick unity , which is as near a mathematical point , as it well can be . in the same place he very gravely asks ; if the church of god be distinguished even from the heretick and the schismatick , which of the churches is like to be most catholick ? that which maintains its unity against heresy and schism , or that which is most favourable to the separation ? no doubt , sir , that which opposes heresy and schism is the most catholick church ; but i thought the question had been not about the most , but the one catholick church . for one church may be more catholick than another , by more strictly adhering to the catholick faith and worship , and yet both of them belong to the same catholick church . well , but what then ? truly i cannot guess , he says , the dissenter scarce owns any such distinctions , or very rarely what ? do they never talk of heresy and schism ? nor own that there are any heresies and schisms ? but they pronounce no anathema's , except one perhaps . against the church of rome i suppose he means . but anathema's are proper only for general councils ; and this is a new note of the catholick church , which bellarmine did not think of , viz. pronouncing anathema's , in which the church of rome has outdone all churches in the world , and therefore is the most catholick church . but they would have dissenters looked upon as members of the aggregate church , notwithstanding their dissensions as well as others . who are these they ? the church of england : then they are kinder to dissenters than the church of rome , notwithstanding all the good words they have lately given them . but what then ? what then do you say ? there is a terrible then. for this kindness of the persecuting church of england to the dissenters proves her to be a harlot . for 't is the famous case brought before king solomon , catholicks like the honest woman would have the whole child ; the harlot would have the child divided . was ever such stuff put together ? catholicks are for shutting all out of the church , and being the whole church themselves , therefore they are for the whole child , when they have cut off three parts of it , and divided it into a whole , united with it self . others are so charitable as far as it is possible , to make a whole church , the one catholick church , of all the divided communions of christendom , and they , like the harlot , would have the child divided . what a blessing is ignorance and stupidity ! the first to find out such arguments , as all the wit and learning in the world could never have discovered ; and the second to make men believe them , and publish them without blushing . but here is enough in all conscience of this ; let us now try if we can pick out any thing , that may deserve an answer . and that the reader may the better judg between us , i shall take a review of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church in the method wherein it lies , and consider , what this answerer and justifier of bellarmine's notes has to say against it . i observed then that the true state of this controversy about the notes of the church , as it is managed by cardinal bellarmine , is not , what it is which makes a church a true church ; — but how among all the divisions of christendom , we may find out that only true church . which is the mistress of all other churches , the only infallible guide in matters of faith , and to which alone the promises of pardon and salvation are made . now the answerer grants , that this is the controversy between us , and says the roman-catholicks put the question right . and no doubt but they have christian liberty to put what questions they please ; all that i there observed was , that protestants in the notes they gave of a church , answer to that question , what a true church is , that papists give notes , whereby to know which is the true church , and which is the most reasonable way ? shall be examined presently . i began with the protestant way , to find out a church by the essential properties of the church , such as the profession of the true christian faith , and the christian sacraments rightly and duly administred by persons rightly ordained , according to the institution of our saviour , and the apostolical practice . here he complains that we give but ( poor two ) notes of a christian church ( pag. 12. ) but if two be all , they are a great deal better than such fifteen notes , as are none . and here i considered what cardinal bellarmine objects against these notes . 1. that notes whereby we will distinguish things , must not be common to other things , but proper and peculiar to that of which it is a note . — now i must confess these notes , as he observes , are common to all christian churches , and were intended to be so . — the protestant churches do not desire to confine the notes of the church to their own private communion , but are very glad , if all the churches in the world be as true churches as themselves . and this , says the answerer , let me tell him , will be easily granted , tam , quàm , one every whit as good as another . and this , i wish , he could make good , for the sake of his own church . but will he call this answering ? he cites a place out of tertullian , which he durst not translate , for fear every english reader should see that it was to no purpose : that hereticks , tho they differed from each other , yet did all conspire to oppose the truth ; which is an admirable argument against all churches conspiring in the same faith. but this he says , supposes all churches to be alike pure , equally catholick , equally apostolick . just as much as to say , that a man is a reasonable creature , supposes all men to be equally wise , and equally honest . the true faith , and true sacraments , i hope , may be essential to all true churches , as reason is to humane nature , and yet all true churches may not retain the christian faith and sacraments in equal purity , no more than every man , who has reason , reasons equally well and truly . and therefore the church of england can distinguish her self still both from papists and fanaticks notwithstanding these notes . his next argument , why these cannot be the notes of the church , is , because the true faith , and true sacraments , are essential to the church , and therefore can be no notes of discovery , ( pag. 13. ) according to his former wise observation , that a note must be extra-essential , which has been examined already . for , says he , the question is which is the true church ? but protestants think the first question ought to be , what a true church is ? and then we can know without any other notes , which is a true church ; as when we know what a man is , we can easily find out a man. but how shall i know half this essence , true faith ? &c. we must either say by consent with scripture , or consent with the primitive church , and then we shall stumble upon the cardinal's notes , or somewhat like it . they i confess will be in danger of a very fatal stumble , if they stumble either upon scripture or antiquity ; but we dare venture both . let them but grant , that true faith is the note of a true church , and we will refer the trial of our faith to scripture , and antiquity , when they please : tho cardinal bellarmin had so much wit , as not to refer the trial of the churches faith to scripture . i added , that when we give notes , which belong to a whole species , as we must do , when we give the notes of a true christian church , we must give such notes , as belong to the whole kind , that is , to all true christian churches . and though these notes are common indeed to all true christian churches , yet they are proper and peculiar to a true christian church . as the essential properties of a man are common to all men , but proper to mankind : and this is necessary to make them true notes ; for such notes of a church , as do not fit all true churches , cannot be true notes . but this which is the true answer to bellarmine's argument , he wisely drops . as for what the cardinal urges that all sorts of christians think themselves to have the true faith , and true sacraments : i answered ; i am apt to think they do ; but what then ? if they have not the true faith , and true sacraments , they are not true churches , whatever they think of it , and yet the true faith and true sacraments are certain notes of the true church . a purchase upon a bad title , which a man thinks a good one , is not a good estate ; but yet a purchase upon a title , which is not only thought to be , but is a good one , is a good estate . to this he answers . this is the same error again : for a good title , i hope , is essential ; 't is no note of a good estate . oh the wit of some disputers ! what other note is there of a good estate , but a good title ? but he says there are other notes , which lead to the discovery of a good title ; what then ? they are the notes of the title , not of the estate ; they prove a good title , and a good title makes a good estate . and yet , that the land be not praeengaged , be free from all incumbrances , that there be no flaw in the demise , i take to be essential to a good title , and therefore according , to our authors logick , cannot be notes neither . but what is all this to the purpose ? bellarmin proves , that the true faith cannot be the note of a true church , because all sects of christians pretend to it . i answer , that though those who pretend to the true faith , and have it not , are not true churches , yet those , who have the true faith , are true churches . as a purchase upon a bad title , which a man thinks a good one , is not a good estate , but yet a purchase upon a good title is a good estate . to this the justifier of bellarmin answers , that a good title is essential , and therefore is no note of a good estate . whereas the dispute here is not about essential , or extra-essential notes , but whether the true faith cannot be a note of the true church , because some men pretend to the true faith , who have it not . but want of understanding is necessary to make some men answerers of books , which men of understanding know they cannot answer . the cardinal 's second objection against the protestant notes of a church is , that the notes of any thing must be more known than the thing it self ; this i granted , now says he , which is the true church , is more knowable , than which is the true faith : and this i denied , for this plain reason , because the true church cannot be known without knowing the true faith : for no church is a true church , which does not profess the true faith. now says our answerer , this being denied , we prove it thus , &c. ( pag. 15. ) but methinks , he should first have answered the argument , before he had gone to proving ; but that it seems is not his talent . well , but how does he prove , that the true church may be known before we know the true faith ? admirably i assure you ! if the church be the pillar of truth , raised up aloft , that it may be conspicuous to all men , it must be more manifest than the truth . this pillar raised aloft is a new notion , which i suppose he learnt from the monument at london-bridg , which indeed is very visible ; but other wiser writers by the pillar and ground of truth , prove , that the church is the foundation , whereon truth is built ; but that would not serve his purpose , to make the church more visible than the truth , for he knows that the foundation is not so visible , as that which is built on it : and in the next page he honestly confesses , that the true faith is the foundation of the church , and therefore proves that the true church cannot be known by the true faith ; for that is as if i should say , i cannot know the house unless i see the foundation , the next way to overturn it . so dangerous a thing are metaphors , which prove backward and forward , as a man fancies . but let the church be a pillar raised aloft , or a foundation-pillar , or what pillar he pleases , must not we know the church , before we know it to be a pillar of truth ? or , can we know which church is the pillar of truth , before we know what truth is ? well! but let us now look to our selves , for he undertakes to demonstrate it . the fruits of the spirit , the graces , are more known than the spirit it self . ergo , the true church must be known before the true faith. the outward profession of faith more than the inward profession . ergo , the true church must be known before the outward profession of the true faith , which makes a true church . the concrete more than the abstract , the believer than the belief . i can know the men before i know their faith , ergo , the true church must be known before the true faith. he is a very hard-hearted man , who will not allow this for demonstration ; but he is a very good-natured man , who will allow it to be sense . well! but he has a distinction , that will do the business . aliud notius nobis & aliud natura , i. e. some things are more knowable in themselves , and some things are more knowable to us : but we are enquiring which is most knowable to us , the true faith , or the true church . he grants then , that true faith being a constituent of , or essential to the church , may be said to be naturâ notior , first known in the order of nature . but we would not have these methods confounded : for if faith be essential , 't is the less known to us for that very reason ; because the first constituents of a compound are last known , except to the maker . 't is more manifest to us , that we are flesh and blood , though god knows , that we are dust and ashes . how happy is the age , that has produced so great a schoolman as this , to whom the great aquinas himself is but a meer novice ! the church is a compound body , in which faith is mixed and blended , as the four elements are in natural bodies : and therefore as we can more easily know what a stone or a tree is , than see the four elements in it , fire and air and water and earth , of which it is compounded , and which are so mixt together , as to become invisible in their own natures ; so the church is more knowable than the true faith , which is so compounded with the church , as to become invisible it self : nay to be as much changed and transformed in the composition , as dust and ashes is into flesh and blood : and thus i confess , he has hit upon the true reason , why the true church must be known before the true faith , because the church of rome ( which is his true church ) has so changed and transformed the faith , that unless the faith can be known by the church , the church can never be known by the faith. how much is one grain of common sense , better than all these philosophical subtilties ? for indeed the church is not a compound body , but a society of men professing the faith of christ , and the only difference between them and other societies is the christian faith , and therefore the christian faith is the only thing whereby the church is to be known , and to be distinguished from other bodies of men ; and therefore the church cannot be known without the faith ; unless i can know any thing without knowing that , by which alone it is what it is : and when there are several churches in the world , and a dispute arises , which is the true church , there is no other possible way of deciding it without knowing the true faith ; for it is the true faith , which makes a true church , not as dust and ashes make flesh and blood , but as a true faith makes true believers , and true believers a true church ; and tho that society of men , which is the church is visible , yet the true church is no more visible than the true faith ; for to see a church is to see a society of men who profess the true faith , and how to see that without seeing the true faith , is past my understanding . in the next place the cardinal urges , that we cannot know what true scripture is , nor what is the true interpretation of scripture , but from the church ; and therefore we must know the church , before we can know the true faith. to this i answered , as for the first , i readily grant , that at this distance from the writing the books of the new testament , there is no way to assure us , that they were written by the apostles , or apostolical men , and owned for inspired writings , but the testimony of the church in all ages . and our answerer saies , i begin now to answer honestly , ( p. 17. ) and i am very glad i can please him . but it seems , i had pleased him better , if i would have called it an infallible tradition ; but that infallible is a word we protestants are not much used to , when applied to tradition ; it satisfies us , if it be a very credible tradition , the truth of which we have no reason to suspect . but i have lost our answerers favour for ever , by adding , but herein we do not consider them as a church , but as credible witnesses . this makes him sigh to think , how loth men are to own the church . for these company of men so attesting , were christians , not vagrants , or idle praters of strange news in ridiculous stories , ( i hope not , for then they could not be credible witnesses ) but were agreed in the attestation of such a divine volume , not only as a book ( which would do very little service indeed ) but as a rule , as an oracle . all this i granted ; but still the question is , whether that testimony they give to the scriptures , relies upon their authority , considered as a church , or considered only as credible witnesses . and when this author shall think fit to answer what i there urge to prove , that they must not be considered as a church , but as credible witnesses , i shall think of a reply , or shall yield the cause . but this answerer is a most unmerciful man at comparisons . for , saies he , to tell us we cannot know the church , but by the scripture , is to tell us that we cannot know a piece of gold without a pair of scales . the weight of gold , i suppose he means , and then it is pretty right ; and if we must weigh gold after our father , i suppose , we may weigh it after the church too , tho she be our mother . or that a child cannot know his father , till he comes to read philosophy , and understand the secrets of generation : and it is well , if he can know him then : this , i consess , is exceeding apposite ; for a child must be a traditionary believer , and take his mothers word ( as papists believe the mother church ) who is his father . that we could not understand the true interpretation of scripture neither , without the church . this i also denied , and gave my reasons for it , which our answerer , according to his method of answering books , takes no notice of , but gives his reasons on the other side . i affirmed , that the scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to salvation , to honest and diligent readers . instead of this , he saies i affirm , that every honest and diligent reader knows the sense ( of scripture , it must be ) in all things necessary to salvation ; which differ as much , as being intelligible , and being actually understood , tho i will excuse him so far , that i verily believe he had no dishonest intention in changing my words , but did not understand the difference between them : but , says he , did not st. peter write to honest and diligent readers , when he warns them of wresting some places in st. paul to their own destruction , as others also did . as they did other scriptures also , st. peter saies ; but he saies too , that they were the unlearned and the unstable , who did thus . and tho the scriptures be intelligible , such men need a guide , not to dictate to them , but to expound scripture , and help them to understand it ; but does st. peter , therefore warn them against reading the scriptures , or direct them to receive the sense of scripture only from the church ? or say , that honest and diligent readers cannot understand them without the authority of the church ? but it seems , there are several articles very necessary to salvation , which men cannot agree about , no not all protestants , as the divinity of the son of god , the necessity of good works , the distinction of sins mortal , and less mortal ( which is a new distinction , unless by less mortal , he means venial , that is , not mortal at all ) the necessity of keeping the lords day , and using the lords prayer . now these points are either intelligibly taught in the scripture , or they are not ; if not , how does he know they are in the scripture ? if they be , why cannot an honest and diligent reader understand that which is intelligible ? that all men do not agree about the sense of scripture in all points , is no better argument to prove that the scriptures are not intelligible , than that reason it self is not intelligible ; for all men do not agree about that neither . well , but he will allow , that honest readers may arrive to the understanding of that part of scripture , which the light of nature suggests : that we must not steal , defraud ; we must do as we will be done by , ( p. 19. ) . but he little thinks what he hath done in granting this ; for then , if the church should expound scripture against the light of nature , honest readers may understand the scripture otherwise ; and if the church should be found tripping in such matters , honest readers might be apt to question her infallibility in other cases ; for those who once mistake , can never be insallible : and yet this light of nature teaches a great many shrewd things ; and the scripture teaches them too ; and therefore , in these matters , honest and diligent readers may understand the scriptures , tho it be against the exposition of the church ; as , that divine worship must be given to none but god : that god , who is an invisible spirit , must not be worshipped by material and visible images : that publick prayers ought to be in a language which is understood by the people : that marriage is honourable among all men ; that faith is to be kept with all men ; that every soul must be subject to the higher powers : that none can judicially forgive sins , but only god : that to forgive sin , is not to punish it , and therefore god does not punish for those sins which he has wholly pardoned : and other such like things , are taught by the light of nature , as well as scripture ; and we thank him heartily , that he will give us leave to understand these things . but he proceeds , 't is the revelation part , the mysterious part , which is properly called the holy scripture , which is not so perspicuous . what , are not the words perspicuous and intelligible ? to what purpose then were they writ ? or , is it the thing which is above our comprehension ? but that does not hinder , but we may understand what the scripture teaches , tho we do not fully comprehend it . for i would know , whether they fully comprehend the doctrine of the holy trinity and incarnation , the natures and person of christ , which were the subject of the arian , nestorian , and eutychian heresies ; when the church teaches these things , i suppose they will not say they do ; and yet they will own that they can understand what the church teaches about them : and then , tho they cannot comprehend these mysteries ; yet they may as well understand what the scripture , as what the church teaches about them . now , saies our author , to say the scripture is plain to every honest private reader in these arcana , is to deny and cassate all church history ; make oecumenical councils ridiculous , run down all synods and convocations , that ever were or shall be . why so , i pray ? does church-history , or oecumenical councils , all convocations and synods declare , that the scriptures are not intelligible in these matters ? or that a private honest diligent reader cannot understand them ? how came they then to determine them for articles of faith , by their own authority , or by the authority of scripture ? should synods and convocations , and oecumenical councils , determine that for an article of faith , which is not plain and intelligible in scripture , they were ridiculous indeed , and there were an end of their authority . and here he appeals to the testimonies produced by the cardinal , out of irenoeus , tertullian , and st. augustin ; which have been so often answered already , that i do not think it worth the while to engage with this answerer about them ; let the reader , if he pleases , consult some late books to this purpose ; as that learned vindication of the answer to the royal papers about church authority ; and the pillar and ground of truth . but i cannot pass on without taking notice of his unanswerable argument to prove , that the church of rome understands st. paul ' s epistie to the romans , and by consequence the articles of iustification , whether by faith alone , or works , better than all the lay-readers of the reformation , viz. because he can never be perswaded that any private man should understand an epistle of st paul , better than the church to which it was written . how unworthy is it to opine the contrary ? and how silly is it to think , that those must necessarily understand an epistle best , to whom it was written ? but if those christians at rome , to whom st. paul wrote ( for he takes no notice of any formed and setled church there , at the writing of his epistle , and therefore does not direct it to the church , as he does in other epistles , but to the saints that are at rome . i say , if those christians ) might be supposed at that time , ( when the state of the controversy among them was generally known ) to understand this epistle better than we can now , yet what is this to the church of rome , at sixteen hundred years distance ? however , by this rule , we may understand all st. paul's other epistles , as well as the church of rome , and that will serve our purpose : and yet methinks , if the churches to which the epistles were sent , are the only authentick expositors of such epistles , all those churches to whom st. paul wrote , should have been preserved to this day , to have expounded those epistles to us , and yet not one of them is now in being , excepting the church of rome ; and therefore , at least we must make what shift we can to expound them our selves , for the church of rome can pretend no greater right in them than the church of england . and thus i came in the second place to consider the cardinals use of notes , and found several faults with them : 1. that he gives notes to find out which is the true church , before we know what a true church is ; whereas there are two inquiries in order of nature before this , viz. whether there be a true church , or not ; and what it is ; and though the cardinal takes it for granted , that there is a church , i demanded a proof of it , that they would give me some notes whereby to prove that there is a true church . this demand amazes our answerer , and makes him cross himself and fall to his beads , hear , o heavens ! and give ear , o earth ! but this is a devil that wo'nt be conjured down ; let him either give me some notes to prove , that there is a church ; or tell me , how i shall know it . yes , that he will do , for it is self-evident , he saies , that there is a church , ( p. 20. ) as it is , that there is a sun in the firmament , or else the heathens could never see it . but what do the heathens see ? a christian church . do they then believe the holy catholick church ? why then does he call them heathens ? and if they see a church , and do not believe it to be a church , then it is such a seeing of a church , as does not prove that there is a church ; for if it did , then all that see the church would believe it , as all that see the sun , believe that there is a sun. good works indeed may be seen , as he learnedly proves ; and a iewish synagogue may be seen , and christian oratories and chappels with crosses upon them , and this may prove that those who built them , believed in a crucified god , which is all he alledges to prove , that it is self-evident that there is a church ; by which i see something also that he does not know , what it is to see a church ; though i told him before , that to see a company of men , who call themselves a church , is not to see a church . for a church must have a divine original and institution , and therefore there is no seeing a church , without seeing its charter ; for there can be no other note or mark of the being of a church , but the institution of it . i observed , that the use of notes in the church of rome is to find out the church before and without the scriptures ; for if they admit of a scripture-proof , they must allow , that we can know and understand the scriptures without the authority or interpretation of the church , which undermines the very foundation of popery . in answer to this he says , nothing is more easie and familiar ( but that men love to be troublesome to their friends ) than that the scriptures must be known by the church , and the church may be known ( besides its own evidence ) by the scriptures . this i believe he has heard so often said , without considering it , that it is become very easie and familiar to him ; but it is the hardest thing in the world to me , and therefore begging leave of him for being so troublesome , i must desire him to explain to me how two things can be known by each other , when neither of them can be known first ; for if the son must beget the father , and the father beget the son , which of them must be begotten first ? but he has an admirable proof of this way of knowing the church by the scripture , and the scripture by the church . for so st. peter exhorts the wife to good conversation , that she may thereby win the husband to christianity , even without the word , without the holy scripture : implying , that a man may be brought over to christianity both ways , by the church , and by the scripture . suppose this , what is this to knowing the scripture by the church , and the church by the scripture ? the pious and modest conversation of the wife , may give her husband a good opinion of her religion , and may be the first occasion of his inquiring into it , which may end in his conversion , and so may the holy and exemplary lives of christians do ; but does the husband in this case resolve his faith into the authority of his wife withou th e scripture ? and then resolve the authority of his wife into the authority of the scripture ? if st. peter had said this indeed , i should have thought we might as reasonably have given this authority to the church , as to a wise. 2ly , i observed , another blunder in this dispute a bout notes is , that they give us notes whereby to find out the true catholick church , before we know what a particular church is — because the catholick church is nothing else but all the true christian churches in the world , united together by one common faith and worship , and such acts of communion as distinct churches are capable of , and obliged to ; every particular church , which professes the true faith and worship of christ , is a true christian church , and the catholick church is all the true christian churches in the world . — and therefore there can be no notes of a true church but what belong to all the true christian churches in the world. which shows how absurd it is , when they are giving notes of a true church , to give notes of a true catholick , and not of a true particular church : when i know what makes a particular church a true church , i can know what the catholick church is , which signifies all true particular churches , which are the one mystical body of christ ; but i can never know what a true catholick church is , without knowing what makes a particular church a true church ; for all churches have the same nature , and are homogeneal parts of the same body . this i perceive our answerer did not understand one word of , and therefore says nothing to the main argument , which is to prove that those who will give notes of the church , must give such notes as are proper to all true particular churches ; for there can be no other true notes of a church , but what belong to all true churches , because all true churches have the same nature and essence ; which spoils the cardinal's design of notes to find out the one catholick church , which all christians must communicate in , and out of which there is no salvation . and therefore , instead of touching upon the main point , he runs out into a new harangue about unity and catholicism ; what unity and communion makes a catholick church ; whether the catholick church be the aggregate of all churches , or only of sound and orthodox churches , which has been considered already , and is nothing to the purpose here . for the only single question here is , whether i can know the catholick church , before i know what a true particular church is ; and consequently , whether the notes of the church ought not to be such , as belong to all true particular churches . by this rule , i briefly examined cardinal bellarmin's notes ; those which belonged to all true churches , which very few of them do , i allow to be true notes , but not peculiar to the church of rome . as the 6th , the agreement and consent in doctrine with the ancient and apostolick church . and the 8th , the holiness of its doctrine ; are the chief , if not the only notes of this nature , and these we will stand or fall by . and because i said , we will stand or fall by these notes , the answerer endeavours to shew that they do not belong to the church of england ; but whether they belong to the church of rome , and do not belong to us , was not my business to consider in a general discourse about notes ; but it has been examined since , in the examination of those particular notes , and there the reader may find it . but our answerer according to his old wont , has pickt out as unlucky instances , as the greatest adversary of the church of rome could have done , viz. the doctrine of justification and repentance , which are not so corrupted by the very worst fanaticks , as they are by the church of rome , witness their doctrines of confession and penance ; i may add , of merits and indulgences , for want of which , he quarrels with the reformation . other notes , i observed , were not properly notes of the true church , any otherwise than as they are testimonies to the truth of common christianity : such as his 9th , the efficacy of doctrine : the 10th , the holiness of the lives of the first authors and fathers of our religion . as for the efficacy of doctrine , he saies , that should bear testimony to the church also , if it be true , that more are converted to the catholick church , than apostatize from it . let him read the examination of the 9th note for this . but if it be true also , that the roman catholicks do convert more to the christian faith , than any other sort of christians , ( as the spaniards converted the poor indians ) this follows undeniably , that they believe they are more bound to spread the christian religion than any other . and what if they did believe so , are not others as much bound as they ? and what follows from hence ? that they are the only true church , because they are more zealous in propagating christianity ? does this relate to the efficacy of doctrine , or to the zeal of the preacher ? but he says , the pharisees compassing sea and land to make a proselyte , proved them to be the best and most zealous of all the jewish party , tho they made them ten times more the children of hell , than they were before . i think none but our author would have had so little wit , as to have justified the church of rome by the zeal of the pharisees ; for tho , as he says , our saviour's wo against the pharisees , was not precisely intended against their zeal ; yet this proves that the greatest corrupters of the faith , may be the most zealous to propagate their errors ; and therefore such a zeal does not prove them to be the best men , nor the truest church . thus i said the 11th note , the glory of miracles , and the 12th , the spirit of prophesie , are testimonies to the religion , not primarily to the church . to which he answers , let no man be so besotted as to say , that all miracles of a later date are delusions . fear not , sir , no miracles , neither late nor early , are delusions , but some delusions are called miracles , witness the miracles that poor ietzer felt . but the question is , whether true miracles prove that particular church in which they are done , the only true church ; or only give testimony to the religion in confirmation of which they are wrought . the spirit of prophesie also , he says , belongs to the church , unless we find that all the true churches in the circle pretend to it . all that pretend to a religion revealed by prophesie , pretend to the spirit of prophesie ; but all do not pretend in this age to have the gift of prophesie , though they may as justly pretend to it , as the church of rome . see the answer to the 12th note . i added , that the 13th , 14th , 15th notes , i doubted would prove no notes at all , because they are not always true , and at best uncertain . the 13th is the confession of adversaries , which he says , will carry a cause in our temporal courts . and good reason too , because they are supposed to speak nothing but what they know , and what the evidence of truth extorts from them ; but how the adversaries of christianity should come to know so well , which is the true church , who believe no church at all , is somewhat mysterious ; and yet the cardinal is miserably put to it to make out this note , as may be seen in the answer . the 15th , temporal felicity , he says , will evidence the church , as iob's later state did evidence his being in favour with god. but what did his former state do ? was he not then in favour with god too ? but would any man talk at this rate , who remembers , that christ was crucified , and his church persecuted for three hundred years ? the 14th , the unhappy exit of the enemies of the church , he says , count teckely may be a witness of it , who sides with infidels against the church , and is accordingly blest . and what thinks he of the misfortunes of some great princes , who have been as zealous for the church ? his third and fourth notes , i said , were not notes of a church , but gods promises made to his church . and here he triumphs mightily ; is there such opposition then between notes and promises ? and finds out some promises which he says are notes of the church ; i shall not examine that , because it is nothing to the purpose ; for if there be some promises which are not notes of the church , i am safe ; for i did not say , that no promises could be notes , but that these were not notes , but promises , and gave my reasons for it , why these particular promises could not be notes . as for the third . a long duration , that it shall never fail ; i said , this could never be a note till the day of judgment . a fine time , he says , to chuse our religion in the mean while ; but thanks be to god , we have other notes of a church than this , and therefore need not wait till the day of judgment , to know the true church . but it is certain , the duration of the church till the end of the world is such a mark of the church as cannot be known till the end of the world. the fourth , amplitude and extent is not to distinguish one christian church from another , but to distinguish the christian church from other religions ; and then i doubt this prophesie has not received its just accomplishment yet , for all the christian churches together bear but a small proportion to the rest of the world . and if this promise be not yet accomplished , it cannot be a note of the church . but the reader may see all this fairly stated in the examination of these notes . his fifth note , the succession of bishops in the church of rome , from the apostles time till now , i grant , is a note of the roman church ; and the succession of bishops in the greek church , is as good a note of the greek church ; and any churches , which have been later planted , who have bishops in succession from any of the apostles , or apostolick bishops , by this note are as good churches as they . this he very honestly grants , and thereby confesses , that this note will not prove the church of rome to be the one catholick church , which the cardinal intended by it . now because i said , this note is common to all true churches , and therefore can do the church of rome no service . he takes me up , all true churches ! then where is your communion with luther ' s or calvin ' s disciples ? they do not so much as pretend to succession . nor is this the dispute now , whether those churches which have not a succession of bishops , are true churches ; but if he will allow a succession of bishops to be a note of a true church , all those churches are true churches , which have this succession , as the greek church , and the church of england have ; and therefore , this note can do no service to the church of rome , as not being peculiar to it . but as for what he says , that succession of doctrine , without succession of office , is a poor plea. i must needs tell him , i think it is a much better plea then succession of office , without succession of doctrine . for i am sure , that is not a safe communion , where there is not a succession of apostolical doctine ; but whether the want of a succession of bishops , will in all cases unchurch , will admit of a greater dispute : i am sure a true faith in christ , with a true gospel conversation , will save men ; and some learned romanists defend that old definition of the church , that it is caetus fidelium , the company of the faithful , and will not admit bishops or pastors into the definition of a church . his seventh note , i own , is home to his purpose , that that is the only true church , which is united to the bishop of rome , as to its head. if he could prove this , it must do his business without any other notes . — but it is like the confidence of a iesuit , to make that the note of the church , which is the chief subject of the dispute . very well , says our answerer , so irenaeus , so st. cyprian , st. ambrose , st. hierom , optatus , st. austin , are answered , for none of these can turn the scale . nor did any of these fathers ever say , that the bishop of rome is the head of the church . this is the dispute still , and will be the dispute , till the church of rome quit her absurd claims to it : but he says , we of the church of england should consider , that not above 100 years ago , we communicated with the apostolick see. and does that make the church of rome , the head of the church ? but have we grounds enough for such a breach , as we have made ? it is ground enough sure , to renounce our subjection to the bishop of rome , if he have no right to claim it . but transubstantiation , and the worship of images , and addresses to saints , he thinks very harmless things . but the mischief is , we do no think them so . but this is not a place to dispute these matters . his first note concerning the name catholick , i observed , makes every church a catholick church , which will call it self so . and here he learnedly disputes about some indelible names , which the providence of god orders to be so for great ends. st. paul directs his epistle to the romans , i. e. he hopes to the roman catholicks , p. 34. but a roman catholick was an unknown name in those days , and many ages after . but at that time the world in the apostles phrase was in communion with her . where has the apostle any such phrase ? and yet we are now a disputing not about catholick communion , but about the name roman catholick church . whereas it does not appear , that the romans had at that time so ▪ much as the name of the church , as i observed before ; and the very name of the catholick church cannot be proved so ancient as that time : and her faith being spoken of , which he interprets , her being admired throughout the whole world : whatever it proves , does not prove that she had then the name of the catholick church . he adds , it is not without something of god , that she keeps the name still : but how does she keep it ? she will call her self catholick , when no body else will allow her to be so ; and thus any church may keep this name , which did originally belong to all true orthodox churches : as for hereticks , they have challenged the name , and kept it too among themselves , as the church of rome does , tho it belonged no more to them , than it does to her . his other indelible names of times and places , he may make the best of he can . but let all concerned in black-fryars and austin-fryars , and the house of chartreux , which has so miraculously preserved its name , look to it ; for he seems to hope , that these indelible names are preserved for some good purpose . i added , the name catholick does not declare what a church is , but in what communion it is ; and is no note of a true church , unless it be first proved , that they are true churches , which are in communion with each other . for if three parts in four , of all the churches in the world , were very corrupt and degenerate in faith and worship , and were in one communion , this would be the most catholick communion , as catholick signifies the most general and universal ; but yet , the fourth part , which is sincere , would be the best and truest church , and the catholick church , as that signifies the communion of all orthodox and pure churches . this distinction of catholick , our answerer likes well , and says it does not hurt them , for that case is yet to come , viz. that the most corrupt communion should be most catholick or universal ; but that was not the force of the argument , nor any part of it ; tho it may be it is too true ; but the argument was this , that the bare name of catholick cannot prove a church to be a true church , because that does not relate to its nature and essence , but to its communion : now catholick communion signifies , either the most universal communion , or the communion only of pure and orthodox churches , be their number more or less . if we take it in the first sense , the most catholick communion may be the most corrupt ; for it may so happen , that the greater number of churches , which are in communion with each other , may be very corrupt . if we take it in the second sense , we must first know , whether those churches are pure and orthodox , before we can tell , whether they be catholick churches ; and therefore , in both senses , the bare name of catholick cannot prove a church to be a true church ; for we must first know , whether they be true , as that signifies pure and orthodox churches , before we can know , whether they be catholick . but he says , it is not probable , that god would spread such a temptation and stumbling-block before his own people ; yet , if he should for example sake , have suffered lutheranism or cranmerism to have spread to such a measure , the palpableness of the schism would have been security , perhaps , sufficient to keep all prudent persons where they were . this is nothing to the present argument , ( as indeed it would be surprising to find him say any thing to the purpose ) but yet , if the most catholick communion , as that signifies the most universal ( tho the notes does not refer to catholick communion , but to the name catholick ) were a note of the true church , it is not sufficient to say , that it is probable that god will not suffer a corrupt communion to be the most universal ; but he must prove , that god has promised this shall not be : and , if according to this supposition , lutheranism or cranmerism had prevailed , three parts in four over the church , how could the palpableness of the schism secure his prudent man from the infection ? for if three parts of the church were divided from the fourth , why should a prudent man charge so much the greater number with the schism ? why should the three parts be the schismaticks , and not the fourth ? 3ly , i observed another mystery of finding the true church by notes , is to pick out of all the christian churches in the world , one church which we must own for the only catholick church , and reject all other churches as heretical , or schismatical , or uncatholick churches , who refuse obedience and subjection to this one catholick church . for if this be not the intent of i● , what do all the notes of the church signifie to prove , that the church of rome is the only true catholick church ? and if they do not prove this , the cardinal has lost his labour . now i observed , that there are many things to be proved here , before we are ready for the notes of the church . they must first prove , that there is but one true church in the world. or , as i had expressed it before , one church , which is the mistress of all other churches , and the only principle and center of catholick unity . to this he answers , ( p. 37. ) that there is but one true church , ought to be proved ; ( credo unam sanctam , doth , it seems , not prove it ) but if there were as many churches , as provinces , if they are true , they are one , as hath been explained . nor stands it with the very institution of the creed , to say , i believe many true churches ; no more than to say , i believe in many true faiths ; ( which i suppose there is some new institution for also , believing in the true faith ) for if they be true , say i , they are one ( harp not therefore any more on that jarring string . ) it is really a miserable case for a church , which is able to speak somewhat better for her self , to be exposed by such advocates , as do not understand her own principles . for will any learned romanist deny , that there are several particular true churches ? or , will any protestant deny , that all true churches are one catholick church , which we profess in our creed ? but the controversy between us and the cardinal , is quite of a different nature , not whether there are any particular true churches , nor whether all the true churches in the world make one catholick church ; but whether the church of rome ( which considered in it self is but a particular church ) be the only true catholick church , the center of catholick unity ? so that no church is a true church , but only by communion with , and subjection to the church of rome . now this he can never prove by the notes of a true church , unless he first prove , that there is but one particular church , the communion with , and subjection to which makes all other churches true churches : for if there be more true churches than one , which owe subjection to no other church , but only a friendly and brotherly correspondence ; then though his notes of a church could prove the church of rome to be a true church , yet they could not prove , that all other churches must be subject to the church of rome . the church of england may be a true church still , though she renounce obedience to the bishop of rome . but he undertakes to prove the church of rome , not to be the mistress , which as it may be construed , is invidious ( though she challenges all the authority of a mistress ) but the mother of other churches . and if he could do it , it were nothing to the present argument , which is not , whether the church of rome be the mistress or mother ( which he pleases ) of all other churches , but whether the bare notes of a true church can prove this prerogative of the church of rome , when there are other true churches besides her self . but yet his arguments to prove this are very considerable : 1st . because the church of rome is acknowledged to be so by all in communion with her , ( p. 37. ) which is indeed unanswerable : the church of rome her self , and all in communion with her , say , she is the mo-mother of all other churches , and therefore she is so . 2dly , the learned king iames the first , did not stick to own her . did king iames the first own the pope's supremacy ? 3. to us in england 't is past denial , our mother and nurse too . our step-mother we will own her , and nothing more . but 't is her authority that keeps up in england , above all other reformed churches , our bishops , our liturgy , our cathedrals ; by her records , her evidences , they stand the shock of antichristian adversaries . this is strange news ! we are indeed then more beholden to the church of rome , than we thought for ; but does the church of rome allow our bishops , or our liturgy ? how then does her authority keep them up ? truly only because she cannot pull them down , and i pray god she may never be able to do it . she is not our principle , as he speaks , and never shall be our center again . his fourth argument is from vitruvius ( which i believe is the first time it was used ) from the situation of rome for the empire of the world , which he thinks holds as well for the empire of the church . and so he concludes with our lords elogies of st. peter's chair , which i could never meet with yet . this is a formidable man , especially considering how many such writers the church of ●ome is furnished with . i added , that they must prove , that the catholiks church does not signifie all the particular true churches that are in the world , but some one church , which is the fountain of catholick unity : that is , says he , he should say , not only signifie all , but also some one , p. 39. no , sir , i say , not signifie all , but some one . the cardinal proposes to find out by his notes the one true catholick church among all the communions of christendom ; and to prove that the church of rome is this catholick church . now i say , this is a senseless undertaking , unless he can prove , that the catholick church does not signifie all the particular true churches , which make the one church and body of christ , but some one church , which is the fountain of catholick unity , and communion with which , gives the denomination of catholick churches to all others . now what has our answerer to say to this , besides his criticism of all , and some one ? truly he fairly grants it , and says , that other churches , as daughters of the mother-church , are formally catholick ; but take the mother by her self , and she is fundamentally catholick . but this i say , ought to have been proved , that there is any one church which alone is the catholick church , as the foundation of catholick unity ; which the cardinal's notes cannot prove . that the catholick church began in one single church , ( as he says ) i readily grant , and became catholick by spreading it self all over the world ; but thus the church at ierusalem , not at rome , was the matrix , as he speaks , of the catholick church , which yet gave the church of ierusalem no preheminency or authority over all other churches . but the church of rome does not pretend her self to be fundamentally catholick in this sense , that she was the first church , but that by virtue of saint peter's chair , the soveraign authority of the church is seated in her , and none can belong to the catholick church , but those who embrace her communion , and submit to her authority . which shows how well our answerer understood this controversie , when he says , ( pag. 40. ) time was when the church of ierusalem was so , ( that is , the catholick church , as it was the first and only church , and the matrix of all other churches ) or the church of antioch , ( which never was so ) then why not the church of rome ? what think you , in the sense given ? the church of rome does not challenge to be the catholick church in the sense now given , i. e. as the first and original church ; and if she did , all the world knows , she was not ; and the sense now given will not prove the church of rome to be the catholick church , in the sense in which she claims it . but this is intolerable to dispute with men , who do not understand what they dispute about . to hasten then to a conclusion ; for if my reader , as i suspect , is by this time sick of reading , he may easily guess , how sick i am of writing . the last thing i objected against bellarmin's notes was , that they pretend to find out an infallible church by notes , on whose authority we must relie for the whole christian faith , even for the holy scriptures themselves . for suppose he had given us the notes of a true church — before we can hence conclude , that this church is the infallible guide , and uncontroulable iudg of controversies , we must be satisfied that the church is infallible . — this can never be proved but by scripture ; for unless christ have bestowed infallibility on the church , i know not how we can prove she has it ; and whether christ have done it or not , can never be proved but by the scriptures : so that a man must read the scriptures , and use his own judgment to understand them , before it can be proved to him , that there is an infallible church ; and therefore those who resolve the belief of the scripture into the authority of the church , cannot without great impudence , urge the authority of the scriptures to prove the churches infallibility ; and yet thus they all do ; nay , prove their notes of the church from scripture , as the cardinal does . to which our adversary answers : infallibility and transubstantiation ; god forgive all the stirs that have been made upon their account . amen , say i , and so far we are agreed . he makes some little offers at proving an infallible judg , or at least a judg which must have the final decision of controversies , whether infallible or not ; this is not the present dispute , but how we shall know whether the church be infallible or not ? if by the scriptures , how we shall know them without the church ? to avoid a circle here of proving the church by the scriptures , and the scriptures by the church , he says , there are other convictions whereby the word of god first pointed at by the church , makes out its divine original . but let him answer plainly , whether we can know the scriptures to be the word of god , and understand the true sense of them , without the infallible authority of the church ? if he will say we can , we are agreed , and then we will grant , that we may find out the church by the scripture ; but then he must not require us afterwards to receive the scripture and interpretation of it upon the authority of the church ; and so farewell to popery . as for that advice i gave protestants , where they dispute with papists , whatever they do at other times , not to own the belief of the scriptures , till they had proved them in their way by the authority of the church : and then we should quickly see , what blessed work they would make of it : how they would prove their churches infallibility , and what fine notes we should have of a church , when we had rejected all their scripture-proofs , as we ought to do , till they have first satisfied us , that theirs is the only true infallible church , upon whose authority we must believe the scriptures , and every thing else . he says , it is very freakish , to say no worse — especially when i grant ( to my cost ) that we come to the knowledg of the scripture by the uninterrupted tradition of credible witnesses , though i will not say , tradition of the church . but if he understand no difference between the authority of an infallible judg , and of a witness , he is not fit to be disputed with . as for what i said , that i would gladly hear what notes they would give a pagan to find out the true infallible church by ; he honestly confesses , there can be no place for such notes , when the authority of the scripture is denied . which is a plain confession , how vain these notes are , till then believe the scriptures ; and when they believe the scriptures , they may find more essential notes of a church than these , viz. that true evangelical faith and worship , which makes a church ; but these notes the cardinal rejects , because we cannot know the true faith , and the scriptures , without the church ; and the justifier of bellarmin says , that there can be no place for the notes of the church , when the authority of the scripture is denied : and therefore they must first agree this matter , before i can say any thing more to them . but yet he says , if the church should say to a pagan , we have some books sacred with us , which we reckon are oracles of god , transmitted to us from generation to generation , for almost seventeen hundred years , which we and our forefathers have been versed in by daily explications , homilies , sermons . however you accord not with the contents of the book , yet we justly take our selves to be the best iudges and expounders of those oracles . the pagan would say , the church spoke reason , pag. 44. but nothing to the purpose . for the question is , what notes of a church you will give to a pagan , to convince him , which is the true church , before he believes the scripture ; and here you suppose a pagan would grant , that you were the best interpreters of books that you accounted divine , and had been versed in near seventeen hundred years . but would this make a pagan believe the scripture ? or take your words for such notes of a church , as you pretended to produce out of scripture ? especially if he knew that there were other christians , who pretended to the scriptures and the interpretation of them , as well as your selves ; and the only way you had to defend your selves against them , was without the authority of scripture , to make your selves judges both of the scriptures and the interpretation of them . but he knows none that are so senseless to resolve all their faith into the authority of the church . i perceive he does not know cardinal bellarmin , whom he undertakes to justifie , as any one would guess by his way of justifying him : let but the romanists quit this plea , that our faith must be resolved into the authority of the church , and i shall not despair to see our other disputes fairly ended . for the conclusion of the whole , i observed , that it is a most senseless thing to resolve all our faith into the authority of the church . — whereas it is demonstrable , that we must know , and believe most of the articles of the christian faith , before we can know , whether there be any church or not . the order observed in the apostles creed is a plain evidence of this : for all those articles which are before the holy catholick church , must in order of nature be known before it . this he grants , that in order of nature all these articles of the creed concerning father , son , and holy ghost , must be known , before we can know a church , but to us the church is most known : which is plain and down-right non-sense ; if by most known , he means first known , which is the present dispute ; for whatever by the order of nature must be known first , must be first known without any distinction . for we speak now not of the methods of learning , but of resolving our faith into its first principles , and that surely must follow the order of nature . if the belief of the churches authority be not in order of nature before the belief of father , son , and holy ghost , it is a senseless thing to resolve our faith into that , which though we should grant were the first cause of knowing these , yet is not the first principle in order of nature , into which faith must be resolved . children indeed , as he observes , must receive their creed upon the authority of their parents , or of the church , which is more known to them , than their creed ; as all other scholars must receive the first principles of any art or science upon the authority of their masters . but will you say , that the latin tongue is resolved into the authority of the school-master , because his scholars in learning the latin tongue rely on his authority ? which yet is just as good sense as to say , that our faith must be resolved into the authority of the church , because the church teaches catechumens their catechism , and they receive it upon the authority of their parents , or priests . and hence indeed he may conclude , that a young catechumen knows his teachers before he knows his creed ; but to conclude that he knows a church first , as that signifies a blessed society , where salvation is to be had , is a little too much ; for that supposes that he knows the church before he has learnt unam sanctam ecclesiam , that is , before he has found the church in the creed ; which is great forwardness indeed . if he does not speak of children , but of men-catechumens , for such there were in the primitive church , and such he seems to speak of , when he says , it is plain , that the catechumen knew there was a church , a blessed society , where salvation was to be had , before he would enter himself to be catechised in the faith. i do not doubt , but such men did know the church , before they submitted to the instructions of it ; but they knew christ too , and believed in him , before they knew the church . for they first believed in christ , and then joyned themselves to that society , which professed the christian faith , that they might be the better instructed in the doctrines of christianity ; that they might learn from the church , what the christian faith is , and the reasons of it ; not that they would wholly resolve their faith into church-authority . but i find by our author , that the creed was made only for catechumens : for he says , the first person used at the beginning of the creed , i believe , signifies i , who desire to be made a member of the church , by the holy sacrament of initiation , do believe what hath been proposed to me first , and then comprehended in that fundamental breviate . what he designs by this , i cannot guess ; for still the catechumen professes to believe in father , son , and holy ghost , before he believes the holy catholick church . but pray , what does i signifie , when a bishop , or priest , or the pope himself repeats the creed ? if , as he concludes , we must believe father , son , and holy ghost , before we can compleatly determine the church , and its definition ; he should have said , before we can know whether there be a church or not , much less believe upon its authority , then indeed , as he says , the creed must begin with i believe in god. but if our faith must be resolved into the authority of the church , as the church of rome teaches ; and as these laborious endeavours of finding out a church by extra-essential notes supposes ; then the creed , as i said , ought to begin with , i believe in the holy catholick church , and upon the authority of this church , i believe in god the father almighty , and in iesus christ , and in the holy ghost . thus i have with invincible patience particularly answered one of the most senseless pamphlets that ever i read ; and i hope it will not be wholly useless ; for sometimes it is as necessary to expose non-sense as to answer the most plausible arguments ; though notwithstanding the mirth of it , i do not desire to be often so employed . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59903-e160 the use and great moment of notes , p. 1. pag. 2. pag. 4. pag. 5. disc. p. 1. ephes. 4. 1 , 2 , 3. 1 cor. 12. 12 , 13 , &c. disc. p. 5. pag. 6. disc. p. 9. disc. p. 9. disc. p. 10. disc. p. 13. disc. p. 14. disc. p. 15. joan. laun. epist. vol. 8. ep . 13. nicol. gatinaeo . disc. p. 17. disc. p. 19. disc. p. 22. the protestant resolved, or, a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation ellis, clement, 1630-1700. 1688 approx. 201 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 42 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2003-09 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a39265 wing e569 estc r6293 12142679 ocm 12142679 54867 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a39265) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 54867) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 761:8) the protestant resolved, or, a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation ellis, clement, 1630-1700. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. the second edition. [3], 80 p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1688. includes bibliographical references. also attributed to william sherlock. cf. dnb. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. salvation. 2003-06 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-06 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2003-07 rina kor sampled and proofread 2003-07 rina kor text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ the protestant resolved , &c. mar● . 12. 1687. guil. needham rr. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep . cant. a sacr. dom. the protestant resolved : or a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . the second edition . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdclxxxviii . no necessity for a protestant to turn roman catholick for salvation . we are all i hope thus far argeed , that sincere christianity is the sure way to salvation . that to be saved , we must have the hearts , and not content our selves with the bare name and naked profession of christians . that the authority of god and divine truth , and no worldly or carnal concern must sway and govern our whole conversation . if we be not religious in good earnest , resolving and endeavouring to honour god in heart and life , according to the holy gospel of our blessed iesus , it 's no matter to us what religion we profess , or to what church we join our selves . wickedness and hypocrisy , through what church soever our way lieth , lead assuredly to hell. a wicked protestant and a wicked papist will in hell be of the same communion . true christianity is none other but that which was taught at first by christ and his apostles , and all they who believe and live according to their doctrine shall be saved . herein again we are all i suppose agreed . and if so , i think it very reasonable we should agree as well in that which i now add . it is not material to enquire whether a man be of the church of rome , or of the church of england , to find whether or no he may be saved ; but he that would satisfy himself of the possibility of salvation in the way wherein he now is , ought to enquire whether he believe and live according to the doctrine taught by christ and his apostles ; seeing they who do this are good christians , what other names soever men may bestow upon them , and all that are such shall be saved . if therefore i may be able to satisfy my self that i believe , and live according to the doctrine deliver'd by christ and his apostles , i have no reason to doubt of the possibility of my salvation in the way wherein i now am , tho it were so , that i had never heard to this day of any such thing as a church headed by a pope or bishop of rome . and i am yet somewhat confident that a man may believe and live according to the doctrine of christ and his apostles , and never hear of a bishop of rome ; because once men certainly did so , and yet were saved . the next thing therefore that i have to do , is to enquire by what means i may certainly know , what was the doctrine of christ and his apostles ; for by the same means whereby this may be known , i may also know the certain way to salvation . if there be no such means left us , we are all fools in professing a religion , the certain doctrine whereof can by no means be known . if such means there be , there must be some certain records safely convey'd down from their time to ours ; for by what other means we at this distance of so many hundred years should be certainly inform'd what they taught , is by me unconceivable . these records then are to be diligently searched into , and impartially examined , and whosoever is found to believe and practise according to the doctrine in those records contained , may be concluded to be in the way to salvation . such certain records we have , even the books of the holy evangelists and apostles , which ( together with the books of the old testament ) we call the holy scripture . in this we are all again unamimous , both papists , and protestants agree , that the doctrine in these books contained is the doctrine of christ and his apostles , and divine truth . whence it certainly follows , that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to the doctrine contained in these books , whether it it be taught by papists or protestants , is to be rejected as none of the doctrine of christ and his apostles . it ought not therefore to satisfy me , that this or that doctrine is taught by the church of rome , or by the church of england ; for by which of them soever it be taught , if it be found contrary to the doctrine of the holy scripture , it is by the consent of both churches to be rejected . now seeing we protestants take this holy scripture , and it only , for the rule of faith and life ; it is certain , that holding to this rule , we do not err either in belief or practice : while on the other side we cannot be sure , thot they do not err in both , who receive another rule ; till it appear that the other rule which they receive , is as true and certain as ours is acknowledged to be . our part of the rule , and that which indeed we take to be the whole , being granted us ; all the question is about their part of it . ours is on all hands granted to be most sure and certain , their 's alone remains disputable ; and therefore i cannot yet see any reason , why i should think their way safer than our own , except it can be safer to follow an uncertain than a certain rule , which i think no body will be so hardy as to affirm . the rule which they of the roman communion advance against ours , is that of tradition . i am therefore next to to consider , first , what they understand by it : and , secondly , what greater reason i can find to perswade me , that it is safer to trust to it , whether singly , or in conjunction with our own , than to our own alone , which is the holy scripture . this tradition consists of such doctines of faith and practice as are supposed to have been taught either by christ himself , or being dictated by the holy ghost to his apostles , were delivered by them to the church , not in writing , but in word only , and so have successively been handed down from father to son , unto the present age. and these are all according to the council of trent to be received with equal affection of piety and reverence , as the holy scripture . now i confess , if it may appear as evidently to me that christ or his apostles left such doctrines to the custody of the church , of equal necessity to the salvation of christians , with those that are written in the scpipture , as it doth that they left us these which are written in the scripture ; and if i may be well assured , that these very doctrines which the church of rome now holds , and pretends to an authority of imposing upon all christendome , are indeed the very same which were at first ( as abovesaid ) deliver'd to the church , i can see no reason why i should not be bound to believe the one as firmly as the other . for seeing it is the authority of the first preachers of it , and not barely the writings of it , that bind me to believe the doctrine ; if i can be equally assured , that as well what is unwritten as what is written , was preach'd by them , as necessary to the salvation of mankind , i must needs also own an equal obligation upon me to believe them all alike . but neither of these could i ever see clear'd , nor can i conceive any hope that i shall hereafter . and seeing the proof of both lies wholly upon them , who affirm both ; i cannot be obliged to believe them , till by such proof they have convinced me . in the mean time , it seems enough to me , that god himself was pleas'd to signifie to the world his will in writing , which i cannot imagine why he should do , had he not intended we should learn his will from what is written , and not from any unwritten tradition . and i am the more confirm'd in this opinion by this , that he did not use this way of revealing his mind unto men at the first , nor till after the world had had a very long time to discern by experience the unfaithfulness of unwritten tradition . so that this and some other considerations whereupon the papists use to ground their arguments against both the necessity and perfection of the scripture , seem to me very fully to evince both the one and the other ; and so to leave no room at all for their unwritten traditions as any part of the rule of faith and life . yet , seeing they , who are always preaching this doctrine to us , that there is no salvation for them that are not of their communion , preach it not as a private opinion of their own , or of some few others in that communion ; but as the generally received doctrine of that church , which pretends to be no less than infallible ; it concerns me so much the more to use all possible diligence , to find out what truth there may be in this assertion . and that , not only because i shall thereby discern the necessity of changing my religion to make sure of my own future happiness ; but also , because the determination of this one point will at once put an end ( as it seems to me ) to all the disputes that are now between the papists and us. if i can find it true , that no man can be saved out of that communion , i shall be a fool to trouble my self with the study of the scriptures , and seeking out for my self in them a way to heaven ; when i may be sure , by stepping over the threshold out of the one church into the other , to meet with an infallible iudg , whom if i do but follow , i cannot go amiss . and to dispute any longer with my self , whether i should do so or not , would but shew me fitter for bedlam than for any church ; seeing none but the maddest man alive would dispute for damnation . on the other side , if i shall find it false , that a man cannot be saved out of that communion , i must needs be convinced that the roman church , which hath determined it for a certain truth , hath already err'd both in faith and charity , and that having erred , she is not infallible : and being not infallible , by her own confession cannot be that one , holy , catholick and apostolick church , out of which there is no salvation . so that as this assertion of that church shall be found to be , true or false ; even so will the popish religion appear also to be . but here i meet with a very great difficulty in my way , as i am going to seek out the truth or falshood of this assertion ; that however i may be able to satisfy my self , yet i shall never ( for ought i can see ) be able to satisfy them who are the authors of it , any other way , than by a total submission of my own iudgment and conscience too to their determination , and a blind obedience to their will. the dispute ( as is evident ) is between two churches , the one whereof challengeth to it self the big-swoln prerogative of being the lady and mother of all churches ; a sovereign authority of prescribing to the faith of all christians ; the right and incommunicable priviledg of being the sole and infallible iudg of all controversies in religion ; finally , an unquestionable power of defining and declaring to all the world the true and only terms of salvation . now , that this roman-mother and mistress-church , sole commandress and infallible iudg , having already in the fulness of power determin'd it , and by her supreme authority imposed an oath upon her subjects to maintain it , that none out of her communion can be saved , should after all this , in pure condescension to men declared hereticks , divest her self of her authority , lay aside her infallible definitions , come down from the tribunal and the throne of iudicature and majesty , and stand at the bar submitting her self and the whole cause to an indifferent and equal trial , is a thing as little to be hoped for , as it is yet unagreed upon by what law , iury or iudg the controversy should be decided . and truly on the other side , it seems to me altogether as unreasonable in her to accept , that we protestants of the church of england , tho we pretend to nothing of this exorbitant power over her or other churches , or of determining disputes for all the world , should yet , upon a naked summons from her , whose authority we question , and see no reason to acknowledg , forthwith subscribe to the sentence of our own condemnation , without any fair and legal process , or indeed so much as yield to a trial , where our professed adversaries must be at once the law-makers , accusers , witnesses ; and yet this is most notoriously our case . what course now in this case can be taken by us ? the church of rome tells us expresly and peremptorily , we cannot be saved out of her communion . must we believe her without any more ado ? that 's indeed the way to make a short end of all our differences , for then we must yield to be her 's , or else run headlong to damnation : but if we believe her not ( as for my part i know not how we can do , till we see some reason why we should do so ) the dispute ( for ought i can see ) is like to be endless . for no such reasons can , or ought she to give us , if she will be constant to her self , and stand to her own principles , ( as will plainly appear anon ) and if she desert her own principles , she must yield her self to be fallible , and not the true church ; and then in vain is all talk of reasons , why they that are not of her communion should be damned . however , suppose it be pretended ( as indeed it is ) that we have had sufficient reasons given us , why we ought to believe her in this point . this then is the present question between us , whether she hath given us sufficient reason for this , or no. she confidently affirms it , we as confidently deny it . she calls us obstinate hereticks for denying it , and lays many a heavy curse upon us : we for this think her a very unreasonable and imperious mistress , usurping an authority over us , which god never gave her . who i wonder shall now be thought fit to decide this dispute ? she will be tried and judg'd by no other but her self ; for she is resolv'd to be sole and infallible iudg in all controversies of religion : that is in plain terms , she will accuse us , and she will leave us no room for our own defence ; she will condemn us , and she will not permit us to question the iustice of her sentence . she tells us , we are bound to believe her , and obey her , or else we must die eternally for it . we desire some reason may be brought to convince us of this duty : and she tells us again , she is our supreme and infallible mistress , and mother , and iudg ; and so the conclusion is , we must believe she hath this supreme authority and infallibility , because she is supreme and infallible ; which we can yet see no reason to believe , and therefore cannot believe ; and because we cannot believe it , we are declared to be hereticks , and in a state of damnation . seeing then , that the church of rome will by no means recede from her claim to this supremacy and infallibility ; it seems plain to me , that there is no possibility of satisfying her any way whatsoever but by yielding my self up intirely to her without any farther dispute . but because i cannot do this , without violence to my conscience , and incurring that very damnation , which she would persuade me thereby to prevent ; i must of necessity leave her a while to satisfy her self about the truth and charity of this doctrine as she can ; whilst i for my own private satisfaction take into a very serious consideration these two things . i. whether i can discern any solid ground to hope , that i may be saved , as i am now a protestant of the church of england . ii. what more hopeful way to salvation the church of rome can me put into , should i enter into her communion . if the result of this double enquiry shall be , that i really think my self in a fair way to salvation where i am already , and cannot discern any more hopeful way to it in the church of rome ; i must needs accout my self bound in conscience , and under the penalty of damnation , to steer my course according to the best light i shall be able , by such a diligent and impartial inquiry , to attain unto , and content my self with that religion , which seems best and safest to me , till some better and safer can be found . sect . i. the first thing i am to inquire into , is , what good ground of hope i can discern that i may be saved as i am a protestant . and here the first thing i am to consider is , what i mean by the name of protestant , as it is own'd by the members of the church of england , and as i can heartily answer to it . by a protestant i understand no other but a christian , adhering firmly both in faith and practice to the written word of god , and protesting against both the faith and practice of the papists , and all others whatsoever , so far only , as they are either repugnant to the holy scripture in any thing , or ungrounded on the same in things pretended by them necessary to salvation . such protestants do we of the church of england profess our selves to be , as is apparent unto all , from the 6 th of our xxxix articles , affirming , that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man , that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . this is our very first principle , as we are called protestants , and such an one i do heartily profess my self ; neither see i yet the least cause to doubt of my salvation , whilst by the grace of god i live answerably to this profession . for that the protestant religion built upon this principle is a safe religion , is i think altogether as plain , as that christianity it self , pure and unmix'd , is the way to salvation ; because 't is plain , that this religion we profess , holding to this principle , can be nothing else but pure and unmix'd christianity , being that , and no other , which is contained in the holy scripture . is then the holy scripture the word of god or not ? was it given unto us of god to be the rule of our religion , that is , of our faith , worship , and holy conversation , or was it not ? if * bellarmine may be credited , this is the declaration of the catholick church , both in the third council of carthage , and also in that of trent . the books of the prophets and apostles are the true word of god , and the sure and stable rule of life . and as he shortly after adds , the most sure and safest rule . now , whether it be the compleat , perfect and adequate rule , as we constantly affirm ; or only a partial rule , or but some part of it , as the papists contend ; it self , when diligently consulted , will be best able to inform us . for it is on all hands granted to be the word of god , which cannot lie ; and therefore unquestionably true in all things what soever it teacheth us ; and of those many excellent things which it very plainly teacheth , its one perfection and sufficiency is one , and for my present satisfaction very considerable . i find in the first place , that god himself writ the ten commandments , the compleat rule of piety and iustice , with his own finger , exod. 31. 1 , 18. deut. 9. 10. & 10. 2 , 4. that he commanded them to be written on the posts and gates , deut. 6. 9. & 11. 20. that moses wrote all the words of the lord , exod. 24. 4. and deliver'd the writing to the priests to be read unto the people , deut. 31. 9. and that the king was to have by him a copy of it for his direction , deut. 17. 18. i find many curses denounced against the breakers of it , deut. 28. 58. and blessings promised to them that keep it , deut. 30. 10. i find it was expresly forbidden to add unto it , or to aiminish from it , deut. 4. 2 , 12 , 32. to turn from it to the right-hand or to the left , josh. 1. 7. and that the good kings were careful to order all things according to it , and to reform what had been amiss by it , 1 chron. 16. 40. 2 kings 22. 13. and therefore i do not wonder to hear the psalmist , saying , the law of the lord is perfect , converting the soul , psal. 19. 7. nor to find isaiah sending men to the law , and to the testimony , saying , if any speak not according to this word , it is because there is no light in them , isa. 8. 20. again , i find our blessed saviour himself , and his apostles after him , very frequently appealing and referring their hearers to that which had been written in the books of moses , in the psalms , and in the prophets . they have moses and the prophets , let them hear them , saith abraham in the parable , luk. 16. 29. search the scriptures ( saith christ , joh. 5. 39. ) for in them ye think ye have eternal life , and they are they which testify of me . i find that st. luke , writing his gospel , gives his theophilus this good reason for it ; that thou mightst know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed , luk. 1. 4. the things which are most surely believed among us , v. 1. all things of which himself had perfect understanding from the very first , v. 3. i find st. iohn , who wrote last of all the apostles , affirming , that tho iesus did many other signs , which are not written in that book of his , yet these are written , that we may believe that jesus is the christ the son of god , and that believing we might have life through his name , joh. 20. 30 , 31. and finally i find st. paul asserting the perfection of the holy scripture as fully and plainly as any man can speak , 2 tim. 3. 15 , 16 , 17. saying , that the holy scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith which is in christ iesus . that all scripture is given by inspiration of god , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness , that the man of god may be perfect , throughly furnished unto all good works . now what more can we desire , than to be made wise unto salvation ? and we are here plainly told , that the holy scripture is able to make us so . what more can be needful to direct us in the way to salvation , than what we may learn from the scriptare ? it is profitable for our information and establishment in the truth , for the confutation of error and heresy , for the correction of vice and wickedness , for our instruction in righteousness . it is so profitable for all these purposes , that thereby the man of god , the pastor and teacher may be made compleat , and well furnish'd for all the branches of his office , all the works of his holy calling . in short , it is able to bring us to faith in christ iesus ; and whosoever believeth in him , shall not perish , but have everlasting life ; joh. 3. 16. furthermore ; from the same scripture i also learn , that unwritten or oral tradition hath ever been found too deceitful a thing to be relied on for so great a matter as salvation . i find that before the flood , notwithstanding the long lives of men , the few principles of natural religion , and the easiness of learning and remembring things so agreeable to humane nature , yet all flesh had soon corrupted his way upon the earth , gen. 6. 12. and every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually , v. 5. and after the flood , the whole world was quickly over-run with idolatry : so ill was the doctrine which had been preach'd by noah and his sons , preserved by oral tradition . nay , i find , that after god was pleas'd to give the iews his will in writing , their teachers had so corrupted the doctrine of god with their traditions , that it was a great part of our blessed saviour's business , to rescue it from those traditional corruptions . he reproves the scribes and pharisees for transgressing the commandments of god by their traditions , mat. 15. 3. shewing them how they had made it of none effect by the same , v. 6. and that in vain they worshipp'd god , teachiag for doctrines the commandments of men , v. 9. and st. paul warns the colossians to beware of being deceived through philosophy and vain deceit , after the tradition of men , after the rudiments of the world , and not after christ , col. 2. 6. and the special occasion of writing most of the epistles , yea and the gospels too , seems to be the danger that christians were in of being seduced by false teachers , from the doctrine of christ and his apostles , under the pretence of tradition . such were the wolves in sheeps cloathing , mat. 7. 15 false apostles , deceitful workers , transforming themselves into the apostles of christ , 2 cor. 11. 13. pretending to another gospel , gal. 3. 6. men of sleight and cunning craftiness , lying in wait to deceive , eph. 4. 14. from what i find in the scripture , i must needs conclude , till i be better inform'd , that it is a sufficient rule for us to go by ; and that , so long as we hold us to it alone , in our faith and practice , there can be no necessity of resorting to the church of rome , for that unto which our bibles at home can direct us . the scripture is the word of god , and sure rule of faith , saith the infallible church of rome , if bellarmine may be believ'd : this holy scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation , saith the this infallible scripture ; and we take no other but this holy and infallible scripture for the rule of our faith and religious practice , say we protestants . what now should hinder me to infer from hence , that if the scripture be the word of god , we protestants are very well as we are ; for we have the word of the infallible god , and if it may stand us in any stead , the word of the infallible church ( as she will needs be accounted ) to assure us , that adhering to the holy scripture , we are in the ready and sure way to salvation . farther yet , as i am a protestant of the church of england , i do declare in the words of our viiith article , that the three creeds , nice creed , athanasius creed , and that which is commonly called the apostles creed , ought throughly to be received and believ'd ; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture . seeing then , we receive and throughly believe the same creeds , and no other , which the church of rome her self professeth to believe ; and which were thought by the catholick church of christ , for above 400 years after the first planting of christianity , to contain all points of faith necessary for the salvation of christians ; i think i have hence gather'd this farther confirmation of my assurance , that we protestants are in the direct way to salvation ; that we are of the very same religion , and no other , in all the necessary points of christian faith , whereof the catholick church evidently was in the first and purest ages of it . in the four first general councils no other articles of faith were held needful to be believed by christians , but those of these creeds , which we entirely own and believe . either then it is true , that these three creeds contain all necessary points of christian faith , or it is not . if it be true , we are safe enough , and can with no colour of reason be said to err in faith , or to deserve the name of hereticks . if it be not true , then were all those primitive christians as much hereticks as we are , and knew no more , than we do , what belong'd to the salvation of christians . and strangely partial is the church of rome in approving the faith of those councils , which one of their most famous popes and saints is said to have reverenced as the four gospels , and yet to condemn ours , tho in all points the very same . especially when the third of those councils , held at ephesus in the time of pope celestine , did expresly decree , that it should not be lawful to utter , write , or compose any other faith , besides that which had been defined by the holy fathers congregated in the holy ghost in the city of nice . ordering , that all they should be punish'd , who tender'd any other to such as had a desire to be converted to the knowledg of the truth , whether they were gentiles , jews , or of any other heresy . whereby 't is plain , that the fathers in this third council did conclude that creed to comprehend the entire faith of a christian , and indeed a man would think that the council of trent had in the beginning of it been altogether of the same mind , when of the same creed it thus declared it self ; that it is that principle wherein all that profess the faith of christ do necessarily agree , and the firm and onely foundation against which the gates of hell shall not prevail . i may , i think , upon these considerations , without more ado , be very well satisfied of the safety of the protestant religion . the papists themselves must grant , that whatsoever we believe or practise , as of necessity to salvation , really is so ; and therefore , that we do not err either in our faith or practice , whilst we live according to our own principles . for if we err in either , so far do they err also ; and not they only , but all the christian world. and here we may press them with their own way of arguing , and to much more purpose , than they are wont to use it against us . when they would convince us that their religion is the safer , they are wont thus to argue ; that religion is the safer , wherein , by the confession of both sides , a man may be saved : but both sides confess , that a man may be saved in the popish religion , and both sides do not confess that a man may be saved in the protestant religion : therefore the popish religion is the safer . supposing now this way of arguing for the safety of their religion from the confession of both parties be of any strength , as they must suppose it to be , who so often and confidently use it ; then must the like argument from the same medium , be altogether as strong for us . i would only beg of them to grant me this , ( and i hope they will not say my request is unreasonable ) that that religion is the safest , all the doctrines whereof are the truest . if they will not grant me this , they must grant it safer to hold some false doctrines than all true . but if they think this absurd , then must they give me leave thus to argue ; that religion is the safest , wherein all doctrines held or taught , as necessary to salvation , are , by the confession of both sides , certainly true . now both sides confess , that all doctrines , held or taught in the protestant religion , are certainly true ; and both sides do not confess , that all doctrines held and taught in the popish religion are certainly true : therefore the protestant religion is the safer . the same articles of faith , the same rules and precepts of life , the same acts of religious worship , the same holy sacraments , the same holy orders of ministers , which we have ; the very same have they also . but they have many things of all these sorts , which we have not ; no nor any other christians , but those of their own communion . and therefore to strengthen my argument , yet more i say , if that doctrine and practice be the safest , wherein all good christians agree ; we are sure that ours is the safest , because all good christians do agree in them ; and that theirs is not safe , because all good christians do not agree in them . nay let me add this more : our religion is either safe and true , in all things pretended by us necessary to salvation ; or there is no such thing as a safe and true christian religion in the world visibly professed ; and if so , it will follow , that christ hath no true visible church upon earth , which i am confident no papist will say . the consequence is plain , because all christians all the world over , that make any figure of a church , hold the same both faith and practice with us , in what we account necessary to salvation , the church of rome it self not excluded . tho it be very certain , that we positively and affirmatively hold nothing in faith or practice , as necessary to salvation , but what is held by the church of rome her self , and all other christian churches ; yet will not the men of that church allow us any possibility of being saved , whilst we are protestants . and he , who of late hath been at some pains to represent the papist to us in his fairest dress , hath labour'd as hard in this point , as in any other , to shew that his church is not uncharitable in the doctrine she delivers concerning our desperate estate . now although i am not enquiring , whether this doctrine be charitable or uncharitable , but only whether it be true or false ; yet , for my better satisfaction , i will examine all that he saith to this purpose . he tells us , his church doth nothing herein but what she hath learn'd of christ and his apostles . and if he can shew me this , i must needs be fully satisfied , being verily perswaded they never taught any thing uncharitable or untrue . to shew this , he tells us , how christ , mark. 16. 16. hath said , he that believeth and is baptised , shall be saved ; but he that believeth not , shall be damned . and this is all his church delivers in this point . if this be all she delivers , we cannot call her uncharitable for it , for we our selves willingly subscribe to this sentence of our blessed saviour . only we think , he did not here teach and authorise the church of rome to say , that all who are not of her faith and communion , shall be damn'd ; tho she knows they believe all that christ sent his apostles to teach them . i do not find in the roman ritual , that the church of rome in the baptising either of infants or adult persons , uses or requires any other confession of faith , but that only of the apostles creed , which is the same we use ; and if to beleive and be baptised in this faith , be enough for the salvation of papists , why is it not enough also for protestants ? and if the additional articles of the trentine faith , and p. pius his creed be necessary to salvation , why is there no mention made of them in the roman order of baptism ? he adds that of st. paul , ( 1 tim. 4. 1 , 2 , 3. ) where foretelling of some who in later times would come and preach a doctrine , forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats , which god hath created to be received ; he brands them with the infamous title , of men that depart from the faith ; giving heed to seducing spirits , and doctrines of devils . and several other places of scripture he then produceth , to shew that hereticks , such as they that affirmed the resurrection to be past already , or denied that jesus is the christ , &c. are in a state of condemnation . other texts of scripture he brings , wherein christians are charged to be unanimous , and condemned for causing strife and divisions , warn'd to maintain unity , and not to hearken to false teachers and seducers , &c. but i find not by all this , that st. paul or any of the apostles , taught the church of rome , which both forbids to marry , and commands to abstain from meats allow'd of god ; which teacheth divers doctrines , whereof we find not any thing in the scripture , to condemn those for hereticks , that adhere wholly to the doctrine of the scripture ; or for schismaticks , who hold communion with all christians , so far as they keep to the doctrine of christ and his apostles ; and divide from the church of rome , no farther , than in those points only wherein they cannot hold her communion and the doctrine of christ too . i do not see , but after the same rate , as he here defends the charity of his church , he might also defend her iustice , if she should pretend , that because christ commanded his disciples to fetch him another man's ass and her colt ; she did but what he taught , in taking away other mens goods , and giving no other reason for it but this , that she hath need of them . what the papists say more , to shew that we can have no saving faith , is one of these two things . either , first , that it is not an entire faith , there being ( as they say ) many necessary articles which we believe not : or , secondly , that it is no right-grounded faith , seeing it is not built upon sufficient authority , that is to say , on the authority of the catholick church . their first objection to the protestant faith is this , that it is no entire faith. and here i am told by the representer , there is no more hopes for one that denies obstinately any one point of catholick faith , tho he believes all the rest ; than there is for one that keeps nine of the commandments , with the breach of the tenth . now this seems to me no great encouragement to change the communion of the church of england for that of rome , if an entire faith and an entire obedience be but equally necessary . i wish with all my heart i could be as sure , that the church of rome doth not break the first commandment , by her invocation of saints , and adoration of the host ; and the second commandment , in her adoration of images and the cross ; as i am sure , that the church of england neither obstinately denies any article of the catholick faith ; nor countenanceth the breach of any one of the ten commandments , as that church seems too much to do , whilst she takes no little care , that the people may not know them all . we stedfastly believe the whole scripture , so far as we are able to understand it explicitly ; and when we do not implicitly , we receive the three creeds , which have ever been thought to contain the entire faith of a christian : wherein then is our faith partial or defective ? i must consider that anon : at present , seeing obstinacy , according to our adversaries , is a necessary ingredient of an heretick ; i can easily assure my self , tho i do not see how 't is possible for me to satisfy them , that i am no heretick ; for i certainly know , that i am very desirous to be throughly inform'd , and to be brought to a right understanding of all necessary truths ; and am still in a readiness , and full preparation of mind , to believe any one or all of their articles , whensoever they shall please to prove the truth of them , either by scripture , or by unquestionable apostolical tradition . i am sure therefore , i deny not obstinately any one point of catholick faith. but till they vouchsafe me the proof i desire , i must content my self with the scripture , which is able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in christ iesus , and not in the pope of rome , nor in the roman church . and yet i find , that it is for this especially , that we are call'd hereticks , that we adhere only to the scripture ; and that they often explain their meaning , in bestowing that title on us , by calling us scripturists and gospellers ; and ridicule us for talking of only scripture . but when i consider , that this is the fundamental heresy wherewith we are charged , i cannot but a little wonder at it ; and find less cause than ever , to think we can be hereticks indeed , or that they can call us so any otherwise than in jest . can they grant the scripture to be the word of god , and the gospel to be the power of god unto salvation ; and yet in earnest call us hereticks for being scripturists and gospellers ? if , submitting our faith in all things to the scripture , we can be hereticks ; then must the scripture teach heresy , and cannot be the word of god. what a contradiction is this in papists , to call us scripturists and hereticks ; which is in effect to say , that we adhere only to the infallible truth of god , and yet are guilty of obstinate error in the faith ? what is it then wherein our faith is defective ? it is in this , that we do not believe all that the church of rome propounds to be believed . this indeed would make us papists , but whether it would make us better christians than we are already , is not so certain . a papist ( saith the representer ) is one that lives and believes what is prescribed in the council of trent . but this rule of the papists faith came into the world ( as we think ) too late , almost by fifteen hundred years , to be the rule of the christian faith ; and therefore he could not have represented his religion to us with greater disadvantage than here he doth . we cannot conceive how so small a handful of prelats , most of them italians , sworn vassals to the bishop of rome , assembled together at trent fifteen hundred years after christ's preaching , and wholly limited and directed in all their proceedings by the will and command of him , whose authority was the principal thing in question , and submitting all at last to him alone , should come by that immense authority , to command the faith of the christian world , or what commission they could shew from christ , the supream lawgiver , to prescribe laws of faith and life to all christendom . and we can as little conceive , how this pretended council , could at once confirm all the general councils , and among the rest , that of ephesus before mention'd ; yea , and declare the nicene creed to be the firm and only foundation , and yet contrary to the decree of that ephesine council , and not very consistently to it 's own declaration , decree so many more points , than that creed contains , as necessary to be believed . moreover , if this be the great oracle we must consult , as our surest guide to heaven ; where must we meet with him , that can give us the certain sense of its general and ambiguous responses ? the learnedst of the romish church are not yet well agreed about it ; and if the english representer , or french expounder have had the luck to hit it , i am sure , that many heretofore , who thought themselves as wise as either of them , have strangely miss'd it : or else that council , and the religion call'd popery , hath several faces for several times and countries , and in one place and time , shall look like it self , and in another shall be made to look as like the protestant religion , as the artificial painter dares make it . but that which here put us to a stand in this , that as the pope at first taught that council to speak ; so hath he reserved the interpretation of its decrees to the see apostolick , or himself only ; and he is not always pleas'd in plain terms to let us know his mind ; and if he should , for once , speak out plainly , it will be a little hard for him to assure us , that none of his successors shall hereafter contradict him ; unless he can satisfy us , that he has as well the gift of prophesying , as that of defining and interpreting . however , it is for not believing the new articles of trent , that we are accounted hereticks , and out of the way to heaven . and the reason is , because these articles are supposed to be as firmly grounded on the word of god , as any of those old ones which we believe : for the word of god ( saith the council of trent ) is partly contain'd in the books of scripture , and partly in traditions unwritten ; these are to be received with the same affection of piety and reverence ; and therefore he that disbelieves any article grounded upon unwritten tradition , is no less a heretick , than he that disbelieves what is written in the books of scripture . if i knew how to be satisfied concerning the authority of this council , i could easily tell what credit i should give to this , which it so confidently affirms . but so long as i cannot discern the reason of it's pretended authority , i am a little apt to suspect , that it was not the clearness of this principle that moved it to make so many either unscriptural or antiscriptural decrees ; but rather the desire it had of vindicating its unscriptural doctrines and practices , that made it necessary to espouse such a principle . and indeed when i well consider it , i am not a little comforted by it ; that this equalling unwritten tradition with scripture , which is the very basis of the romish religion , is one of the most incredible things in the world of it self , and as destitute of any tolerable evidence , whence it may gain any credit to it self . it must needs seem very strange to any considering man , that the wise god should leave us a rule in writing , on purpose to direct us how to honour him , and attain to salvation ; and give it this commendation , that it is able to make wise unto salvation ; and yet omit a great many things altogether as necessary to those ends , as those that are written ; and without the belief and practice whereof , those that are written can no whit avail us ; and yet never so much as once tell us in all that writing , whither we should go to seek and learn them : nay , that he should omit therein the principal point of all , and without which all that is either written or unwritten can signify nothing , that is , to tell us , that the roman church is the only true church , the only sure and infallible interpreter of all that is written ; and the only faithful keeper of all that is unwritten ; from the mouth whereof we must receive all saving truth . this i think is a thing that must needs be very hard for any one to believe , that believes the infinite wisdom , goodness and veracity of god. and how it can ever be made evident , that there are such necessary unwritten traditions , or that these , which the church of rome holds , are they ; i think no man living can imagine . i am sure if the papists way of reasoning be good , it 's safer not to believe this . for all sides consent , that the scripture which we have is the certain word of god ; but all sides are not agreed , that unwritten traditions are the word of god ; therefore it is safer to believe the scripture only to be the word of god , and not traditions . we hold us to scripture , and the papists grant that to be the safest rule ; their greatest strength lies in unwritten , or ( as they are wont to speak ) oral and practical traditions ; which in plain english , is no more but report and custom ; and whether there can reasonably be thought any certainty in these , equal to that of the written word of god given by divine inspiration , can be no hard matter for a very weak understanding to determine . that which makes these unwritten traditions of the less credit with me , is the assurance i have , that a pretence to them , and a vain confidence in them , hath produced much error and division in the church . 't is well known , how far , and how long the errors of the millenaries , and of administring the eucharist to infants ( to mention no more ) prevail'd on this account . and the early schisms betwixt the roman and asian churches , about the keeping of easter ; and the hot contests between the roman and african churches about rebaptizing hereticks , were occasion'd , and upheld by pretences on all hands to tradition . this was the only refuge of old for hereticks , when they were confounded by the scripture , to take shelter under tradition : whence tertullian call'd them lucifugas scripturarum , men who shunn'd the light of the scriptures . again , saith he , they confess indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing , and differed not among themselves in their preaching ; but they will not have it , that they revealed all things to all ; for some things they deliver'd openly to all , some things secretly and to a few ; and that because st. paul useth this saying to timothy , o timothy , keep that which is committed to thy trust . and again , that good thing which is committed to thee , keep . irenaeus also makes mention of hereticks who affirm'd , that out of the scriptures the truth could not be found out by them who understood not tradition , because it was not deliver'd by writing , but by living voice ; for which cause also st. paul said , we speak wisdom among them that are perfect . st. augustine in his 97th tract upon iohn , saith , that all the most foolish hereticks , who desire to be accounted christians , used to colour their audacious fictions with a pretence from that sentence of the gospel , joh. 16. 10. i have many things to say unto you , but you cannot bear them now . thus did the hereticks of old both plead tradition , and sought to strengthen their plea by such places of scripture as these ; which are the very same , that the papists produce to the same purpose , as may be seen in bellarmine , and others . but i find that the orthodox fathers of the church were of another mind . the things which we find not in the scriptures ( saith st. ambrose ) how can we use them ? ambr. offic. l. 1. c. 23. let those of hermogenes his shop ( saith tertullian ) shew that it is written . if it be not written , let them fear that woe design'd for those that add or take away . irenaeus saith , that what the apostles had preach'd , the same afterwards by the will of god they deliver'd unto us in the scriptures , to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. st. hierome against helvidius , calls the holy scriptures the only fountain of truth . let us bring ( saith st. austin ) for trial , not the deceitful ballances , where we may hang on what we will , and how we will , at our own pleasure ; saying , this is heavy , and this is light ; but let us bring the divine ballance of the holy scriptures , and in that let us weigh what is heavier ; nay , let us not weigh , but let us own the things already weighed by the lord. and elsewhere , the holy scripture ( saith he ) fixeth the rule of our doctrine . and indeed the excellent sayings of the antients to this purpose are so well known , that i should be very vain to cite any more here . if now , after all this , i should suppose , what i can by no means yet grant , that god having order'd the scriptures to be written , and said so much in the commendation thereof ; they do not yet contain all things necessary to salvation , but that some part of those necessary things ( as both some hereticks of old , and papists now would have it believed ) was only whisper'd privately into the ears of the apostles , as mysteries unfit at that time to be communicated to vulgar christians ; and that the apostles ( tho they were commanded by christ to preach upon the house-tops that which he had told them privately in the ear , mar. 10. 27. ) did not yet think themselves obliged to obey this command in writing all that was necessary ; but rather to conceal for a time , a considerable part of that mysterious doctrine . yea , suppose that this was one principal use of st. peter's keys , to lock up all these mysteries in the cabinet of the churches breast ( let the church signify what it can ) to be communicated to the world , in after-ages by piece-meal , so as she should find men prepar'd by a blind credulity to receive them . yet after all , i must needs think , that we are too hardly dealt with to be called hereticks for not believing these things , till something be produced , whereby we may be assur'd , either that these things which they commend to us come indeed from christ & his apostles , or that we are obliged to take the church of rome's word for a good assurance . it seems to me a very unreasonable thing , that we should be condemn'd as obstinate , for not believing things never sufficiently proved , whilst we know and declare our selves prepared in mind to yield upon the first rational conviction . why should not that church have the charity to forbear her censures , till she have tried the strength of her arguments ? why was the council of trent , contrary to the custom of other councils , so liberal of her curses , and so sparing of her reasons ? one good reason would do more to make us of her communion than a thousand anathema's . would not a man suspect that they have no good reasons to shew , who keep them so close ? the plain truth is , there have been such vain pretences to tradition in all ages , one contradicting another , that it seems impossible in this age to discern between true and false . did not clemens alexandrinus call it an apostolical tradition , that christ preach'd but one year ? and did not irenaeus pretend a tradition , descending from st. iohn , that christ was about fifty years old when he was crucified ? and do the papists accout either of these to be true ? many things might be named , which for some time have been received as apostolical traditions , which the church of rome will not now own to be so . and those which she owns , she can no more prove to be so , than those she hath rejected . it were easy to shew this , even from abundance of their own writers , who assert the perfection of the scripture , and complain of the mischief this pretence to tradition hath done ; and who confess , they cannot be proved to come from the apostles . but i shall now content my self with the ingenuous confession of the bishops assembled at bononia , in their counsel given to p. iulius the 3 d. we plainly confess ( say they ) among our selves , that we cannot prove that which we hold and teach concerning traditions , but we have some conjectures only . and again ; in truth whosoever shall diligently consider the scripture , and then all the things that are usually done in our churches , will find there is great difference betwixt them ; and that this doctrine of ours is very unlike , and in many things quite repugnant to it . what said erasmus long since on the 2 d psalm : they call the people off ( saith he ) from the scriptures unto little humane traditions , which they have honestly invented for their own profit . and peter suter , a bitter adversary of his , hath these words ; since many things are delivered to be observed , which are not expresly found in holy scripture , will not unlearned persons , taking notice of these things , easily murmur ; complaining that so great burdens should be laid upon them , whereby the liberty of the gospel is so greatly impaired ? will they not also easily be drawn away from the observance of ecclesiastical ordinances , when they shall find that they are not contained in the law of christ ? and must we be hereticks for not believing these so uncertain traditions ? must our faith be accounted defective and not entire , meerly because we do not believe what no man can make us understand to co come from god ? this seems very hard . it is now time for me to consider the second objection made against our faith , which is , that it is not rightly grounded , it is not built on the authority of the church , that is , the church of rome . and indeed so much weight i find laid upon this one point , that i have some reason to think , that they , who have been very forward at all times to give such liberal allowances of implicit faith to their friends at home , would be contented with a very small measure of explicit belief in us , if we would once be taught to ground our faith aright , on the sole authority of that church . it seems to me , that for the talk about it , they are no such rigid exactors of an entire explicit faith in order to salvation , but that if we will explicitly believe this one fundamental point , the supreme authority of the roman church over all christians , they will deal very favourably with us in most others ; and excuse our ignorance easilier , than they can perswade us to be content to be ignorant . i think i have very good reason to believe this , because i know they can have no reason to reject them that believe but this one point ; for when once this great gobbet is swallow'd down , the passage will be so well open'd , that all other points of faith either go down with it , or will slip after it without the least straining or grutching . the authority of god himself , speaking in scripture , will be of no farther consideration to us ; for that we must suppose to be included in the authority of our mother the church . and whatsoever we shall thence-forward perceive to be the will of our mother , we must without all scruple , conclude it to be also the will of our father . the representer hath lately told us , that tho the scripture ( which is the word of our heavenly father ) may be the law ; yet the mother , the roman church , is the iudg. having learn'd from her the sense of the scripture , we are obliged to submit to this , and never presume on our own private sentiments , however seemingly grounded on reason and scripture , to believe or preach any new doctrine opposite to the belief of the church . and there 's reason for this , if it be true which he elsewhere tells us , that a man may very easily frame as many creeds as he pleases , and make christ and his apostles speak what shall be most agreeable to his humour , and suit best with his interest , and find plain proofs for all ( he means in scripture ) ; the truth whereof ( as of all other points of doctrine ) stands ( as he saith ) upon the same foundation of the churches tradition , which if it fail in one , leaves no security in any . this is indeed to advance the church to the very top-branch of all authority , and to make the holy scripture as very a nose of wax , and as leaden a rule , as any of that church ever thought it : seeing a man may form and work it into creeds of all fashions , and find plain proofs in it for any odd humour , or carnal and worldly interest . this then ( as far as i can learn by him ) is the only way for me to be a thorow papist , and a good catholick , i must lay aside my reason , and the scripture , and heed no more what either of these tell me ; only i must have my ear open to the voice of the church , and be wholly at her teaching and command , and i shall be safe enough . upon the most serious consideration of the character which the papist is pleas'd to give us of himself , i cannot find what it is , for which they of that church are so severely bent against us protestants ; save only , that we will not , like tame animals , without any understanding of our own , learn to come and go at a whistle ; or trot on the road as we are driven , and stoop to take on our backs whatever load it shall please the roman church to lay upon us , confessing her to have absolute and uncontroulable authority over our faith. the standing out against the catholick church makes men hereticks , and without erring against this , no man is guilty of heresy , said the iesuit fisher , in his answer to certain questions propounded to him by king iames i. this then is the only heresy to disown the authority of the roman ( for that he calls the catholick . ) church . again , saith he , one fundamental error of the protestants , is their denying the primacy of st. peter and his successors , the foundation which christ laid of his church , necessary for the perpetual government thereof . and again , he that forsakes the church , puts himself into a dead and damnable state , and may have all things besides salvation and eternal life . bellarmine speaks out , and tells us very plainly , no man can , tho he would , be subject to christ , and communicate with the celestial church , that is not subject to the pope . if then we believe this authority of the roman church , we believe all ; and if we believe not this , we believe nothing at all , in the papists account ; or to any better purpose , than to our own damnation . so that without this belief our faith shall never pass for an entire faith ; and when we once believe this , it shall never be any more question'd , whether it be entire or no. now it seems a very hard matter to believe this great point of faith , till very good reasons be given us for it ; and yet ( it should seem ) the want of such reasons will not excuse us from being hereticks , and in a state of damnation , no not tho we be never so ready to believe it , when we shall have reasons given us for it . for he is an heretick ( we are told ) who thinks any thing against the definition of the church ; yet stands so affected , that he will think the contrary , if he be convinced by arguments , or if the matter be propounded to him by a learned man. and on the contrary , if we do believe this , we can hardly be hereticks , whatever errors we believe , or this belief draws us into . for if a rustick ( saith cardinal tolet ) believe his bishop about the articles of faith , teaching him some heretical doctrine , he merits by believing ; altho it be an error . so weighty a point is this , of believing the authority of the roman church , and grounding our entire faith upon it ; that i perceive i am concern'd above all things to examine it throughly : and this i shall have fitter opportunity to do now i am come to the second thing propounded . sect . ii. hitherto i have been considering , what ground i have to hope for salvation , as i am a protestant , and of the church of england . i am now in the next place to enquire , whether i can find any reason to believe , that the church of rome can put me into a more hopeful way to it , should i turn papist , and be of her communion . now , seeing i have already found , that the great reason , why we are held uncapable of salvation as now we are , is this ; that we have no entire faith ; and the defect in our faith is this , that we believe not all the articles of the roman faith ; and that which makes it necessary for us to believe all those articles , is the authority of the catholick , that is , as they interpret , the roman church , to declare and define what things are necessary to the salvation of christians ; i perceive i have no more to do for my full satisfaction in the present inquiry , but to consider , what reason i can have for the owning and submitting to this authority . and to discern this , i think this method fittest to be taken : i will inquire into three things ; i. what things are implied in that submission to this authority which is required of me . ii. what the grounds and reasons are whereon this authority is founded , and which should perswade me to submit . iii. where this authority may be found , and to whom i must submit . and this is all , i think , that i need to do ; for i can never think fit to submit my faith and conscience , and to trust my salvation to an authority , which either requires of me such things as are unreasonable , or can produce no reason for it self , or is so lodged in obscurity as it cannot be found . i. i cannot leave the communion of the church of england , and enter into that of rome , in obedience to an authority which commands me to do things unreasonable , agreeing neither with the nature of mankind , nor with the undoubted principles of religion . if therefore the church of rome require such things of me , i must be a protestant still , and protest against that authority , which she pretends to . and for ought i can yet see , i cannot submit to her authority , but upon the hardest and most unreasonable terms in the world. i must renounce my reason and my iudgment , i must no longer trust my senses , i must either lay aside , or learn to speak dishonourably of god's word ; i must not believe a word that god hath spoken , without that church's leave ; i must embrace a religion , for which , according to that church's principles , no reason can be given to convince me ; and when i have thus learn'd to do all things without reason , i must do , what with reason i can never do , believe all men whatsoever , and how piously soever they otherwise live , if they be not of the roman communion , to be in a state of damnation . if i be deceiv'd in any thing of all this , i shall be very glad to know it ; and i have only this to say for my self , that they were roman catholicks , who should know their own religion best , that have deceived me ; and if i may be deceiv'd by hearkening to them , whom that church sends abroad to make us converts , i shall be the less encouraged hereafter , to embrace her communion upon their perswasions . whether all , who are already of her communion , either own or know all this , it concerns not me to enquire ; but i think it a debt of charity , that i owe them , to think , ( till they tell me the contrary ) that they do not ; and that , if they did , they would not long continue where they are . however , till they , who taught me these things , shall either confess their own error , or shew me my mistake , i must needs think them all true ; and therefore also account it much safer for me to continue a protestant , than to turn papist , whatever it may seem , or be to others . first , i think nothing can be plainer , than that it is more safe to act like understanding , and discreet , considering men , than otherwise ; or , that the religion , which alloweth men so to do , is safer than that which doth not allow it . now the protestant religion alloweth men to make use of their reason and iudgment , to discern between truth and falshood , good and evil ; which the roman religion ( as it seems to me ) will not allow ; and therefore it must needs be the safer religion . christ certainly came not into the world to save sinners by destroying , but rather by restoring and perfecting human nature . his business was not to deprive us of the use of the most noble faculty which god had given us ; but to rectify that , and all the rest , after they had been depraved by sin. his gospel was not preached to close up the eye of the soul , the understanding , and so to lead men blindfold to heaven ; but to open mens eyes , and to furn them from darkness to light , act. 26. 18. the apostles preach'd , to teach us how to offer unto god a reasonable service : rom. 12. 1. and christ expects , that his sheep should be able to discern the voice of him their shepherd , from the voice of strangers ; and , avoiding them , to follow him only ; iohn 10. 4 , 5. st. peter exhorts men , to be always ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them ; 1 pet. 3. 15. and st. paul bids men prove all things , and hold fast that which is good ; 1 thess. 5. 21. and st. iohn exhorts , not to believe every spirit , but to try the spirits whether they be of god ; 1 joh. 4. 1. how any man shall be able to do all this , and much more , which as a christian he is obliged to do , and not be allow'd the free use of his reason and judging faculty , i am sure , no man can tell me ; neither indeed how he can be of any religion at all ; for before he can really be of any religion , he must choose it ; and choose it he cannot , till he have rationally consider'd and judg'd of it , and of the reasons which must move him to the choice of it . and in truth , to deny a man the free use of his reason and iudgment in religion , is to turn him into a beast , where he should be most a man ; and either to make it impossible for him to be of any religion at all , and to serve god like a man ; or else to say in effect , that christian religion is altogether a most unreasonable thing , and proper only to unreasonable creatures . now the writing men of the roman church tell us nothing more frequently , than that no private man ought to be allow'd to judg for himself in matters of faith ; that to allow this , is to set the gate wide open to all heresies ; that every man is bound to sumbit and captivate his understanding and iudgment to the iudgment of the church , that is , to all the definitions of ( as they call it ) the roman-catholick church . whatsoever this church affirms , we must believe to be true ; and whatsoever she commands , we must chearfully obey , seem the thing to our own private reason never so false , or never so wicked . we must not dare to examine the truth or lawfulness of her decrees or determinations , tho reason and scripture too , seem to us to be against them , as we have been lately taught by the representer ; for as we receive from her the books , so from her only we are to receive the sense of scripture . hence it is , that they define a heretick , to be one that obstinately opposeth the sentence of the church . the doctrines of fathers ( bellarmine some-where tells us ) may be examined by reason , because they teach but as private doctors ; but the church teaches as a iudg , with all authority , and therefore no man may dispute the soundness of her doctrine . this then is the first step i must take , if i will go over to the church of rome ; i must resolve to see no longer for my self with my own eyes , but give my self up to be led by the church , never questioning the way i am to go in , so long as she leads me . and truly so far as i am yet able to discern with my protestant eyes , it is but needful to close the eye of reason before-hand , when i am about to go , where i must otherwise see such things as no reason can indure . it was therefore very ingenuously spoken ( as i have heard ) of mr. cressy , when he said , that the wit and judgment of catholicks , is to renounce their own judgment , and depose their own wit. yet if this be true , i must beg his pardon , if i dare not yet imitate his example , or follow him thither , where ( according to him ) i can have nothing to do , but to run headlong upon any thing without wit or fear . reason he is pleased to call a hoodwink'd guide ; and following it , all we can hope for , is , that we may possibly stumble into the truth or church . possibly ( it should seem ) a man may stumble upon it with his eyes in his head ; and truly , i dare not pull them out , lest i should stumble on a blind leader , and we should both fall into the ditch . secondly ; whensoever i resolve to enter into the roman communion , i fear i must also bid farewell to my senses ; or resolve never any more to trust them , no , not about those things , which are the proper objects of sense ; to discern which , god gave me my senses ; and of which it will be impossible for me to have any distinct knowledg without them . how unreasonable and dangerous a thing this is , i must needs be very sensible , if i be not resolved already to hearken no more to my reason . if i must no longer credit my eyes about shape and colour , nor my ears about sounds and words , nor my nose about smells , nor my palate concerning tasts , nor my hands and feeling about hot and cold , hard and soft ; i shall not know how to believe , that god gave me all these instruments of sense to any purpose at all ; i am sure , i cannot think my self in a comfortable and safe condition . i know not to what end our blessed saviour should bid st. thomas , handle and see him ; or how his faith could be thereby confirmed , if such senses are not to be trusted : nor why the apostle should hope to have the more credit given to their narratives , by telling us they were eye-witnesses of the things they relate ; 2 pet. 1. 16. luke 1. 2. nor why st. iohn ( 1 ioh. 1. 1. ) should talk so much of hearing , seeing and handling , as things qualifying them for bearing witness . what a christian am i like to be , if i can have no assurance of what i see or hear ; if i may not trust my eyes when i read the scripture , nor my ears when i hear the instructions of my teachers ? how could the first christians be sure themselves , or assure us , that iesus is the christ , if in hearing his words , and seeing his miracles , and reading the prophets , they might not safely trust their senses ? if sense be not to be trusted , all teaching must be by immediate inspiration ; and faith comes not by hearing , as st. paul affirms it doth ; and the infallible church can teach no more than we , except she can teach without speaking or writing , or any thing that is to be understood by hearing or seeing ; and so oral and practical tradition can be of no more use to us , than to the blind and deaf . on this supposition , i may easily mistake a harlot for my mother , and stumble into babylon instead of hierusalem , hearken to the voice of the wolf instead of the shepherd , eat and drink poison instead of wholsome food , and feel no pain nor loss when my eyes are pluck'd out . now if the church of rome do not command us to renounce all credit to our senses , she cannot command us to give any credit to her doctrine of transubstantiation . and i fear , without our believing this point , she will not admit us to her communion . we believe already a real presence of that which we see not , yet will not this serve , unless we believe also a real absence of that which we both see , handle , taste and smell . in the holy sacrament of the eucharist , i am commanded to believe that there is not any bread , but flesh ; nor wine , but blood ; and yet there i see , smell , taste and feel both bread and wine , and nothing else . i hear it read , that our blessed saviour took , blessed , brake and gave bread and wine ; and of the same he said , take , eat and drink . i hear st. paul again and again ( 1 cor. 11. 26 , 27 , 28. ) speak of eating and drinking the bread and the cup. and yet i must not trust any of these five senses , but against the clearest evidence and testimony of them all , i must believe ( if i can ) that there is neither bread nor wine , but that , which neither my senses can discern , nor my reason conceive , nor doth the scripture any where say , the very natural flesh and blood of christ , under the colour and form , the taste and smell , and all other proper qualities of bread and wine ; and yet neither that colour , nor form , nor taste , nor smell , nor any other accident , which my senses there perceive , are in the flesh and blood , tho there is nothing else there for them to be in . that tho i break and chew with my teeth what i take and eat ; yet i break not , nor chew with my teeth the body of christ ; and yet i take and eat nothing else . if i cannot believe this , i am told that i have not faith enough , and only because i have yet reason and sense too much , to be of that communion . this is another step that i must take in going over to the church of rome . and when i am got thus far , i may think it seasonable enough to lay aside the scripture too : for what good use i can make of it , without the free use of my reason , and trusting my senses , i do not understand . thirdly , if i be a lay-man , and not of so good credit with the curate or bishop , as to obtain a license ; that is , if i will not promise to adhere only to the doctrine of the roman church , and take all that i read in that sense only , which she is pleas'd to give it ; i must not be suffer'd to read the scripture at all , but must give away my bible , upon pain of being denied the remission of my sins . and truly if i may be allow'd to read it upon no other terms , than of being thus tied up , to learn nothing by it , but what i am before-hand taught without it ; i shall think a license too dear , even at a very low rate ; if yet it may be obtain'd , as i find it question'd , whether it may or no , any where else , but in such places as a license to read some of their own , may prevent their itch of looking into our translations . however , whether i be of the lay or clergy , if i will learn of them who are most busy in endeavouring my conversion ; i am sure i must be taught to speak very dishonourably of the word of god ; and this seems to be no more than the religion commended to me requireth . i must needs here say , that nothing in the world doth ( and i think i may say , ought ) more to prejudice me against any religion , than to find it constrain'd in its own defence , to say undecent things of that which it grants to be the word of god. and if i might be thought worthy to advise the missionaries , they should not harp too much on this ungrateful string , if they would draw any after them that have the least zeal for god's honour . i am verily oerswaded , that the good language they bestow upon the scripture , hath kept more out of their church , than ever their arguments yet won . i will not now take notice of those too well known encomiums bestow'd upon it , by some of their communion , calling it a nose of wax , a leaden rule , a dead letter , unsens'd characters , and i am ashamed to say what more . i shall only observe what is ordinarily taught us and endeavour'd with much art to be prov'd by their best , most modest , and generally approved authors : as , that the scripture is not necessary ; that it hath no authority as to us , but from the church ; that it is an imperfect , an insufficient rule ; that it is an obscure book , and finally , a very dangerous one to be read by the people . i know very well , that the representer , and others of them tell us , that the papist believes it damnable in any one , to think , speak , or to do any thing irreverently towards the scripture , and that he holds it in the highest veneration of all men living . i know also , that most of them , even whilst they are industriously proving all that i but now said , do yet labour to mollify and sweeten their own harsh expressions , which they know must needs grate the ears of all pious persons . i am also verily perswaded , that many papists have a very venerable esteem for the scripture , and are not a little troubled to hear it reproachfully used . and yet i cannot see that highest veneration for it , or that they speak not very irreverently of it , who speak no worse of it , than the representer himself hath taught them , viz. that it is not fit to be read generally of all without license ; tho he gives this very good reason for it , lest they should no longer acknowledg the authority of the roman church ; or in his own words , no authority left by christ , to which they are to submit . as tho men might be taught by the scripture to be disobedient to any authority which christ hath set up in his church . i cannot see any great veneration he hath to the scripture , in saying , they allow a restraint upon the reading of the scriptures , for the preventing of a blind ignorant presumption , or the casting of the holy to dogs , or pearls to swine , ( such too is his respect for christians ) that he hath no other assurance that they are the word of god , but by the authority and canon of the church . that almost every text of the bible and even those that concern the most essential and fundamental points of the christian religion may be interpreted several ways , and made to signify things contrary to one another . that it is altogether silent , without discovering which of all those senses is that intended by the holy ghost , and leading to truth ; and which are erroneous and antichristian . that a man may frame as many creeds as he pleases , and make christ and his apostles speak what shall be most agreeable to his humour , and suit best with his interest , and find plain proofs for all . that it alone can be no rule of faith to any private or particular person . certainly they who talk of the scripture at this rate , have not the highest veneration for it , of all men living . they that say , and labour to prove , that the scripture is not necessary , may well be supposed to think , that the church of god might do well enough without it . and , tho to lessen the odiousness of this assertion , they are forced to confess it is a lie , without the help of some such mental reservation as this , so that god could not , if he pleas'd , preserve his truth among men , some other way than by writing it ; yet doth not this speak in them the like veneration for the scripture , as protestants have , who down-rightly affirm it to be necessary . and it must needs sound ill to say , that the all-wise god hath been very careful to leave and preserve in his church an unnecessary thing . yea , 't is altogether as absurd to say , the scripture is not necessary , because god could , if it had seem'd good to him , have preserv'd his church and faith without it : as it would be to say , that plowing and sowing , or eating and drinking are not necessary , because god could , if he pleas'd , make the ground bring forth without the one , and preserve man's life without the other . nor can it be imagin'd that any man upon this account only , would venture to say , and attempt to prove the scripture not to be necessary in a sense , wherein no man ever affirm'd it ; if he were not so zealously bent upon lessening the esteem which we have for it , that he will chuse rather to say nothing to the purpose , and dispute against no body , than to be silent , and say nothing that sounds ill of it ; and that he thinks it needful for the ends of his church so to do . in like manner , when they contend that the authority of the scripture is from the church , which is the thing whereof at every turn they are forward enough to mind us ; they are forced again to make some abatements to make it seem a truth . 't is true , they say , that consider'd in it self alone , it hath its authority from god ; whereby they can mean no more , but that god is the author of it ; but in relation to us , it hath its authority from the church . now i would fain know , what any man can understand properly by the authority of the scripture , but its relation to us , or the power it hath to command our faith in it , and obedience to it , as the word of god. and if it have all this power from the church , as is confidently affirm'd , then tho it self be of god , yet all its authority is from the church ; and it must needs be true , which was said by one of them , that it is of no more authority than livy or aesop ' s fables without the churches declaration . thus is the authority of god's word made to depend upon the authority of men , and all our faith is no more but humane faith resting upon humane testimony . and if the authority which it hath to oblige us , be from the church , i would know by what authority it doth oblige the church ; it is not sure , by any authority from her , for then i see no reason why the church may not chuse whether she will receive it or no ; whilst yet i think , that it is only by the authority of the scripture that she can pretend to be a church , and to have any authority at all . however this i am sure of , that they who say the scripture is to be receiv'd for the churches sake , have not so high a veneration , either for it , or the author of it , as they who say it is to be receiv'd for god's sake . and in the next place , whether we , who say the scripture is a perfect and sufficient rule of faith and manners , containing all things necessary to salvation ; or they , who say , 't is but a partial and imperfect rule : we , who say ; 't is plain and easy to be understood in all things necessary ; or they , who say 't is dark and obscure , unable to inform and resolve learners , doubters , and inquirers , and that even in essentials and fundamentals of religion : finally , whether we , who say , it ought to be read and studied of all men ; or they , who say , it is not needful , yea , dangerous to be read of all , have the higher veneration for the holy scripture , is no hard matter to determine ; if to commend a thing , may be said to be more honour to it , than to disparage it . and tho here again , they use some art and colour to set off such ill-favour'd sayings , as well as they can ; yet serves this to no other end in my mind , but to make them more ugly and odious . they deny not ( for all this , they say ) the perfection , sufficiency , or plainness of the scripture , nor that it may be read by the people . what then is it they say ? they affirm , that it contains all necessary truths , either explicitly , or at least virtually ; for some truths it declares expresly , and yet so , as the church alone must give the sense ; and for all the rest , it plainly ( if the same church may here also give the sense ) sends us to the church to learn them . now i cannot ( for my heart ) imagine what all this can signify , but only a desire to lessen the scripture's authority , as plausibly as they can . to me it seems very plain , that they make the scripture just nothing , and the church all in all . i think it here again , well deserves my consideration , that the scripture is very copious in declaring , and repeating too , over and over again , many necessary points of faith and duty ; and not only necessary things , but many other things also it largely teacheth , which are by all granted to be of less moment and necessity to the salvation of men ; and all this it doth in as plain words and phrases , as can be used . and hence i find it very hard for me to believe , that the holy ghost , by whose inspiration it was written , should do all this for our instruction , and that in a book written on purpose to make us wise unto salvation , and by himself declared able so to do , and yet omit many things of greatest necessity to that end ; never so much as once , no not in any obscure manner , pointing out to us that church , to whose authority we must resort and submit . this were to leave us a treasure closely lock'd up , and not to tell us where we may find the key , that can let us in to it , and so we are neither the wiser , nor the richer for it . whatsoever the papists are pleas'd to alledg for their speaking thus of the word of the blessed god , i confess i cannot think any better of their religion for it . let us say what we will in commendation of holy scripture , they will be sure to find something to say against it ; lest , i suppose , it should be thought , we can at any time speak truth . and when we charge them for speaking dishonourably of the scripture , they so interpret their words , as they seem to say the same that we did , and which they blamed us for . what can be their meaning in this , but either to make the world believe that we are in an error ; tho , when they come to apologize for themselves , they are forced to confess it a truth ; or that their religion necessarily requires it of them in its vindication , to vilify the scripture ; tho by saying such things of it , as they acknowledge cannot be true , unless interpreted so , as to speak our sense ? they must therefore in this , deal either very disingenuously with us , or very injuriously with the holy scripture . for my part , i cannot believe , that men professing the christian faith , and owning the scripture to be the word of god , could ever be persuaded to speak so , as but seemingly to vilify or disparage it , if their doctrines could be any other way defended . their religion , i say , must need it , or they too little consult the honour of their religion , in needlesly uttering such speeches , as stand in need of a very great measure of charity , to think them less than blasphemy . fourthly , if any protestant dares venture thus far , towards the church of rome ; the next thing he has to do , is to resolve , not to believe one word that god speaks , without that church's leave . i am confident , that there are not many of our lay-papists , that think themselves to be under this obligation ; and that if they were sensible of it , they would make haste to break loose from it . but for my own part , i see not how i can enter into their communion , but i must draw it upon my self . and this i think , would be to advance the roman church to as great a height in my esteem , as they in her , who are most zealous for her infallibility , can desire . what more would they have , than that god himself , where they confess he speaks , should stand to their church's courtesy , whether or no he should be believed ? i know it will be said , they never disallow'd any man to believe god. but because all men cannot understand god speaking in the scripture , the church is appointed by him to be his interpreter . this i hear , and to me it sounds not well , that god should speak to men things necessary for all to know , and which he commands all to learn and believe upon pain of eternal damnation ; and yet not speak so intelligibly , as they may understand him. certainly , he that made the tongue , and gave man understanding , can speak ( if he please ) as intelligibly as the church , which cannot speak or understand at all , without his help and teaching . and considering his infinite goodness and impartiality ; till he shall tell me so himself , i know not how to believe that he hath so much more respect to the honour of the roman church , than to the salvation of mankind , that he would so deliver things belonging to salvation , that no man can be able to understand , and be the better for them , but he that resorts to that church as god's sole interpreter . and if indeed she be so , it must follow , that we cannot believe one word that god speaks without her leave . for , therefore is she made god's interpreter , because otherwise we cannot understand his word ; and i am sure , what we cannot understand , we cannot believe . 't is the sense , they say , and not the letter , is god's word ; and this sense is in the church's breast , and of her alone we must learn it ; and therefore , till she give us leave , we cannot believe it , no not so much as , that jesus is the christ ; altho , till we believe this , we cannot believe that he hath a church , and therefore cannot believe she is his interpreter . i will not now inquire into the reasons , why this church , which is god's sole interpreter , takes so excellent a course to make her children understand god's word . why first , she keeps it in the latin tongue only , whereof the far greater number of them understand not one syllable . why secondly , she doth not give them some infallible translation , interpretation , or comment of the scripture ; a thing very easie for an infallible interpreter to do ; and therefore , in my opinion , must argue a great defect in her charity , and much unfaithfulness in the discharge of her trust , if she do it not . i am loath to ask such questions as these , because i find it goes so much against the hair to answer them . indeed i think she doth not the latter for a very good reason , because she cannot ; and 't is only her vain pretence to such a power , that makes her inexcusable if she do it not . and the former she is concern'd to do , that they , who have the word of god only in a language which they cannot understand , may be constrain'd of necessity to depend upon her instruction , and never to question her authority , nor discern her errors . whilst they have nothing of the word of god , but from her mouth , they can have no more of it , than what she gives them leave to have ; and therefore , can neither believe a word of what god speaks , nor indeed that he hath spoken any thing but by her leave . god speaks very plainly , and intelligibly enough in the second commandment , forbidding the adoration of images , as plainly , as he forbids to commit adultery , or to steal . and christ spake very plainly , and as intelligibly , saying , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve , matt. 4. 10. and again , when he said of the eucharistical cup , drink ye all of it , matt. 26. 27. as when he said , thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart , and thy neighbour as thy self . st. paul very plainly ordereth , that the publick worship of god be perform'd in a known tongue , and sheweth the great absurdity of using an unknown tongue in god's worship , 1 cor. 14. and he speaks intelligibly enough , when he saith , let a man examine himself , and so let him eat of that bread , and drink of that cup , 1 cor. 11. 28. to say no more , we think it plainly enough said , of them that die in the lord , that they rest from their labours , rev. 14. 13. in all these things we hear god speak , and would fain believe him . but here the church of rome comes in with her authority , and tells us , that , tho god have said , he only is to be worshipped , we must believe , that not he only , but also the cross , images , saints and angels , are to have a share in our religious worship . and say christ and his apostles what they please to the contrary , we must believe , that not all , but the sacrificing priest ought to drink of the cup ; that god's publick worship is well perform'd in an unknown tongue ; that we neither eat bread , nor drink wine in the eucharist ; that all who died in the lord , do not rest from their labours ; but that the most of them go into most dreadful torments . at this rate , for ought i can see , must i believe the word of god , when i have once submitted to the authority of the church of rome . fifthly , it seems very hard for me to conceive how i should be bound under penalty of eternal damnation , to espouse a religion , and submit to an authority , for which no convincing reason can be given me by them that invite me to it . what is it in any religion , which can commend it before others to a man's choice , but its truth and goodness ? and how should the truth and goodness of any religion commend it to my choice , till they be discover'd unto me , and i be rationally convinced that it hath them ? whatever truth and goodnoss there may really be in the religion called popery , i am sure they can be no motives to me to embrace it , till they be clearly laid open to my understanding and iudgment , that i may plainly discern them ; and therefore , if any papist will take an effectual course to convert me to it , he must by rational means convince me first , that his is the true church , and her doctrines sound and good . how he can do this upon his own principles , i see not yet ; but rather think it a very gross absurdity in him to attempt it . he tells me often , that no private person , such as i am , ought to judg for himself in points of faith , or therein to follow his own private iudgment , tho to him grounded both on reason and scripture . he must not therefore in disputing with me , ( according to his own doctrine ) bring either reason or scripture to convince me , for i must not trust my own private iudgment , ( and i know no other that i have ) tho ( as it seems to me ) grounded both on reason and scripture . i must not judg for my self by either of them , whether what he commends to me by them , be true or no , and then i cannot imagine to what end he useth them in any dispute with me . he must resolve therefore , ( for ought i can see ) whenever he would convert me , to judg for me too , as well as dispute with me ; and then , if i cannot make a right choice for my self , he may do it for me ; tho after all , whether his private iudgment be any more to be trusted in such a case , than my own , i may possibly doubt . either it is a matter of faith , that the church of rome is the only true church , and that she hath this authority of determining for all christians , which is the saving faith of christ , or it is not . if it be not , i may be safe enough , tho i believe it not ; and 't is ill done of papists to terrify me with these big words , which are as false as terrible , that i cannot be saved without believing this . if it be a matter of faith , then must i either be allow'd to judg for my self by my own private judgment in a matter of faith , or all the papists endeavours to persuade me to believe it , are altogether vain , unless it be reasonable for me to believe a thing against my reason and iudgment . when he useth arguments , i should think he meant thereby to convince me in my private iudgment ; but it seems , 't is only to drive me out of it ; and that , if i may use it at all , it is only to this end , that i may conclude i have no use of it . all the arguments in the world cannot convince me , till i judg of them ; and therefore no papist can offer me a reason why i should embrace popery , but he must contradict himself , and give me as strong a reason , why i should not embrace it , because its principles are false . it will be all one , as if he should say , i ought to be convinced by reason , and yet i neither ought nor can be convinced by it . in urging his reasons upon me , he intends they should convince me ; in denying me the liberty of judging for my self by reason , he denies that any reasons can convince me ; because 't is plain , they cannot convince me before i have judged of them , and this i must do by my private iudgment , or by nothing , for i have no other . but here i am told , we are allow'd to make use of our reason to find out the true church , which may infallibly guide us into all saving truth . all that is required of us , is this , that when we have once found this true church , we presume no longer to judg for our selves , but captivate our reason to the infallible iudgment of the church . this is something , and yet it seems but extorted from them , to make a little more plausible , what to me seems one of the greatest pieces of folly in the world ; i mean , the attempt of convincing men by reason , who must not be allow'd to judg of the reasons whereby they must be convinced . i find reason , by a traditionary papist , compared to a dim-sighted man , who used his reason to find a trusty friend to lead him in the twilight , and then reli'd on his guidance rationally , without using his own reason at all about the way it self . thus are we allow'd reason to find out the church of rome , our sure friend to guide us , and on whose guidance we must rationally rely , after we have captivated our reason to her , and for her sake have resolved to use it no more . but now , if this reason , which is to direct us to our guide , be such a dimsighted thing , and as we heard before , hoodwink'd too , so that whilst we follow it , we can have no more hope , than only that we may possibly stumble into the catholick church ; who will secure us , that we shall not in this twilight mistake a treacherous enemy for a trusty friend ; and then , what shall we gain by our rational reliance on him ? a dimsighted man in the twilight , may easily mistake one thing for another , else should he not much need a trusty guide ; and why he may not mistake his guide , as well as his way , i do not yet know . but that i may be satisfied , how much i gain by this liberal concession , to use my reason and private iudgment in inquiring after the true church ; i will a little consider , how the papist is wont to talk with me , when he would persuade me to take his church for my only sure guide . first , he tells me , there is but one true faith ; and then , that this faith must be held entirely ; next , that this entire faith is nowhere to be found , but in the true church . after this he begins again , and tells me , christ hath a church upon earth ; that there is but one true church ; that out of it there is no salvation ; and lastly , that the roman church , and no other , is that one true church out of which there is no salvation . and till we have found that it is so , he will give us leave to judg for our selves . and i would thank him for this kindness , if he would allow me to enjoy the benefit of it , and to make any use of it ; otherwise it will look but like a mockery . i desire therefore some clear convincing evidence , that the roman church is the only true church . he cannot to this purpose , produce the consent of all christians , for two parts in three deny it . therefore he gives me a great many marks or signs , sometimes more , sometimes fewer , whereby the only true church must be known from others , and spends a great many words in shewing me how they agree to the roman church , and no other . that wherein i would next have same satisfaction , is , supposing that all his marks agree to the roman church , and no other ; how i may know , that these are indeed the certain and incommunicable marks and proprieties of the only true church ? to prove this , he betakes himself to the holy scripture , and brings me thence some texts , whereby he says , they are clearly proved to be so . i now , with a very hearty and sincere desire to learn the truth , and with all diligent use of such helps , as i can come by , read and consider all these texts , and cannot discern in them any evidenee at all of the thing which they are brought to prove ; and therefore think it reasonable yet to call for some clearer proof . but now , when 't is come to this , i presently find , that his liberal concession to make use of my reason and private iudgment to find out the true church , amounts to no more than i at first suspected , that is just nothing : for here he retires to his principle of porery , that i being a private person , ought not to judg for my self , what is the sense of those texts of scripture , but must submit my reason and iudgment , to the iudgment of the church ( yea , even before i have found the church ) and without any dispute , receive the sense of scripture from her alone thus he recals at once all that he had allow'd ; and undoes again , whatsoever he had been adoing , to persuade me to his communion . he was giving me reasons , which might convince me in my iudgment ; and these at length resolve all into the authority of the scripture ; and yet , of this testimony of the scripture i must not iudg ; and therefore by it i cannot be convinced of any thing , but this , that the church of rome is resolved to be mistress of all christians ; and thinks it enough to convince us that she is so , if whilst she sets some of her sons to hold us up in empty talk of scripture and reason to no purpose , she step out from behind the curtain , saying , believe it , i am she . now i cannot possibly see , whatever others may do , ( for i keep yet to my protestant principles of judging for no man but my self ) how i can embrace popery upon any conviction from papists ; and i fear i must either take it without any reason for it , or not at all . if i cannot know the roman church to be the only true church , but by the testimony of the scripture ; and if i cannot understand the testimony of the scripture , till i receive the true sense of it from the roman church ; and if i cannot take that for the true sense of it , upon her declaration of it so to be , unless moved by her authority , i must be persuaded to do the most unreasonable thing in the world , to my thinking ; to believe a church to be the only true church , for her own authority , which i yet know no more , than i do her to be the true church ; which , it is all along supposed , i do not know at all ; this i think not only unreasonable , but impossible . i must needs confess my self very hard to be persuaded of the tender goodness of that mother , who , lest her children should get hurt by the dimness of their sight , will needs pull out their eyes , and keep them in her pocket , till she has taught them to use them better . i am very loath to part with my reason , how dimsighted soever , because i know not how to serve god without it . yet if i should dare to venture thus far , may i now have leave to take my rest here ? if my dimsighted reason help me to stumble into my mother's lap , may i yet think my self safe there ? not till i have learn'd her charity too as well as her faith , which the representer tells us , she learn'd of christ and his apostles . therefore , lastly , i must believe , that all other christians but papists , are in a state of damnation . the decree of p. boniface the viiith , as now it stands in the common extravagants , is well known to be this , we declare , say , define , and pronounce , that it is altogether of necessity to salvation , that every creature be subject to the pope of rome . p. pius the ii. in his bull of retractation , ( tho he was not altogether of the same mind ( as it seems ) before , whilst he was aeneas sylvius ) saith , he cannot be saved that doth not hold the unity of the roman church . if so lusly a decree , and so preremptory a declaration of two popes be too little , there is abundance more to this purpose to be met with , by him that has a mind to search for it : i only take notice at this time , that p. leo the x th , in his lateran council , and his bull therein read and pass'd , saith , we do renew and approve that same constitution ( viz. of p. boniface , but now mentioned ) , the present sacred council also approving it . and lastly , p. pius the iv th , in his bull , wherein he confirms the council of trent , imposeth an oath upon ecclesiastical persons , wherein they swear , that the holy catholick and apostolick roman church , is the mother and mistress of all churches ; and that this is the true catholick faith , without which no man can be saved . here 's enough in all conscience for us protestants to hear , and too much a great deal ( as i think ) for any man to believe . i think my self bound in charity , to have the best opinion i can of all men ; and therefore i dare not think , that all they who are called roman catholicks , have throughly learn'd this doctrine . there seems to me to be so much of ill-nature in it , that i should think my self the worst natur'd man in the world , if i could believe that any considerable numbers of them , besides the priests , are guilty of it . many piously disposed souls , are not so happy , as to have always the clearest understandings , or the sincerest teachers , but have better hearts than either heads or guides . their zeal is too great for both their opportunities of learning , and patience to consider ; their earnestness of salvation , a thing very laudable in them , puts them into too much haste to deliberate long , and gives an advantage to some , who watch for it , to abuse them . either a cunning jesuit , or a canting fanatick , will hope to make an easy prey of such persons ; for it matters not greatly of which sort the tempter be , whilst the temptation is the same : the fish minds not the fisher , but the bait : every argument from either , is edged with a mighty zeal and importunity , and sharpned with the sinest and most penetrating expressions of a most tender compassion for perishing souls . salvation is as confidently promised , as earnestly desired ; and whether it be to be had in the romanists infallible church , or in the separatists purg'd and unmix'd congregation , all 's a case , when once the man is made to think it cannot be had in the church of england . if they who are so easily proselyted either way , would take time to look before they leap , and could but see into the consequents of those very arguments which most prevail with them , and are made the traps to catch them in , they would stand off a little , and ask a few questions more , for their better satisfaction ; before they could endure to think of entring into a communion , which would oblige them , as ever they hope to be saved themselves , to believe that christ hath no faithful followers upon earth , but a few subjects of the pope of rome . i can easily perceive , by divers books written by them who call themselves converts , that the main motive of their going over to the roman church , was this , that they could not hope to be saved in any other : and i find that most arguments of late used , to persuade us to that religion , look the very same way ; and it is this doctrine alone , that hath put me upon this enquiry for my own satisfaction : for i must needs confess , that this doctrine , which some acount so powerful a persuasive to popery , has always with me had the quite contrary effect to what i find it hath in them ; and has been , and is at this present to me , as strong a dissuasive from it . if i can never be a papist , till i can believe it , i am very confident , i shall never be one . i would leave the church of england the next minute , should she require of me to believe , that all out of her communion were in a state of damnation ; and truly i think that most protestants are of my mind . when therefore i found the representer in good earnest to vindicate his church in this one point , i presently concluded , that he had writ his whole book to no purpose ; for let him spend all his oyl and colours in painting popery to the best advantage , so long as this one spot appears in her face , she may possibly seem in her new dress less terrible , but not one jot more lovely . having told us , that no one can arrive to the true knowledg of the catholick faith , but by receiving it as proposed and believed by the church of christ ; and that the roman catholick is the only true church ; that whosoever denies any article of her faith , denies so much of christ's doctrine ; that whosoever hears her , hears christ ; and whosoever obstinately and wilfully is separated from her , is in the same distance separated from christ himself ; and finally , that god addeth to this church daily , such as shall be saved : he hath told us enough to persuade us , that no protestant in the world could have done that church a greater diskindness , than he hath done ; nor by any misrepresentation of her , have worse represented her . when the papists are pleas'd to ask us that unanswerable question , as they account it , where was your religion before luther ? they wish us withal , to take into our serious consideration , the state of our forefathers , who lived and died in the religion of the church of rome ; asking us , if we dare think , that they were all damn'd : we need not trouble our heads with shaping an answer to so frivolous a question , because we durst never yet be so hardy as to affirm , that all are damn'd , who live and die in the communion of the church of rome ; but do openly declare to the world , that tho we think our own religion the safest , yet many of that communion have been heretofore , and many also are at this day , under such circumstances , as encourage us to hope very well of them as to their future state . however if it so well deserve our consideration , what 's become of our forefathers ? doth it not as well deserve the consideration of the romanists , what is become of many of theirs ? yea , what will become of the greatest part of the christian world , who live and die out of their communion ? and if they would have us think the worse of the reformation , left by thinking well of it , we should be wanting in charity to our fathers , which yet we are by it no way obliged to be ; should it not move them to think the worse of their religion , that it constrains them to think so uncharitably , not only of their fathers , but of all the world but themselves only ? how many most eminent and worthy persons , how many great and famous churches , must i be obliged , by embracing the roman faith , to believe excluded from salvation ? upon these terms , i cannot see how 't is possible for me to be reconciled to the church of rome , without professing my self an irreconcileable enemy to all the christian world besides . i must turn hector , and call all other christians , damn'd hereticks . i must needs say , this appears not to me , like that meek and lamb like spirit of the blessed jesus , which is given by him to his dove-like spouse , that thus rants it in his pretended vicars , and their adherents . it seems not to be much a kin to that christian charity , which hopeth and believeth all things , and thinketh no evil , 1 cor. 13. 7. i must make nothing of condemning all protestants and protestant churches , of what other denomination soever ; and these alone are no inconsiderable part of christians : these hereticks ( saith bellarmin ) possess many and ample provinces , england , scotland , ( and why not ireland ? ) denmark , sweedland , norway ; no small part of germany , poland , bohemia , and hungary ; he might have said also , of france , and helvetia . it was anciently the custom , ( saith tolet ) that the pope did three days every year , tho now but once a year , viz. upon the holy thursday ( he means the thursday immediately before easter , call'd coena domini ) with great solemnity , before all the people , thunder out his sentence of excommunication against all hereticks , of what name or sect soever ; but against the queen of england ( which was then q. elizabeth ) by name ; with all their believers , receivers , favourers , and defenders ; against all that read their books publickly or privately , with what intention soever , or under whatever pretence , tho there be no error in them , or with a design to consute the error , if there be any without his holiness's license ; against the keepers , printers , and defenders , in any manner , of the same ; against all schismaticks , and such as pertinaciously withdraw themselves , and depart from their obedience to the pope ; against any one that shall so much as say , that calvin was a good man ; against all that appeal from the orders , decrees , or mandates of the pope , to a future council . and 't is very well known , that they are not all protestants who have done so . neither will this suffice , i must also condemn the whole greek church , which how ancient , and of how large extent it is , is very well known : and some reason there seems to be for it ; for ( saith bellarmin ) the greeks in the year 451 , in the council of chalcedon , consisting of 600 bishops , endeavoured to make the patriarch of constantinople equal to the bishop of rome . and again , in the year 1054 , they pronounc'd the bishop of rome to have fallen from his degree of dignity , and the bishop of constantinople to be the first bishop . and tho he pretends that these greeks were once reconciled to rome in the council of florence , yet he adds , that they always returned to their vomit . no wonder therefore , if this greek church cannot escape damnation : and yet this poor reprobated church yields not to that of rome in any of her own principal marks of a true church . i read that the christians of her communion , in natolia , circassia , mengrellia , russia , greece , macedonia , epirus , thracia , bulgaria , &c. do very near , if not quite , equal the number of those who are of the roman communion . and yet will not this be enough , unless we include in this sentence of condemnation , all the assyrian christians living amongst the mahometans in babylon , assyria , mesopotamia , parthia and media , with the iacobites , armenians , egyptians , aethiopians , and the vast empire of the habassines : all these i must look upon as cut off from christ , merely for their disowning the pope's authority , tho they should be found orthodox in all other points . and truly i know not how to get up to that height of boldness , not to be afraid of condemning so many christians , most of which have given , and do yet give to the world the most notable testimony of fidelity to christ , that can be expected , in their constant sufferings for the sake of his holy name and gospel . after this consideration of whole churches , it seems needless for me to come down to that of single persons , tho confessedly of greatest note and eminence in the church of christ , both for learning and piety . how st. polycarp bishop of smtrna , and a famous martyr , who would not obey p. anicetus , but still keep his easter contrary to the custom of the roman church , and therein seem'd either as ignorant of his duty , or as stubborn as any protestant : or how his successor in that see , polycrates , who desended himself and his church so arrogantly against the authority of the romam church , more than sufficiently declared by p. victor , still pleading the example of polycarp , and authority of st. iohn , as tho he had never heard st. peter was made prince of the apostles , or that the bishops of rome were his successors in that authority over all churches . how irenaeus and all his fellow-bishops of the gallican church , who so presumptuously took upon them to expostulate the matter with the same victor , and in very homely terms to chide him for excommunicating those asian christians for not changing their ancient customs at his command . how st. cyprian the holy bishop of carthage , and martyr , with his bishops of africa , numidia and mauritania , joining with him in so contumaciously resisting p. stephen : the sixty bishops in the milevitan council ; or those two hundred and seventeen , whereof the famous st. austin was one , who not only stubbornly rejected the claim , but also manifestly demonstrated the fraudulence and forgery of three popes , zosimus , boniface and caelestine , about appeals to rome . how all these shall be exempted from this censure , i know not . did not the later of these african councils decree , that the bishop of the first see ( meaning rome ) should not be call'd the prince of priests , or chief priest , or any such thing , but only the bishop of the first see ? did it not excommunicate every priest that should appeal to rome ? it seems to me , that st. athanasius could have no great opinion of the infallibility of p. liberius , when , through fear , himself h●● forgot he had any such thing , and consented with the arrians to the condemnation of that holy father . st. hierom seems not to have had any thoughts of the popes's supremacy , when he said , that whereever there is a bishop , whether at great rome , or petty eugubium , he is of the same merit and priesthood . neither did either he or st. austin seem to have had a just esteem for the church of rome's authority , when they preferred that of the eastern church before it , in receiving the epistle to the hebrews into the canon of scripture . above all , what must i think of their great saint . p. gregory the first , who called the title of universal bishop , a new title , which none of his predecessors ever used , a name of vanity , a profane name , wicked , and not to be uttered , yea a blasphemous ; saying , that whosoever desired it , shew'd himself to be the forerunner of antichrist ? if i must believe this great pope and saint , i know well enough what to think of most of his successors in the infallible chair ; if i must not believe him , why must i believe those who succeeded him ? had not he and they one and the same authority as popes of rome ? believe both i cannot ; and disbelieving either , as all papists , no less than i , must disbelieve the one , i am no better than a heretick , and uncapable of salvation . farther yet , i find that the african council , but now mention'd , did alledg for it self the sixth canon of the first general council held at nice , which is this , let the old custom be kept through aegypt , lybia and pentapolis , so that the bishop of alexandria have power over all these , because the bishop of rome hath also the like custom . by this canon these two bishops seem to be made equal in power . in the fourth general council held at calcedon , and ninth canon , it is ordered , that if any bishop or clerk have a controversie with the metropolitan of that province , they have recourse to the primate of the diocese , or certainly to the see of the royal city of constantinople , that the business may be ended there . this council seems hereby to make the bishop of constantinople equal to the bishop of rome ; and this it did , notwithstanding great opposition made against it by p. leo the first . so that i must involve in the same censure of condemnation some of the most famous general councils that ever were . this i am apt to think a very daring matter , and not rashly to be attempted . i have indeed been taught by our blessed jesus , that god will not forgive us , if we do not forgive our brethren ; but i do not remember , where he hath taught me , that god will not save us , except we believe that no man but a papist can be saved . ii. i have now consider'd s●●●e of the many difficulties i am to struggle with , before i can get through to the church of rome . and truly they seem to me , whatever men of more strength and courage may think , little less than insuperable . and yet after all this , if i may be convinced that the authority of the roman church hath sufficient grounds of scripture and reason to support it , i must confess no difficulty in my way ought to dishearten me from breaking through it . but then again , if i must believe that there is such an uncontrollable power in the church , in some one church , in the roman church by name , yea , in the bishop of that church ; and if i must so believe this , that i must not leave in my soul any room at all for the least charitable thought of any man's salvation , who believes it not : i think it no less than needful , that i have the clearest and most undeniable evidence in the world for what i believe , lest the sentence of condemnation should recoil upon my self for my temerity and uncharitableness . indeed if this church may be allow'd to bear witness to its own authority , and such a testimony be sufficient , i cannot want it . the council of trent hath more than once call'd her , the mother and mistriss of all churches . so infallible in her iudgment and directions , so absolute in her dominion and command she must be , that her sole authority must be warrant enough , and nothing else any warrant without it , for all things that belong to christian religion . whosoever ( saith becanus in his compendium ) in matters of faith and religion followeth the true church of christ ( which he there proveth to be the roman church only ) cannot err about faith and religion , seeing the true church of christ is infallible . and this we are told continually , as this iesuit doth say , that this is the shortest compendium of all controversies . this then being to support the whole fabrick of popery , had need to stand on firm ground . this ground i would now fain discover . why then must we believe that the roman church hath this sovereign authority in religion ? i must confess my self one of those sturdy hereticks , that cannot believe without reason . when i hear that church telling me , she is infallible , and hath all power over all other churches ; i cannot believe it till i have some better reason for it than this , that she must be all that , which she is pleased to say of her self ; and therefore must be infallible and omnipotent too , if she say it . and i am a little troubled to say , that this is all i can get out of her for my satisfaction , lest even protestants should think i say incredible things of her , and that i have no other design , but to make all the learned men of her communion seem ridiculous , in talking to us as to children , always childishly . but it is not in my power , to make their arguments better than they are ; nor civil in me to teach them what to say ; and i am sure my temporal interest cannot at this time tempt me to oversee the strength of their reasons . the very best reasons i have yet met with , with how much artifice and sophistry soever they are dress'd up , amount to no more , nor better , in my opinion , than her own honest word , that is , her own authority and infallibility for proof of her authority and infallibility ; and therefore i must either believe them both , before i can believe them , even whilst i am enquiring for a reason why i should believe them , or i must not believe them at all , nor with her consent be saved . the missionaries tell us , they are willing to undergo any pains or difficulty to rescue us from damning error ; and whilst they proceed in this method , i have cause to believe them ; for i am confident , to prove their church hath this authority they contend for , is as great a difficulty as they can meet with . if they should here offer us ( what is so much talk'd of by them ) the testimony of the universal church , there is nothing more plain , than that they do but mock us . for this can be nothing else but the church of rome's testimony for her own authority . it cannot , i say , be any thing else , because the thing they are proving is , that she alone is the one , holy , catholick and apostolick church : and were it any thing else , they would never discover it to us , because they would thereby give us an unanswerable argument against what they would prove her to be ; for if they will shew us any other church or churches by the testimony whereof her authority may be proved , we are thereby enabled to prove she is not the only true church out of which there is no salvation . what then can this testimony be ? is it that of the first and purest ages of the church before popery was brought forth ? not so to be sure , for popery was ( they say ) from the beginning , and glorieth of her antiquity above all things . is it the testimony of all others in the world that profess christianity ? it cannot be , for all these , if not of her communion , are hereticks , and in a state of damnation for denying her authority ; and were it possible for them to witness that to be which they deny to be , yet is their testimony invalid , because they confess themselves fallible , and this point of faith cannot stand upon a fallible testimony . by this 't is very clear to me , that the testimony of the catholick church of christ , if it be produced for the authority of the church of rome , can be nothing else but the church of rome's own word ; and i never doubted , but she hath a good word for her self , any more than i doubt lest it should be thought a good proof of her authority . i have heard again much talk of universal tradition among romam catholicks ; but if they alledg this for their church's authority , they give us only the same thing again in other words . universal tradition can be nothing else but the testimony of the universal church , and that must be the church of rome ; and so we are not advanced one step farther than we were before . the credit we are to give unto universal tradition , depends on the authority of the roman church , which we have not yet sound , but are enquiring after . if fathers and councils be brought in to witness this authority , all the noise they make will prove but the voice of the roman church , crying her self up for the great diana of the world , and thundring anathema to all that will not fall down and worship her . will she abide by the testimony of either father or council , if they speak not what she has taught them , or against what she holds ? or shall they be allow'd to over rule the oral and practical tradition of the present church of rome ? are councils of any credit more than the pope's confirmation gives them ? and are single fathers of more credit than they ? if not , we have yet no more but her own word for her own authority . if they bring us scripture to prove this authority , i must say , that as we reverence fathers and councils , so we adore ( with tertullian ) the fulness of the scripture , neither can we desire any better proof , than its testimony . yet when i consider how these men use the scripture ; i am at a stand to think , how they can in good earnest produce it as a witness in this matter ; for after they have said almost all the ill they can of it , calling it imperfect , insufficient , obscure , unsens'd ; they seem to ridicule both it and us , when they bring it forth , thus disabled , for a witness . do not they tell us again and again , that both the canon and the sense of scripture , depend , as to us , on the authority and interpretation of their church ? and can its testimony then possibly amount to any more than that church's bare word ? do not they deny us a iudgment of discretion , whereby we should discern for ourselves , whether it speak fór or against their church's authority ? and will they yet produce it to convince us of the authority by which alone we are both to receive and understand it ? it cannot be produced to convince us in our iudgment , for we are not allow'd any use of our iudgment in the case . it must be only to convince themselves that we are hereticks ; and i dare say , that may be done without the scripture , as well as with it , whilst their church must give the sense of it . but because they know we magnify it , they will produce it , tho i cannot see to what other end , than to persuade us to take heed of trusting too much to it , or thinking it worth any thing , after it hath shew'd us the true church . it must be believ'd no longer than it is authorized to speak by that authority , which is to be proved by it ; so that by shewing us that authority , it loseth all its own authority for ever . for this ( saith stapleton ) that god hath commanded us to believe the church , we do not hang our faith on the authority of the church , as upon the proper and sole cause of this belief , but partly on manifest scriptures , by which we are remitted to the teaching of the church ; partly on the creed , &c. this then is the end of producing the scripture , that we may be convinced by it , that we are no longer to learn of it , after we are once brought by it to the knowledg of the church's authority , but thenceforward are to depend wholly upon the teaching of the church , unto which it remits us . all the use then that we have of the scripture , is to be guided by it to the church of rome ( tho it cannot do so much for us neither , but as that church guides it ) ; and having thank'd it for its kindness , we are then to bid it good night . now seeing manifest scriptures are promised us , to guide us to the roman church , i think it reasonable to expect , that they produce such scriptures as are more manifest to us , than their church's authority , which is to be proved by them ; seeing it is by their evidence i am to be convinced of that , which as yet is unevident to me . neither ought the sense of these manifest scriptures depend upon the interpretation or authority of that church , the authority whereof they are brought to prove , as a thing to me not yet evident ; for so , i shall be still but where i was before ; and instead of manifest scriptures , be shuffled off with the church's bare word ; i mean , with such interpretations of scripture , as i have no reason to receive , but by that authority whereof i am yet , at least , in doubt . now , that there are indeed no such manifest scriptures , i am reasonably well assured before-hand . i have read the scripture over and over , and find not the least mention therein made of this authority of the roman church . the pope of rome , or his supremacy , is never once named from the beginning of the bible to the end ; nor can i meet with one syllable touching either the infallibility or iurisdiction of him , or his councils , or of any kind of subjection due to either , from all christians . i cannot so much as find there , that ever there was any bishop of rome , or that there should be any there afterwards , much less that all christians are to own that bishop for their head , and christ's vicar . and finding nothing of all this , i must needs wonder , how manifest scriptures should be produced , to prove this supreme authority over all churches . and yet , if there be such an authority , and if it be so necessary for all christians to believe it , and submit unto it ; i cannot but think that it ought to have been as manifestly declared in scripture , as any other point whatsoever . st. peter , in whom this authority is said to have been first setled , saith not a word of it in his epistles . st. paul in his epistle to the romans ; who should in all reason have been best acquainted with it , says nothing at all of it . to the civil magistrate , which the church of rome makes to be much inferior to the church in authority , they both teach us our duty ; and strange it is , if they knew of any such thing , that they should not as plainly instruct us in our duty to the pope or church of rome wherein our salvation , the main thing they were to take care for , is so deeply concern'd . but what are these manifest scriptures at length ? i find our blessed saviour saying to st. peter ( matt. 16. 18. ) thou art peter , and upon this rock i will build my church , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven , &c. but i find not that all this , whatever it may signify , was manifestly said to the bishops of rome . the plain and obvious sense ( saith bellarmin ) of these words is , that we may understand the primary of the whole church to be promised to saint peter , under two metaphors . and yet , by all the light that he is able to afford me , i cannot discern in these words , whatever was promised to st. peter , the supremacy , much less the monarchy of the bishop of rome over all churches . and it is no wonder if a protestant heretick be so blind , when such eminent persons as origen , st. austin , st. hilary , ambrose , chrysostome and cyril , could no more see it than i , as the learned cardinal himself there confesseth . nay , here 's not a word to assure us , that this rock must needs be a monarch invested with a supremacy of power over the whole church , or that this monarch must needs be the bishop of rome , or that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the roman church ; for all this , we must be beholden to that church's own word , or we shall never find it in this place . i find again , that christ commanded st. peter ( joh. 21. 16. ) to feed his sheep , and his lambs ; as indeed it is the duty of all pastors of the church to do ; and both st. peter ( 1 pet 5. 2. ) and st. paul ( acts 20. 28. ) tell us as much ; and so much the apter am i to doubt , whether the pope be so much as a good pastor of christ's sheep or no , seeing he takes so little care to feed , and so much to fleece them . i am sure i read of no more but one chief shepherd , and bishop of souls , which st. peter tells us , is christ jesus himself , 1 pet. 2. 25. the apostles were all shepherds under him ; but where is this manifest scripture to shew that st. peter was made head-shepherd , with commission to feed and rule too , not only the sheep , but the shepherds also ? but especially , where is the commission given to the bishops of rome successively for ever , to govern the whole flock of christ , with soveraign authority ? feed the whole , i am sure he neither doth , nor can . many great and wonderful things ( as bellarmin tells us ) are said of st. peter in the holy scripture , and very deservedly , for he was a very great and eminent apostle . but the scripture never saith , that he was a great monarch , nor that he was bishop of rome , nor that he had a throne , or but a chair there ; and least of all , that this imaginary monarchy was to descend unto the next bishop of rome , and to his successors for ever ; and that st. iohn , who long out-lived st. peter , became thereby subject to some of those bishops , which did not well suit with the dignity of an apostle . i read those words of st. paul , 1 cor. 12. 21. the head cannot say to the feet , i have no need of you . but that the pope is the head , and all christians , kings , as well as others , the feet ; i may possibly read in some such iesuit as bellarmin , but i am sure i shall never read it in the scripture . many more such parcels of scripture as these , they give us ; but after the most serious perusal of them all , i profess i cannot find any thing like manifest scripture for the authority of the roman church . and therefore it seems yet as plain to me , as that two and three make five , that the bare word of that church , without any kind of solid proof , is all that she hath to shew for her authority . she says great things of her self , and talks sometimes of scripture , but much more of fathers and councils , and universal tradition , and indeed every thing that 's venerable ; but when all is spell'd and put together , 't is but the oral and practical tradition of the present church , that is , her own very confident asseveration . if we have a little scripture for fashion's sake , we must take it as she hath taught it to speak in her own vulgar latin , which the council of trent was even then pleas'd to make the only authentick translation , when it was confessedly very faulty , and hath been since that divers times corrected . and then we must take it in her own sense too , tho we know not well where we may be sure to find it . her private doctors she will not allow us to trust for it , nor indeed do we find them any better agreed about it , than others are , only they have for the most part either the modesty or cunning to refer all to the iudgment of mother church , could they but tell us where to find it ; for she is loath , once for all , in some publick comment , or exposition of the scripture , to tell us what it is . if we may be allow'd to hear the testimony of the fathers , she must stand at their elbows , and prompt them what to say ; we must have them in her own approved editions ; and if they have been at school long enough in the vatican , or some religious house , 't is probable they were reasonably well instructed in her own language , before they were allow'd to go abroad again . however , ere they pass the press , an expurgatory index can teach them either to speak , or to be silent , as she thinks most seasonable . councils may be heard , but only such as have his holiness's stamp upon them ; and how we can understand them any better than the scripture , till he interprets for us , is hard to say . so that all returns to this still , that we have her honest word for her authority ; and this is the sole foundation , that i can discover of this prodigious faith , which we must all have , or else perish eternally . iii. and now , in the last place , seeing it is come to this , for ought i see , that i must rest upon her own word , or nothing , for the truth of her sovereign authority , and must upon peril of my own damnation , take upon me this invidious profession , to believe all men damn'd but papists , that i may enjoy the blessing of my mother ; i should be glad to know , that she her-self ( as infallible as she is ) could but probably assure me , where this word of her's may certainly be found . the representer indeed ( in his confident way ) hath told me , that all the members of his religion ( however spread through the world ) agree like one man in every article of their faith. and if we would know for our learning , by what happy means this wonderful agreement is effected , he tells us , it is by an equal submission to the determinations of their church ; that is , as i understand it , by taking her bare word for every thing . no one of them ( saith he ) tho the most learned and wise , ever following any other rule in their faith besides this , of unanimously believing as the church of god ( or roman church ) believes . and if this be so , i wonder to what purpose their learning and wisdom can serve them , any more than their iudgment and wit , which they have renounced and deposed . however , if this be true representing , i shall not , i hope , find it difficult to find out the church's word and authority , on which my faith must stand . every member of it , tho he have no more than the old collier's faith , can help me to it in any part of the world , for all agree like one man in every article , and therefore sure in this most fundamental one . but what now shall i think after this , if it should so fall out , that hardly one in a hundred of these members know either where this church of theirs is to be found , or what those determinations of hers are , unto which they so unanimously submit ? nay , what if their church it self cannot tell them this ? when she hath said all she can , to inform both them and us , suppose it be still two to one , that we shall be mistaken in it , whatever we take to be the roman church , or her infallible word ? this is it , that i am now , for a close , to inquire into . it must needs seem more than a little absurd , and exceeding hard , to tye a man under pain of damnation , to believe he knows not what , and what no body can certainly shew him ; i mean , a power in the church of rome , which all men deny , but they of her communion ; and about which , even they who are of her communion , are so divided among themselves , that i do not see how ever they can agree about it . is there no dispute in that church about this power ? have they not been even at daggers drawing among themselves about it ? is the controversie yet decided ? or can any one promise me that it ever shall ? there is a great diversity among the schoolmen ( saith our representer ) in their divinity-points , and opinions of such matters as are no articles of faith , and have no relation to it , but as some circumstance or manner , which being never defined by the church , may be maintain'd severally , either this way , or that way , without any breach of faith , or injury to their religion . i will not stay here to ask him , what greater diversity he can find amongst the members of our church , than he here grants to be amongst papists ; nor why our divisions being no greater than theirs , nor more nearly related to any article of faith , should be less consistent with the unity of the church ( as is commonly objected against us ) than theirs are : but i ask , whether the supreme authority of the roman church , be an article of the roman faith , or no ? and again , whether all the members of that church , be as one man unanimously agreed about it , or no ? he will say , it may be , about the article they are , as to the substance of it , tho not as to all circumstances : but now if it appear , that these circumstances of the power about which they differ , are such as the thing it self will be as good as nothing without them ; or if they be not as certainly known and believ'd , as the power it self , i think it will follow , that all their agreement about the thing , is as good as nothing too , till these circumstances be also agreed upon . thus it is then ; i must for my salvation believe that , there is such a thing as a supreme power over all churches , in the church of rome ; and in this all papists as one man unanimously agree ; but about the circumstances of this power , there is a great diversity of opinions among them ; yet is this no injury to their religion . tho without a better agreement about these circumstances , no man ( in my opinion ) can be able to satisfie me , what their religion is ; for these circumstances about which they differ , are no more but such inconsiderable things as these , whence this power is ; whether it be of god , or of men ; of divine or human right only ; whether it extends over all the world , or over all christians only ; to spiritual concerns only , or to temporals also ; where it resides and is lodg'd ; in the church-diffusive , or all christians , especially the pastors ; or in the church-representative , or general councils ; or in the church virtual , or the pope of rome . these petty circumstances they differ about , and the church it self knows not how to agree them ; but what 's all this to the article it self , most firmly believ'd by all , that is , a supreme power in the church ? all their religion rests on the determinations of their church ; all the force of these determinations to oblige the faith of men , depend on this supreme power ; may not a man , however , well enough be assured of his religion , tho no man can tell him , whence this power is , over what it is , or where it is ? indeed , what other men can do , i know not ; but for my own part , i must needs think it a very hard matter to believe this power , and to have any certainty of the religion founded on this power , without some better information about these circumstances of it ; and therefore before i can yield to be of that religion , i must beseech that church , which will not allow us to be saved , without an absolute submission and resignation of our selves to her authority , to tell us , if not whence ( which is yet the most material circumstance of all the rest ) yet , at least , what and where it is . there is challeng'd by this church , a power of over-ruling our faith by her infallible iudgment , and a power of commanding our obedience by her soveraignty . it will therefore concern me to ask , how i may be rightly inform'd in both these great branches of her power , unto which my subjection is required upon pain of damnation . 1. she claims a power of interpreting or giving the certain sense of scripture , of iudging and finally deciding all controversies of religion , of peremptorily defining and determining in all matters of faith and religious practice ; so that all are bound , without any further dispute or search , to submit to all her determinations and decrees . infallible then , we must believe this church to be , and that she cannot err in her definitions of faith and manners : and yet where this infallibility is to be found , is a question she is not to this day able to resolve : in short , i find that this infallible church , which tells us that she cannot err , when she is desired to make this apparent to the world , can tell us certainly , both how , and in what she can err ; and in this i doubt not , but she is infallible enough ; but who they are in all her communion , or in what things it is , that they cannot err , this she could never tell us certainly , and yet it is this alone that can make her infallibility , ( if she have it ) to be of any use to us . the representer saith , that the papist believes that the pastors and prelates of his church , are fallible ; that there is none of them ( and yet the pope is one of them , and councils are made up of them ) but may fall into errors , heresy and schism , and consequently are subject to mistakes . and further he tells us , that tho some allow the pope the assistance of a divine infallibility , without being in a general council ; yet he is satisfied 't is only their opinion , and not their faith , there being no obligation from the church , of assenting to any such doctrine . and tho he maintain the necessity and right of general councils lawfully assembled , yet is it not so plain , whether he count them infallible or no , by what he says in that chapter of councils . this we are told , that if any thing contrary to what christ taught , and his apostles , should be defined and commanded to be believed , even by ten thousand councils , he believes it damnable in any one to receive it . but in the following chapter , he speaks out , and says , that by the assistance of the holy ghost , they are specially protected from all error , in all definitions and declarations in matters of faith : and this is true , tho he grants it possible , that the pastors and prelates there assembled , may be proud , ignorant , covetous , enormous sinners , and infamous for other vices , and at other times may prevaricate , make innovations in faith , and teach erroneous doctrines . now a man would think , that if all the guides and pastors of the flock ( not one excepted ) may err , then the sheep , which are bound to follow their shepherds , may err also ; and if the fallible lead the fallible , 't is not impossible for both to err ; and who it is that is infallible , is hard to see . and again , seeing he tells us , that christ committed the care of his flock to st. peter , and that the pope or bishop of rome is in this charge , st. peter ' s successor , and that god assists those who have this charge , with a particular helping grace , such as has a special respect to the office and function , and that such as was given to the prophets , and to moses , when he was made a god to pharoah . i cannot see , but it must be as consequent to all this , that the pope should be infallible , as that a general council is so , especially when it is his approbation that gives force to its decrees . moreover , it is not easy to believe that god hath made a promise of infallible assistance to any number of pastors and prelates , who are no better qualified , than he supposes they may most of them be , with pride , ignorance , and vice , turbulence and covetousness , and assembled , it may be , under an heretical pope , ( for such , 't is granted he may be ) and as vicious too , and ignorant as any of them . however , there are two things which make it very hard to find out this infalliblility , where he sends us to seek it , in a general council : for first , they must be lawfully assembled ; and next , they must determine nothing contrary to what christ and his apostles taught , otherwise 't is damnable to receive their determinations . now it will be hard for me to find out how lawfully they were assembled , and therefore as hard to believe all their decrees as infallible ; and , i fear , i must not be allow'd to examine their definitions , whether they be according to the doctrine of christ and his apostles , or no , lest i thereby seem to follow my own private iudgment or spirit , rather than the infallible iudgment of the church representative . this is all then that i can learn from his discourse ; i must take it for a truth , that this infallibility is lodg'd in a general council , and that it can determine nothing contrary to the doctrine of christ and his apostles ; and then i need not inquire whether it have done so , or no ; tho if it have done so , 't is damnable for me to receive its determinations . but i will hear what others tell me . bellarmin saith , that all catholicks are thus far agreed , that the pope , as he is pope , in the midst of his councellors , or together with a general council , may err , or iudg amiss in matters of fact. and if this be true , he may even so err in the whole faith , as far as i can yet see ; for he may thus err in determining that there were such men as christ and his apostles ; that any of them preached , planted churches , writ books ; that these are their books , or that st. peter was at rome , and was bishop there ; left the bishops of that see his successors in all his power ; that there hath been an uninterrupted succession of bishops in that church ; that any unwritten traditions concerning faith and manners were left to the custody of the church ; and many more such things , which were matters of fact , and on which the faith of that church depends . again he saith , that the pope , as a private doctor , may err , even through ignorance , in matters both of faith and manners . and thus the church , whether virtual or representative , may err . but i would fain hear , wherein she cannot err , and whether all catholicks are agreed as well in that . the famous chancellor of paris , gerson , almain , alphonsus a castro , the parisian doctors , yea , and no less man than p. adrian the vi th ( saith the same author ) have taught , that the pope , as he is pope , may be a heretick , and teach heresy , when he desineth any thing without a general council . and truly , if as a man he may be a heretick , i see no reason why he may not be so as a pope , for i take the man and the pope to be here both one . but further , these last named will have this infallibility or iudgment to be in the council , and not in the pope . and bellarmin tells us , that this opinion is not properly heretical , and for this good reason ( which if it should not hold , they would lose a great part of their church ) because they that hold it , are tollerated in the church ; yet it seems erroneous , and next a kin to heresie . it should seem by this , that an error tollerated by the church of rome , is no heresie ; but if not tollerated , it is . indeed i know not well how ever she can err heretically at this rate , unless she will grow so unkind to her self , as not to tollerate her own errors . the same iesuit tells us again , that it was the opinion of albertus pighius , ( and whether he was singular in it , or no , i shall not now ask ) that the pope can by no means be a heretick , or teach heresie publickly , altho himself alone define any thing without a council . and this opinion he acknowledges to be probable , yet not certain . but i think 't is very certain that popes have been hereticks , either as condemned by , or condemning one another for heresie . lastly ( he saith ) the most common opinion , and that for which he brings a multitute of authors , is this , that whether the pope can be a heretick or no , yet he cannot any way define any heretical thing to be believ'd by the whole church . this he calls the most sure opinion , tho they who are of it , seem not very well agreed among themselves about it : for some of them say simply , the pope cannot err : others speak it with this limitation , proceeding maturely with the advice of his council . but now , suppose he should be too hasty , and define something rashly of his own head ; oh! that cannot be , ( saith bellarmin ) for god will not suffer it . and yet i wish he could tell us , why god may not as well suffer an heretical pope to define rashly , or indeed rather deliberately , according to his own heretical iudgment , as suffer him , to whom he hath committed the charge of the whole flock , to fall into heresie . however , considering this variety of opinions in the church of rome , concerning this infallible iudg , to which all must be subject in matters of religion , i begin to think with my self , with what satisfaction of conscience i shall be able to live in that communion . i must obey the infallible iudg , or else be damn'd : and who is this infallible iudg whom i must obey ? it is the church of rome ; this all can tell me with one consent ; but tho this were true , yet am i no wiser for it ; that whole church never yet met to iudg or determine of any thing . who is it then in this church , to whose iudgment i must submit ? it is the pope alone , say some ; and yet these some are not agreed , whether he may not define some things rashly , without due advice , at least , when he is a heretick , as some popes have been , if popes themselves may be believed ; and it seems not impossible , that an heretick , obstinate in error , may define something rashly and unadvisedly . it is not the pope , but a general council , say others ; and why these deserve not as much credit as the former , i know not ; for they are tolerated by the church , and surely the infallible church will not for shame tolerate any dangerous error . 't is neither the one nor the other , saith a third party , but a pope in council , or a council confirm'd by a pope ; and yet whether the determinations of such a church-representative be of full virtue , till they have been universally receiv'd , is made a question by a fourth party . where are we now , after all this , to seek our infallible iudg ? suppose a council should define it as a matter of faith , that the pope himself is subject to a council ; and again , that a pope , yea a pope in council define the contrary , that the council is subject to the pope . this is no idle supposition of an impossible or unlikely thing ; for whosoever knows what was done in the councils of constance and basil , consisting of as many patriarchs , archbishops and bishops , as most of the councils ever did ; and again , what afterwards pass'd in the councils of florence , and the lateran , under p. leo the x th , must know that such a thing , at least , once came to pass . suppose then this which once was , and if the pope could endure to think of a free council , might be again ; what should i have to ground any certain faith upon ? i must still under pain of damnation , submit my faith to the iudgment of the church . it is not , neither i believe ever will or can be agreed upon , which is the iudgment of the church , that of the council , or this of the pope , or the other of pope and council . the contest is between those that will admit of no iudg , and therefore of no decision . their determinations already extant , are directly contrary one to another , yet both pretended to be of faith. that both cannot be so , is plain ; and it may be neither is so . and whether the one or neither be so , if i would determine for my self , i make my self the iudg of the church's definitions , even of those to which i must submit my iudgment , or be damn'd . the other branch of power claim'd by this church , is that of giving laws to all christians , unto which all that will be saved , must yield obedience . about this i find no better agreement among them , than about the former . there is so great a dispute among the doctors ( saith one of them ) about the fulness of ecclesiastical power , and unto what things it extends it self , that in this matter few things are secure . yet that such a power there is , we must believe , or perish , tho none can certainly tell us what kind of power it is , whether purely spiritual , or temporal also . and an universal power it must be , tho we cannot learn how far it reacheth , whether to all , or but some , either things or persons . it is held by many ( saith bell. ) that the pope hath by divine right , a most full power over the whole world , in matters both ecclesiastical and civil . and for this opinion , he names augustinus triumphus , alvarus , pelagius , panormitan , and others ; with whom their angelical doctor , thomas of aquine seems to consent ; in the pope ( saith he ) is the top-height of both powers . others say , that the pope , as pope , hath no temporal power at at all , neither can any way command secular princes , or deprive them of their kingdoms and principalities , tho otherwise they deserve to be deprived of them . for this opinion , he names not so much as one of their own communion ; why , i know not , unless it were , because he knew it to be an opinion very unwelcome at rome ; or because he thought there were but a few inconsiderable papists that held it . and therefore he fathers it upon the hereticks , whose loyalty to their princes will better bear it . the representer here tells us , he knows that the deposing and king-killing power has been maintained by some canonists and divines of his church , and that it is in their opinion lawful , and annex'd to the papal chair . and that some popes have endeavour'd to act according to this power . yet is he not willing that hereticks of any sort , should carry away the honour , which bellarmin bestow'd upon them , of a loyal religion ; but saith , that there are of his communion three times the number , that publickly disown all such authority ; that some universities and provincial councils , have condemn'd it ; and that popish princes sit as safe on their thrones , as others . yea , and he will engage , that all catholick nations in the world , shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such popish principles and doctrines , and shall join with all good protestants for the extinguishing them , with all that profess and practice them , and utter rooting them out of his majesties three kingdoms , and the whole universe . i must do him right , notwithstanding all this ; for he hath not said , that the whole church of rome , or any general council hath condemn'd this doctrine ; or that it is by publick authority , for the offence it gives , rased out of the canon-law , nor the lateran council ; nor that protestant princes can sit as safely in popish countries , as popish princes may in protestant countries . and when he tells us , that the sentence of the supreme pastor is to be obey'd , whether he be infallible or no ; altho i have a great opinion of the loyalty of many papists , i durst hardly engage for his , if there should chance to be such a pope again , as himself confesseth some have been . but what saith bellarmin ? a third sort there is , that takes a middle way ; and he names not a few of them , himself being one of the number . these hold , that the pope , as pope , hath indeed no temporal power directly and immediately , but spiritually only . and such as he makes it , there needs no more ; for it will serve his holiness as well , and the hereticks as ill , to all intents and purposes , yea even to the deposing of princes , as the greatest temporal power in the world. for ( saith he ) by reason of this spiritual , he hath also , at least indirectly , a temporal power , and that no less than the highest . and even as the spirit or soul hath power over the flesh , to chastise , and even to deliver it up to death , in order to the spiritual ends of the soul : so also may the pope , tho not as an ordinary iudg , yet as an extraordinary , in order to spiritual ends , change kingdoms , taking them from one , and giving them to another , abrogate the civil laws of princes , and determine of their rights . this i am sure is more than ever st. peter had by virtue , either of the rock , or keys , or pastoral staff ; and i am confident , he never thought of half this , when he charged all men to submit to the king as supreme , 1 pet. 2. 13. nor when , v. 17. bidding us honour all men , love the brotherhood , fear god , honour the king ; he omitted to mind us of the great duty of all , the subjection we must yield to his successors , the bishops of rome ; especially , when he might well suppose we should have been much apter to have learn'd it of himself , than of any of his successors . 't is time for me now , i think , to consider , into what a labyrinth i must run my self , by going over to the church of rome ; and how i can behave my self , when i come there . i am going into a church , out of which , i am told , there is no salvation ; yet i cannot foresee , that this church her self can tell me surely , how i may be saved in it . of this church , i am told , i cannot be a member to any purpose , if i be not in all things subject and obedient to the supreme head of it , the pope . and subject to him i cannot be , if i actively obey not his commands ; for passive obedience is now become the despised badg of a heretick . but what the pope's power to command is , i can meet with no body that can certainly inform me . it is an absolute power over all the world , say some . no , ( say others ) but only over christians , and in things spiritual . well , ( says the third party ) tho it be directly and immediately only spiritual , yet it is no less for that ; but in order to spirituals , it reacheth over all , both temporal persons , laws and iudgments . all this power is in me only , saith the pope . you are too hasty , sir , say some councils , and the doctors of france ; for the chief power is by christ himself given to the council , and even to put down and set up popes , as they would deal with kings and emperors . which of these now must i believe and obey ? the prince , under whose government i live , may command me one thing ; and the pope , my spiritual father , may command the contrary . how must i now do to bear my self evenly betwixt two such masters ? i consult my spiritual guides , and take the best advice i can get ; some say one thing , and some another ; and which to believe , i stand in need of another guide to direct me ; nay , the church it self , knew i where to find her , ( so visible is she ) could not tell me which is in the right . if i believe those , who tell me the pope has no power in temporal matters ; then is my prince in all such matters to be obey'd , say the pope what he will to the contrary . if i hearken to them , that tell me the pope has a fulness of power in all , both temporal and spiritual matters ; i must obey my prince in nothing without the pope's leave . if i listen to them , who say , the pope's power in temporal matters , is indeed the highest power ; yet indirectly only , and in order to spiritual ends , then am i so far to obey it , and no farther . and here i am at as great a loss as ever ; for who shall judg for me , whether his commands be needful for spiritual ends or no ? it is very unlikely , that my prince and the pope should agree in the determination of this point ; and the difference being between them two , and their commands , to whose award will they stand ? i must here necessarily be left to the direction of my own , or some other private iudgment , and which side soever i take , it is an even wager whether i can be saved . i have been considering all this while for my self alone , and the satisfaction of my own conscience . i presume not to judg for , nor of others . they who have more light , and better eyes , may go on more confidently ; 't is all my care , to go safely for my self ; and as inoffensively as i can to all others . i see many wise men among roman-catholicks , and i dare not say the contrary , but that they are of another religion than i , because they are wiser , and better able to chuse than i. if i chuse as wisely as i can for my self , i cannot do any better for my self , and i doubt not of being saved whilst i do so well . and if it should prove so , that i chuse the worse , he hath no reason to be angry with me , to whom i leave , and do not grudg the better . i cannot yet think it necessary to salvation , to believe that church infallible , which not only in my opinion but in the iudgment of all other christians , ( and they are 〈…〉 and more ) hath often erred , and doth very grosy 〈◊〉 many things ; and which , if we ask her , can her s●lf only tell us , who they be in her communion , that can err , but not who they be , that cannot . nor can i think it safe to be of that church , where i may not be allow'd to judg or try whether error be taught me or no. i cannot think i am bound to judg either my self or others in a state of damnation , for not denying our senses , or captivating our iudgments to the iudgment of an infallible church , which could never determine where her iudgment or infallibility is certainly to be found : or for not obeying the head of that church , which hath sometimes no head , sometimes many heads , and is always uncertain which is her head , or where it stands . if i must thus believe , and thus obey , no body can tell me what , and declare i do all this , or in the judgment of that church which must be believ'd infallible , be no better for turning papist ; then i verily think i am much safer , as i am a poor protestant . i am sure i may as safely , as i can freely , captivate my iudgment both in faith and practice , to the doctrine and laws of the blessed jesus , whom all christians unanimously acknowledg both the supreme and infallible head of the universal church . i will no longer lose my labour , in seeking an infallible guide , which almost every body can tell me of , but no man can certainly shew me . instead of an ecclesiastical monarch on e●●●h , i will content my self with that blessed and only potentate , king of kings , and lord of lords , whom his father hath made sole head of the church , which is his body ; who long since told us , that his kingdom is not of this world , as , i fear , the pope's too much is . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a39265-e240 * de verb. dei. l. 1. c. 1. tertul. de praesct . c. 25. iren. cont . haer. l. 3. c. 2. tert. adv . hermog . c. 22. iren. l. 3. c. 1. aug. l. 2. cont . donat . pap. repr . p. 35. ibid. p. 37 , 38. bel. de eccles . l. 3. c. 5. bonacin . de lensur . d. 2. q. 5. p. 1. from vasquez and others . tol. instruct . sacerd . l. 4. c. 3. instr. sacerd . l. 1 ▪ c. 18. prefat de rom. pontif. stapleton tripl . c. 15. de rom. pont. l. 1. c. 10. almain . de auth. eccles. c. 3. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion, from the charge of agreement with the church of rome in answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome, evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1688 approx. 236 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 65 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59901 wing s3372 estc r32140 12334484 ocm 12334484 59736 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59901) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 59736) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1027:15) a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion, from the charge of agreement with the church of rome in answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome, evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [7], 128 [i.e. 122] p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1688. pages 121, 122 misnumbered 127 and 128 respectively. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. 1704. -an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome. church of england -apologetic works. catholic church -controversial literature. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ a vindication of some protestant principles , of church-unity , &c. ] nov. 16. 1687. guil ▪ needham r mo . in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiep , cant. a sacris . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over-against st. dunstan's-church , in fleet-street , 1688. to the reader . i here present thee with a book which the importunity of our roman adversaries has extorted from me ; i had rather have employed my pen upon some moré useful argument ; but in such a state as this , we cannot always be our own chusers . the design of the book i answer seems to be , to revive some old disputes between us and the dissenters , and to raise new jealousies in them , if not of our inclination to popery , yet of a great deal of popish leaven yet remaining among us , which ought to be purged out ; for there is nothing such men dread more , than that the dissenters should at this time entertain any kind thoughts of the church of england . the plot , i confess , is well enough laid , were not all wise men of both parties aware of it , and that makes it ridiculous enough ; and indeed the book it self is an odd kind of mixture ; he gives very good words to the dissenters , and at the same time uses no other but their own arguments against the church of england , to establish some main points of popery , which whether it be a piece of courtship to them , or a sly affront , ought to be considered : as for our agreement with the church of rome , if i have not sufficiently baffled that pretence , i will never write more ; but this of it self was too mean a design to confute that which no body , not the objector himself , believed ; and therefore i will be bold to say , that i have abundantly confuted the popish supremacy from those very principles on which this author would found our agreement ; i intended a preface to have explained some notions about the church , which might have been of use to ordinary readers for the better understanding this answer , but it swell'd so much upon my hands , that by the advice of some friends i have reserved it for a distinct treatise , which shall quickly follow . w. s. an answer to the preface . since this author has thought fit to single me out , as an example of this pretended agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , i shall undertake my own defence , which will give me no other trouble , but a short diversion from some better designs ; which i suppose is all that was hoped for from this pamphlet . for whoever this author be ( which i am not curious to know ) i cannot think him so weak , as to hope at this time of day , that he could perswade our dissenters , that the clergy of the church of england , are not the chief , if not the only opposers of popery , and defenders of the protestant religion ; or that , notwithstanding all their appearing zeal against popery , they are still papists in their hearts , and are ready to embrace a cassandrian accommodation whenever the government pleases ; and therefore i could be very well contented such suggestions as these should pass without an answer , as far as i am concerned in them ; for let any man that knows me , think me a papist if he can ; i am pretty confident , this author believes me far enough from it , or else i might have expected better words from him ; but it is fit , that such little arts as these should be exposed to the scorn and contempt of mankind , and that our dissenters should be made sensible what a mean opinion such writers have of them , who hope to impose upon them by such mean arts . for to begin with that great cry of late , that the clergy of the church of england are now the chief , if not the only opposers of popery , and defenders of the protestant religion ; is there not good reason for it ? have they not defended the church of england against all the little arts and shifts of the church of rome ? what is that then which he calls the unlucky mistake , and which the unwary readers of books are to be warned against ? that those unanswerable books , which have of late been written against popery , were not writen by the clergy of the church of england ? that he dares not say . what is the mistake then ? that these men , who confute popery , are not protestants , but papists ? methinks their confuting popery is no great sign of their being papists ; especially when papists are not able to defend their religion against them . i am sure , if their arguments will keep men from turning papists , they are notable opposers of popery , and defenders of the protestant religion , whatever they are themselves ; and what hurt it would do any man to be confirmed in the protestant religion , though it were by the writings of concealed papists , i cannot guess . should the pope himself write a book against popery , if the arguments were good , i should like the book never the worse for the sake of the author . i deny not , but such things may be done ; papists may write against popery , and protestants for it , with an intention to betray the cause which they undertake to defend ; but if this were his rule of guessing , there would be much more just cause to suspect , that our late popish writers were protestants , than that our protestant writers were papists . when they are able to answer their books against popery , we will give them leave to call them papists still ; but could they have done that , they would have allowed them to have been protestants still . but what course does our author take to undeceive unwary readers at this time , and to prove these confuters of popery to be papists ? why , by acquainting them with the avowed principles of some of our clergy about those points wherein the very life of popery consists , and on which the whole system of that religion is founded : in doing which , he hath with some clearness demonstrated the agreement of opinion between the church of england men , and the church of rome , to be so exact and full , that if the government should so design , it were but dictum factum , according to their doctrine ; and a cassandrian peace might be patch'd up presently with rome . this is a notable discovery indeed ! do any of these men then embrace any doctrines of the church of rome ? no ; but it seems , they agree with the church of rome in some fundamental principles , whereon the whole system of popery is founded ; that shall be examined anon : but suppose it at present ; do they draw the same conclusions from these principles , which the church of rome does ? no ; but they ought to do so : so this author thinks ; but suppose they do not think so ; are they ever the nearer popery , though their principles be the same , if their conclusions are as distant as protestancy is from popery ? if they be so well disposed to a cassandrian peace , i pray , what hinders it ? won't , they receive us upon these terms ? what ? not after all their softning representations to invite men into the bosom of the church ? when they are so fond of all new converts , will they reject the cassandrian divines of the church of england ? when he adds , that his majesty will admit of no such accomodations , any one would suspect that these poor cassandrians had been suing for reconciliations , and had been rejected ; that the mollifying character , of a papist truly represented , and the bishop of condom's exposition of the catholick faith , which is as soft , though not so honest , as cassanders consultation , would not now be allowed of at court , and all for the sake of that more glorious design of liberty of conscience . but why might not cassandrians be reconciled to the church , and dissenters have their liberty too ? this prefacer does not tell his story well ; he has forehead enough , but wants somewhat within . well , but it was necessary in this present juncture to put some check to the insulting talk of the clergy , who would be thought to be the only champions against popery : that the clergy of the church of england , have industriously and successfully opposed the corruptions of the church of rome , will be acknowledged by all but papists , and they feel it to their cost ; but that they are the only champions against popery , i assure you , is not pleasing to them , for they would be very glad to see their dissenting brethren put to their helping hand , and be as industrious to preserve those from popery , who have a veneration for their authority , as we are ; and upon these terms we could heartily forgive them all their former unjust imputations of popery to us ; but that our popish adversaries find it necessary in this juncture to give some check to this popery-opposing clergy , i do not wonder , and i believe no body will , tho methinks the best way of giving a check to their brags , had been to confute their books , and they had work enough before them , had they liked this way ; for i can tell them a great many books which they have never answered yet , and i beleive never will , i am sure never can to any purpose : but they come too late to perswade people now that we are papists , especially when they are so open-hearted as to tell all the world what their design is ; for if we were papists , no man will believe that they would be the first men who would discover us ; it may be they may know some few cassandrian church-men , but those they keep to themselves yet , and leave others to guess at them . but what check does he intend to give to this insulting talk of the clergy ? a very terrible one truly ; for from this essay , it is pretty evident , that the church of england must either freely declare , that as to the particulars instanced in , she is agreed with the romanist , and that the controversie lies only between the church of rome and the protestant dissenter ; or she must honestly renounce the principles she has cleav'd unto , when any of her sons wrote against the nonconformists , and confess that she has been persecuting them for their firm adherence to protestant doctrines . this is to triumph before the victory , as our author will quickly find ; but however , for my part , i am glad it is no worse ; for i do not see how this will much humble us with relation to our disputes against popery : should i find any principles that ever i have maintain'd against dissenters , give any advantage to popery , i would certainly conclude them to be false , and make no scruple at all to renounce them ; for that which is false cannot follow from that which is true ; and how great a humiliation soever this were , a man might dispute heartily against popery still ; and let them but lay the charge of persecution upon this issue , which i grant is the true and fair state of the case , ( for persecution is only for righteousness sake ) and if our dissenters were in the right , i will readily grant that those who made or executed those laws against dissenters , who had any hand or heart in it , were guilty of persecution . there may be unreasonable severities used upon other accounts , but every man who suffers for following his conscience , is not therefore persecuted ; but he who suffers for being in the right , for believing and doing what god commands . the next discovery this essay makes is this , that ever since the breach between the church of england , and the protestant dissenter has had its being , we have left us uothing but the name , the shadow of a protestant church of england , and that so far as she differs from the dissenter , she agrees with the roman catholick . how glad would these gentlemen be , to have none thought protestants but dissenters , who in this present juncture are a more gentile and better natur'd sort of protestants , than this shadow of the church of england , which haunts them like a ghost or spectre : but when did the church of england commence such a mere name and shadow ? ever since the breach with the protestant dissenter . but is not the church of england the same now that it was before that breach ? and if it were a good substantial protestant church then , how comes it to be a shadow now ? suppose what he says were true , that as far as we differ from the protestant dissenter , we agree with the roman catholick . the church of england may be never the worse protestant church for that , which is placed in the middle , between two extreams , the dissenter and the papist . the church of england reformers never made a mere opposition to the church of rome , the rule of their reformation , but reformed only those abuses of the church of rome which needed a reformation ; and when this prefacer can prove that we have not reformed enough , we will reform again ; for we are not obstinate against convictions , and never think it too late to reform ; however , if as far as we differ from the dissenter , we are roman catholicks , yet certainly , as far as we agree with the dissenter , we are not ; and that is enough to make us somewhat more than the shadow of a protestant church . for we agree with them in our opposition to the popes supremacy , ( as will presently appear ) to infallibity , to transubstantiation , to the sacrifice of the mass , to the adoration of the host , to the worship of saints and angels , and the virgin mary , to the worship of images , to prayers in an unknown tongue , to the denying people the use of the bible , to the five new popish sacraments , to indulgencies , purgatory , prayers for the dead , the merit of works , and such like popish innovations and corruptions ; and to oppose these i take to be good substantial protestancy . and as for those things wherein we differ from the dissenters , we are so far from being roman-catholicks , that as for my own part , tho i like neither , yet i think the dissenter the better of the two : setting aside the apostolical institution of episcopacy , i should prefer any form of government , presbytery , or independancy , rather than a papal monarchy ; it were better to have no ceremonies at all , than to see religion transform'd into little else but outside and ceremony ; for some external indecencies of worship , which may be supplied by inward devotions , are more eligible than gross and palpable superstitions . though i think sitting at the lords supper favours of too much irreverence , yet i had rather see men receive sitting , than see them worship the host. so that our church of england nobility and gentry , as he adds , have no reason either to embrace the name of roman catholick , or to close with the protestant dissenter ; a church of england protestant is somewhat more than a name still , and i hope will be so , when some other names will be forgot . an answer to the pretended agreement between the church of england , and the church of rome . and first to the introduction . he begins with an account of that late dispute about representing and misrepresenting , which if he had been wise he would have forgot ; the papists ( he says ) complain of misrepresentation , and until this be yielded , they 'l not dispute . and i commend them for their resolution , which is the wisest thing they can now do , tho it had been wiser not to have complained ; for they complained as long as they could ; and now they have no more to say , they will dispute no longer ; as he observes , that for some months there has been nothing but answering , replying , rejoyning , and sur-rejoyning , and we are still where we began : that is , they are papists still , and we protestants , which i suppose is all that he can mean ; for if they have any modesty , their complaining , and our trouble of answering is at an end , which i think is not where we began . well , so much then for misrepresenting , and now a new scene opens , in the first place a just state of the controversie must be setled , wherein the contending parties agree , and how far they differ . what they please , we are contented to follow them in their own way ; tho it is strange this should be to settle now . our author undertakes the first of these , but does not design to encumber this discourse with a catalogue of agreements in the great doctrines of christian religion , and matters of opinion . tho he was more afraid than hurt here , for this would not much have encumbred his discourse ; for i know little we agree in , but the three creeds ; but his reason why he will not encumber his discourse with our agreement in doctrines and opinions , is very surprizing , viz. because there is no need of agreement in such matters ; for both the council of trent , and our english convocation , have taken especial care by a latitude of expression to obtain the assent of men , who vastly differ in their opinions : which is a false account of the english convocation , but a very true , tho strange account of that infallible council of trent , of which more presently . but is not this a clever way of flinging off all disputes about doctrines and opinions ? his business is to prove the agreement of my principles about church ▪ communion , with the church of rome . for after all his talk of the church of england , he has not one word about her , unless he takes me for the church of england , which i assure him i never took my self to be ; but it seems one poor single divine may pass for the church of england , since it is dwindled into a name and shadow , tho it would be misrepresentation in a protestant to impute the opinions and doctrines of popes , cardinals , doctors , school-men , canonists , casuists , nay of general councils themselves , if they happen to forget their anathema's , to the church of rome : i say , his design being to show the agreement of my principles with the church of rome , he knew this was impossible to be done , unless he laid aside the consideration of all doctrines and opinions . but are these of no account then in the church of rome ? is it no matter what our opinions are , so we do but maintain the popes supremacy ? i think the supremacy an intolerable usurpation on the rights and liberties of the christian church ; but i think the popish innovations in faith and worship more intolerable corruptions of the christian religion , and more fatal to mens souls ; and therefore tho men groan'd under the oppressions of the see of rome , they were other corruptions which gave birth to the reformation , witness luthers reformation ; and tho i should suppose it possible to be perswaded for peace sake to submit to the usurpations of the bishop of rome , if all other abuses and corruptions were taken away , yet while the corruptions of faith and worship remain , while i believe them to be such dangerous corruptions , it makes reconciliation impossible ; for tho i may be contented to be oppressed in my christian liberties , i can never be contented to be damned ; which is the difference between submitting to an usurped authority , and complying with a corrupt faith and worship ; for tho i hope a great many who do so will find mercy , yet those can expect none who are convinced of these corruptions , and yet comply , which would be my case . so that he begins at the wrong end to prove my agreement with the church of rome ; for tho my pinciples did prove , and tho i were my self perswaded that the bishop of rome had a regular and canonical authority over all other churches , while he is a truly catholick and orthodox bishop , yet i should think such corruptions in faith and worship sufficient to absolve all christians from their subjection to him ; and therefore whatever my principles of church-communion are , there is little hope of my agreement with the church of rome , while these doctrinal corruptions last ; and it is a vain thing to prove an agreement in principles of government , unless they can prove an agreement in faith and worship too . there was no dispute , that i know of , between the catholicks and the arians about principles of government ; but he would have been laughed at , who should hence have inferred an agreement between them . however setting aside this , let us consider how he proves that doctrines and opinions are so little , or not at all , concerned in the agreement of the two churches , viz. because both the council of trent , and the english convocation , have taken especial care by a latitude of expression to obtain the assent of men , who vastly differ in their opinions . has the church of rome then , and the church of england , no positive opinions to which they expect the assent of their members , especially of their clergy ? he instances in the doctrine of predetermination , or which among us are better known by the name of arminian controversies ; now suppose they thought fit to give a latitude of sense in their defining these controversies , have they positively defined nothing ? has not the church of rome in express terms decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation , of worship of saints , and images , of the adoration of the host , of seven sacraments , of purgatory ? &c. and has not the church of england as positively determined against them ? and where is the agreement then between the two churches ? the truth is , there cannot be a worse thing said of any church , than what this author charges both upon the church of england , and the church of rome , that they purposely penn'd their decrees in such loose terms , that men of different opinions might expound them to their own sense : which is to make a show of deciding a controveesy , with an intention all the while to leave it undecided ; which is such a juggle as unbecomes the sincerity of a christian church . there may be a great many nice philosophical disputes , which a wise church may think necessary to leave undecided ; but there never can be any good reason , instead of determining controversies , to lay the foundation of endless disputes between the members of the same communion , by doubtful and ambiguous expressions . and therefore i absolutely deny , that the church of england has done this , or ever intended to do it . she has indeed used that temper and moderation in those articles , which relate to the five points , as only to determine what is substantial in them , and necessary to be believed by all christians , without deciding those niceties , whereon the controversie between the calvinist and the arminian turns , and therefore both of them may subscribe these articles , because the controversies between them are determined on neither side ; and the appeasing such heats , as may be occasioned by those disputes , is left to the prudence of governours , which was thought a better way than a positive decision of them : this i think , i could make appear , were it a proper place for it ; and therefore have always thought , that the church of england was wronged on both sides , while both the calvinist and arminian have forced her to speak their own sense , when she intended to speak neither . and no man can blame this conduct , who remembers , that this is only a reviving that old philosophical dispute about necessity and fate , which always has been a dispute , and is likely to continue so ; and though these different opinions have very different effects on our minds , and form very different apprehensions in us of almighty god , which may be a just reason to prefer one before the other ; yet they are both consistent with the belief of all the fundamental doctrines of christianity , as i have shewed at large in that book to which this author so often refers . but now the church of rome has truly used this art , which this author charges her with , such a latitude of expression and ambiguous terms , as might satisfie their differing divines , that the cause was determined on their side , when there was no other way to end their disputes , and allay their heats ; and that in many concerning points too , as any one may see , who reads father paul's history of the council of trent ; and if this be intolerable in a fallible church , it is much more intolerable in a council , which pretends to infallibility . certainly they distrusted their own authority ; either did not believe themselves to be infallible , or knew , that their divines did not think them so ; for otherwise the authority of the council might have over-ruled their disputes , and there had been no need of cheating them into an assent : but what expectation is there , that the decrees of those men should be infallible , who so often intended to decree nothing ? this is a mystery , which i suppose our author would not so freely have confessed at another time ; but it was necessary to allow this latitude of sense in the decrees of the trent council now , to bring off mr. de meaux , and the representer , who do indeed expound the decrees of the council to a great latitude of sense : but it is not a little matter will help them out ; the latitude of one side of the line will not do , but it must reach from pole to pole. there is another ingenious confession of this author , which is worth the noting ; that among the romanists , about the great doctrine of predetermination , there are the durandists , dominicans , jansenists , molinists , and scotists , that very much differ in opinion , and yet are still of the same church : and yet these are the men , that quarrel at the reformation , because there are differing opinions among them , when there are the same disputes among themselves , managed with as great heat and contention . these are the men , who tell us , that we must have an infallible judg to end our disputes , when an infallible pope , and infallible councils , dare not undertake to end theirs : but as for what he adds , that there are in the church of england , calvinists , arminians , socinians , and antinomians , who subscribe the same articles of religion , as terms of unity and peace : as for calvinists and arminians , i will grant , they may both subscribe our articles ; whether any socinians do , i know not , no more than they know when a secret iew , or one who does not believe transubstantiation , is receiv'd into holy orders by them ; but i am sure an honest socinian cannot subscribe our articles , unless he can subscribe the nicene and athanasian creeds ; but this was only designed to propagate that groundless calumny , that the divines of the church of england are infected with socinianism . having thus as well as he could , delivered himself from ingaging in that dispute , about our agreement in doctrinal points , which he knew he could make nothing of ; he says , he will confine himself to the agreement there is between both churches about government and worship ; and threatens to show , how we have disputed against dissenters upon roman-catholick principles , both in proving their obligation to communion with us , and in vindicating the terms of our communion from being sinful . this is what he undertakes to prove , and we are bound to hear him . answer to sect . 1. concerning the church of englands closure with a roman catholick principle about the government of the church , in proving the dissenter to lie under an obligation of holding communion with her . and now we are come to the main seat of the controversy about catholick ▪ communion , which our author has very dexterously improved into catholick power and empire . i need give him no hard words ; to expose his manifest and wilful prevarications in this matter , will be thought hard enough , if he be capable of blushing . now to make this as visible as the light ; i shall , 1. shew , wherein he pretends the agreement between the two churches consists ; that is , between my principles of communion , and the church of rome ; for i am the only person here concerned ; and if i cannot vindicate my self , i will own my own shame , without casting the blame on my dear mother the church of england ; and i suppose , it will be sufficient to vindicate my self , if i first show him , that i have in express words rejected all those propositions wherein he pretends this agreement consists . secondly , particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books , and shew his sincerity in quoting , and his skill in applying , and then his french popery may shift for it self , excepting a word or two of that learned arch-bishop petrus de marca . as for the first , he himself has collected the particulars wherein we agree , which i shall distinctly examine ; the reader may find them p. 15 , 16. which are these , 1. they both make the catholick church , one visible governed society , houshold or kingdom . this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the first and fundamental mistake , and a wilful one too ; for i affirm the contrary in express words , in the defence of dr. stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of separation , p. 565 , 566 , upon occasion of that dispute about the constitutive regent head of a national church ; i expresly assert , that the unity , both of the national and universal church , consists in one communion ; that consent is all that is necessary to unite a body or socity in one communion ; — that their unity consists only in consent , not in any superior governing ▪ ecclesiastical power on earth , which binds them together : so that i absolutely deny , that the catholick church is one governed society , with one supreme government over the whole . p. 567. i assert , that christ hath instituted no such constitutive regent power of one bishop over another in his church ; and therefore , the union of particular churches into one , must be made by consent , not by superiority of power . p. 564. i affirm , that tho a national church ( and the reason is stronger for the universal church ) be one body , yet it is not such a political body as they describe , and cannot be according to its original constitution , which differs from secular forms of government ( which have a supreme governing power ) by that ancient church-canon of our saviours own decreeing , it shall not be so among you . and thus , a national church as governed by consent , may be one body in an ecclesiastical , tho not in a civil political sense ; that is , by one communion , not by one supreme governing power : the dean in answer to mr. baxter , who asserts a constitutive regent head of the national church , necessary to make it a church , and yet allows , that there is one catholick visible church , and that all particular churches , as headed by their particular bishops or pastors , are parts of the universal church ; argues thus , if this doctrine be true , and withal it be necessary , that every church must have a constitutive regent part as essential to it ; then it unavoidably follows , that there must be a catholick visible head to the catholick visible church ; and so mr. b's constitutive regent part of the church , hath done the pope a wonderful kindness , and made a very plausible plea for his universal pastorship . where the dean proves , that a constitutive regent head is not essential to the notion of a national church , for then it must be essential to the catholick church too ; and then there must be a supreme pastor , or some supreme governing power over the whole church , which i suppose , is to deny that the catholick church is one visible governed society . this argument i defended at large , and added ( p. 576. ) that to deny a church can be one without a constitutive regent head , infers one of these two things . 1. either that many particular churches cannot associate into one , for the joynt exercise of discipline and government , which overthrows the very notion of catholick unity and communion . or 2. that there is and must be a power in the church , superior to the episcopal power , which naturally sets up a pope above bishops . thus much for my agreement with them , that the catholick church is one visible governed society , that is , which has a supreme power over the whole ; and if our author by this time does not begin to colour , i will e'en blush for him . but by this the reader will perceive , what a hopeful cause this author has undertaken , to prove my agreement with the church of rome about the supremacy , either of the pope or general council , when i absolutely deny , that there is , or ought to be any such superior authority and jurisdiction over the whole church . but to proceed . 2. he says , they both pitch upon the episcopal government as distributed into the several subordinations of combined churches , as what is by divine institution made the government of the church : a combination of diocesan churches to make up one provincial , whose bishops are in subordination to their metropolitan ; a combination of provincial churches to make up a national , and the metropolitans in subordination to the primate ; a combination of national churches to make up a patriarchal , and the primates in subordination to the patriarch ; and a confederacy of patriarchal to make up one oecumenical , and every patriarch in subordination to the oecumenical bishop , or chief patriarch . this is an agreement with a witness ; and if he can prove this , as he says he has done , of which more presently , we will never dispute more with them about church-government ; let us then consider the several steps and gradations of church-authority , which at last centers in an universal bishop . 1. the subordination of parochial presbyters , who are combined and united under the government of a diocesan bishop . thus far we agree with him , and acknowledg a direct superiority of bishops over their respective presbyters ; but we go not one step farther with him . 2. a combination of diocesan churches to make up one provincial , whose bishops are in subordination to their metropolitan . such a combination i allow of , but the subordination i deny to be the original form of church associations ; and this one word subordination , which he has here thrust in , discovers the whole trick , and spoils our agreement quite . i assert , these combinations are for communion , not for government , and therefore there is no subordination required to such an union ; he will have these combinations to be , not meerly for communion , but for government , and that indeed requires a subordination ; but these two notions do as vastly differ , as a friendly association for mutual advice and counsel , and a subjection to a superior authority . and that i have not altered my opinion , but that this was always my judgment in the case , i shall now show , and i need to that purpose only transcribe a page or two out of the defence , p 577 , &c. it is evident from the testimony of the earliest ages of the church , that first the apostles , and then the bishops as their successors , were the supreme governours of the church , who had no higher order or power over them : and therefore tertullian calls the bishop , summus sacerdos , or the chief and highest priest ; and optatus apices & principes , the tops and princes of all ; which was the general language of those days ; as any one who pleases , may learn from dr. barrow's learned treatise of the popes supremacy . and as bishops were the highest governours of the church , so every bishop was greatest in his own diocess ; no other bishop , nor synod of bishops , could impose any thing on him , without his own consent ; they met for advice and counsel , not for rule and empire ; which , mr. b. tells us so often , was arch-bishop usher's judgment , and which plainly was the judgment and practice of antiquity , as appears from what i have already discoursed about catholick communi on : it were easie to transcribe several passages out of st. cyprian to this purpose , especially from his preface to the council of carthage , where he tells them , that they were met freely to declare their opinions about this matter ( the rebaptization of those who had been baptized by hereticks ) judging no man , nor denying communion to him if he dissent : for neither doth any of us constitute himself bishop of bishops , or by tyrannical terror compel his colleagues to a necessity of obeying ; since every bishop being free and in his own power , has his own free choice , and can neither be judged by another , nor judg another ; but let us all expect the judgment of our lord iesus christ , who alone has power both to advance us to the government of his church , and judg of our government ; and in p. 579. i add , nor does this overthrow that very ancient constitution of patriarchal or metropolitan churches ; for a patriarch or metropolitan was not a superior order to bishops , nor included any authority over them , as is evident from what st. cyprian discoursed , who was himself a primate , but only some precedency in the same order , and such advantages of power in the government of the church , as was given them by the common consent of bishops for a greater publick good ; as the power of calling provincial synods , and presiding in them , and a principal interest in the ordination of bishops in his province , and the like , which were determined and limited by ecclesiastical canons . it is true this patriarchal power did in time degenerate into domination and empire , when it fell into the hands of ambitious men ; but was originally ( and is so still , when wise and good men have the management of it ) a very prudent constitution to preserve peace and order , and good discipline in the church . but that arch-bishops and metropolitans had no proper superiority and jurisdiction over bishops , is evident from what st. hierom objects against the discipline of the montenists , amongsts us ( i. e. the catholicks ) the bishops enjoy the place of the apostles ; among them the bishop is but the third ; for they have the patriarch of pepusa in phrygia for the first , those whom they call cenones for the second ; thus bishops are thrust down into the third , that is , almost the last place . and yet in st. hieroms time the catholick church had archbishops and metropolitans , but yet it seems not such as degraded bishops , or advanced any above them . whether this be true reasoning or no , shall be examined when there is occasion for it ; all that i am concerned in at present , is only to show , that i never asserted such an original combination of metropolitical churches , as placed bishops in subordination to the metropolitan , or gave him a direct authority or jurisdiction over them ; and here our agreement must for ever break off ; for if it will not reach to the jurisdiction of metropolitans and primates , much less will it extend to patriarchs , and least of all to an oecumenical pastor , whom i have in express terms rejected , and for what reason will appear anon . 3. the next instance of agreement is , that we both agree in giving to a general council direct authority over their collegues in matters that concern the purity of faith and manners , and the unity of the church . but here are two considerable mistakes in this matter : 1. that i give this authority to a general council . 2. that i give a general council , or any other combination of bishops a direct authority over their collegues . 1. that i give this authority to general councils . my dissenting adversaries began this charge , that i set up a general council , as a superior governing power over the whole church , and consequently over all bishops , and therefore was no better than a cassandrian or a french papist ; and our author revives this charge without taking any notice , that it was ever objected and answered before : indeed he has objected nothing in this whole matter , but what was before objected by dissenters with as much art and appearance of truth , as he has now given it : and i could more easily forgive it in them , because it might be an innocent mistake in them , till these notions were thoroughly sifted , and set in a better light ; but for our author to read that very book , the vindication of the defence of dr. stillingfleet , wherein all these objections were made and answered , and to renew the charge , and repeat the objections again , without taking notice of any answer that was given to them , is such a piece of ingenuity , as an honest dissenter would be ashamed of . in my defence of the dean , there was not one word which looked towards a general council , excepting the collegium episcopale , or the episcopal colledg , which some mistook for a general council ; but this mistake i rectified in the vindication , p. 146. i observed , that optatus called the whole body of bishops collegium episcopale , and upon the same account st. cyprian and st. austin call all catholick bishops collegues ; and they may as well say , that when the fathers speak of the unity of the episcopacy , they mean their union in a general council , as that they mean a general council by the colledg of bishops . in st. cyprians time there never had been a general council , excepting the council of the apostles at jerusalem ; and yet when he wrote to forreign bishops , with whom he never was joined in council , nor ever like to be , he calls them his collegues , or those of the same colledg with him ; which signifies no more than that they were of the same power and authority with him , and united in one communion . and what my thoughts are of a general council , whoever pleases , may see some pages after : p. 162 , 163 , &c. 2. nor do i give a direct authority to any bishops or council of bishops over their collegues : this i expresly deny in forty places , as to be sure every man must do , who acknowldges , that all bishops have originally an equal power , and the supreme authority in their respective diocesses . that no bishops either single or united have any direct authority or superiority over each other . that the combinations of churches , and the synods and councils of bishops , are not for direct acts of government , and superiority over each other ; with several other like expressions before quoted . but do i not say , that general councils can have no direct authority over any bishops , who refuse to consent , unless it be in such matters as concern the purity of faith , and manners , and catholick unity ? and does not this infer , that they have a direct authority over them in such matters ? this possibly might lie a little out of our author's reach , i not having occasion then given me to difcourse it more at large ; but if he had not understood this , it had been more modest and ingenuous to have thought it an unwary saying , or to have made a query upon it , and desired me to have reconciled this seeming contradiction , rather than to charge me with such principles , as i so often expresly and positively reject . but ingenuity and modesty are virtues not to be expected from such adversaries , and therefore i shall briefly state this matter also , by 1. showing what i meant , by matters which concern the purity of faith and manners , and catholick unity . 2. what authority i give to bishops , or a council of bishops over their collegues in such cases , and how this is to be reconciled with my affirming , that the combinations of churches , and the synods and councils of bishops , are not for direct acts of government and superiority over each other , but only for mutual advice and counsel . 1. as for the first , when i say , that neighbour bishops , or a council of bishops , has authority over their collegues in matters which concern the purity of faith and manners , and catholick unity , it is plain that my meaning was not , and could not be , that such a council of bishops had authority to make what decrees they pleased in matters of faith or manners , or catholick unity , and impose them upon their collegues by a direct and superior authority , without their own consent ; for this is the very thing i disputed against ; and yet this is the sense he would put upon my words , and indeed no other sense of them can do the church of rome any service ; but let any indifferent reader consider the whole paragraph , and freely judg whether this author be not a very candid interpreter . i was discoursing about general councils , that it is not likely there should ever be a convention of bishops from all parts of the christian world ; nor if it were possible , that there should be some few bishops dispatched from all christian churches , all the world over , can i see any reason why this should be called a general council , when it may be there are ten times as many bishops who did not come to the council , as those who did ; and why should the less number of bishops assembled in council , judg for all the rest , who so far exceed them in numbers , and it may be are not inferior to them in piety and wisdom ; especially considering , that every bishop has the supreme government of his own church , and his liberty and power to choose for himself , as st. cyprian tells us ; and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his collegues ; which overthrows the proper jurisdiction of general councils , which can have no direct authority over any bishops , who refuse to consent , unless it be in such matters , as concern the purity of faith and manners , and catholick unity . now if faith and manners , and catholick unity , were considered as the subject of conciliary decrees , what greater authority could the council of trent it self desire than this , to have authority to make decrees about faith and manners , and catholick unity , which shall oblige all the bishops in the world ? for i know not any thing else for a council of christian bishops to make decrees about : and therefore these matters which concern faith and manners , only relate to the faith and manners of the bishop ; as i elsewhere expresly teach , that a bishop cannot be imposed on against his own consent , by any bishop or council of bishops , nor can justly be deposed upon such accounts , while he neither corrupts the faith , nor schismatically divides the church . so that this authority refers not to the decrees of councils about faith or manners , but is only an authority of censuring heretical and schismatical bishops . 2. but that we may better understand the true state of this matter , let us consider what kind of authority this is : and 1. i observe this is no act of authority over bishops considered a bishops , but over hereticks and schismaticks ; and no man that i know of , ever denied the churches power to censure heresie or schism , or to correct the lives and manners of men ; and if hereticks and schismaticks , wicked and profligate persons , may be flung out of the church ; if any bishops be such , there is no reason their character should excuse them , for that does not lessen but aggravate their crime . 2. and therefore this is no usurpation upon the episcopal power and government ; it is not imposing laws or rules on a bishop for the government of his church without his consent , which is an usurpation upon the episcopal authority ; but it is only judging him unworthy to be a bishop , and committing the care of his flock to some more fit person . 3. this authority does not result from that superior jurisdiction , which one bishop , or all the bishops in the world have over any one single bishop , but from that obligation which every bishop has as far as he can , to take care of the whole flock of christ , as i explain it in the vindication , p. 156. that the unity of the episcopacy is the foundation of that authority which neighbour bishops have over their collegues in case of heresie or schism , or any notorious wickedness ; for they being bishops of the universal church , have an original right and power ( not to govern their collegues , but ) to take care that no part of the church which is within their reach and inspection , suffer by the heresie or evil practices of their collegues , which as i observed in the defence , p. 215 is the reason st. cyprian gives why there are so many bishops in the christian church whom he calls a copious body of bishops , coupled by the cement of concord , and bond of unity . that if any of our colledg ( i. e. any bishop● ) should endeavour to broach any new heresie , or tear and spoil the flock of christ , the rest may come in to their help , and like good and merciful pastors , gather again the sheep of christ into the fold . so that this is not properly an authority over bishops , who have originally no superior jurisdiction over each other , but an obligation on all bishops , as far as they can , to see that no part of the christian church be corrupted with heresie , or divided by schisms ; the discharge of which may impower them to remove heretical bishops , without any direct authority to govern bishops . so that this power of deposing heretical and wicked bishops does not contradict what i before asserted , that by original right , all bishops are equal , and every bishop supreme in his own diocess , who cannot be compelled by other bishops to govern his church by such rules and laws as he himself does not assent to ; and therefore that such combinations and councils of bishops are not originally for direct acts of government and superiority over each other , but only for mutual counsel and advice : for these are two very different things , to have authority to compel a bishop to govern his church by such laws as he himself in his own conscience does not approve ; and to have authority to fling a notorious heretical or schismatical bishop out of their communion , and to command and exhort his presbyters and people not to own him ; st. cyprian i am sure thought these two cases very different ; for the first he utterly rejects as an usurpation on the episcopal authority , that it was to make themselves bishops of bishops , which he thought a great impiety ; the other he practised himself in the case of basilides and martialis . for the first is a direct authority over bishops in the exercise of their episcopal function ; the second is only an authority to censure heresie and schism , and to preserve the communion of the church pure , and to defend the flock from such wolves in sheeps clothing , but it may be it will be objected , that this comes much to one ; for the authority of deposing heretical and schismatical bishops , infers an authority of declaring heresie and schism ; and that of making or declaring articles of faith , and laws of catholick communion ; for how can they depose hereticks or schismaticks without an authority of declaring what heresie and schism is ? and this is as much authority as the council of trent it self would have desired ; and therefore it seems very absurd and contradictious to deny a council authority to oblige their collegues by their decrees of faith , or manners , or catholick unity , and to give authority to neighbour bishops to depose or censure any heretical or schismatical bishop . to this purpose our author argues , p. 32. 33. according to their doctrine the bishops of spain , france , italy , and germany , being bishops of the catholick church , tho' ordinarily their power is confined to their particular churches , yet having an original right with relation to the whole catholick church , are bound by the laws of communion to re-assume their original right , and assemble and summon before them the bishops of the church of england ; who , in their opinion , are fallen into a great schism and heresy ; in which matters these bishops have a direct authority over the bishops of the church of england , and may proceed against them , and depose them , and ordain others in their room , and oblige the people to withdraw from the communion of the deposed bishops , in which case the foreign bishops being the governing part , have as much authority over the english bishops , as the english bishops have over the dissenters in england . he should have said as the english bishops have over the popish bishops of france , spain , or italy , and then he had come pretty near the matter . he adds . the larger combination of bishops , the greater is their power and authority : and therefore if the english bishops have a direct authority over the dissenters in england , so has this greater combination of bishops over the dissenting english bishops ; ( that is , if bishops have authority over their own flocks , then the bishops of france and spain have authority over english bishops ; if bishops must govern their own churches , other bishops may govern them ; an inference which i believe , our author is the first man , that ever made . ) and as the english bishops insist on their authority in decision of controversies , and the dissenter must submit ; so may this greater college of bishops urge their authority , and the dissenting english bishops must submit , and may not be admitted to exercise their own judgment , or pretend conscience there , no more than the english protestant dissenter may do it here . it must be carefully observed , that by these gentlemen the power is lodged with the college of catholic bishops ; and so long as the church of england acknowledges the bishops of these countries to be catholick bishops , as now they do ( just as we acknowledg the church of rome to be part of the catholick church , but a very corrupt and schismatical part of it ) they cannot question their power , that they must acknowledg : and by the laws of catholick communion must obey a college of them , and appear before them , when summoned : the greatest thing , that they can with any pretence insist on , is the justness of their cause , of which they are no more competent judges before this college , than the dissenters are , when before these bishops here . what happy days would the church of rome see , were things brought to this pass ! but how impertinent all his talk of the college of bishops is , has been already shown , and will be more in what follows : all that i observe at present is , how he turns the power of deposing , and censuring heretical and schismatical bishops into a power of declaring heresy , and judging whether they be hereticks or not , by such a final and uncontroulable power , as hereticks themselves are bound to submit to : and which is more ridiculous than that , if one church agrees to accuse another church of heresy , the accusers alone must be judges , and the accused are very incompetent judges of it , because forsooth they are accused : but this matter may be stated without setting up such a soveraign tribunal for judging of heresies . for 1. that heretical bishops may be deposed , i think all agree in . 2. and there is as little question , but that orthodox and catholick bishops , who have the care of the church committed to them , have this power of deposing : that is , of casting such a bishop out of their communion , and exhorting his people to withdraw communion from him , and to accept of a catholick bishop in his stead ; which is all that the ecclesiastical power of deposing signifies . 3. there is no question neither , but that all bishops will call that heresy , which they themselves think to be so , and will judg those to be hereticks , who profess such doctrines , as they call heresy . 4. but it does not hence follow , that any bishops , or any number of bishops , however assembled , have such an authority to define articles of faith , or to declare heresy , as shall oblige all men to believe that to be heresy , which they decree to be so . 5. and therefore the effects of these censures must of necessity depend upon that opinion , which people have of them : those who believe the censure just , will withdraw themselves from the communion of such a bishop ; those who do not believe it just , will still communicate with him . for who ever pronounces the sentence , ( excepting the interposing of secular power ) the people must execute it , and if they will still adhere to their bishop , he may defic his deposers , and all their power : as the english bishops and people do all the anathemaes of the church of rome . 6. and whether they do right or wrong in this , their own consciences must judg in this world , and god will judg in the next : this is all that can be said or done in such a broken and divided state of the church , as we now see . while nothing was called heresie but the denial of some plain and acknowledged article of the christian faith , while there was no dispute , who were hereticks , the power of deposing hereticks was sacred and venerable , and had its just authority and effect ; but since what is heresie is the controversie , and the world is divided about it , tho the power remains still , the exercise of it grows very contemptible , when a church first coyns new articles of faith , and then excommunicates , censures , deposes those for hereticks , who will not believe them . 4ly . we are come now to the last point , wherein he says we agree , viz. to give to one bishop a primacy , for the better preserving catholick union , and also a superior power of appeals , and exercising some peculiar acts of discipline under the regulation of ecclesiastical canons . now all this indeed i do assert , and yet we are very far from agreeing in this matter . for though they made no more of the pope than a meer primate , which i doubt is not good doctrine in rome , yet there is as much difference between our primates , as there is between a national and oecumenical primate , and consequently as much difference between our appeals , as between appeals to rome , and to the archbishop of canterbury , as between appeals to the primate of a national church , and appeals to foreign bishops . i know he disputes very learnedly , that such an oecumenical combination of churches , and an oecumenical primate is more for the preservation of cathol unity , than a national church or primate ; but this he knew i denied , and therefore should not have said , that i agree with them in it , and who has the best reason on their side shall be examined presently . by this time , i suppose , the reader is satisfied how far we agree in these things , i having in express words denied every thing which he has affirmed , in these very books , to which he has appealed ; which i think is no great sign of agreement . 2. it is time now to vindicate those passages which he quotes out of my book , and on which he founds this pretence of agreement between us ; and to do this effectually and plainly , i must as i go along briefly explain some of my principles , which our author either did not understand , or did wilfully misrepresent . all the sayings he has picked up , and brought together from one end of the book to t'other , relate to one of these two principles , the unity of the church , which is one communion , or the unity of the episcopacy . 1. as for the first of these , the unity of the church , the whole mystery of it is no more but this , that the whole christian church , by the institution of our saviour , is but one church , and this one church is one communion , that is , one body and society , whereof all christians are members , and wherein they have a right to communicate in all christian priviledges , and have both a right and obligation to communicate in all christian duties : this our author puts in the second place , tho it ought to be the first , as being the foundation of all : that all christians and christian churches in the world are one body , society , or church , and this is called catholick communion ; for they being all one body , they communicate with each other in this one body , in all the duties and priviledges of it ; and what advantage he can make make of this , i cannot yet guess , unless he thinks that the very name catholick being one of bellarmin's notes of the church , catholick communion , must signifie the communion of the catholick church of rome . my adversaries hearing this word communion , presently concluded , that i placed the unity of the church in some meer transient acts of communion , and disputed very earnestly against it , as well they might . but this mistake i rectified in my vindication , and showed them that one communion signifies one body and society , in which all the members communicate with each other ; which i explain'd by this familiar comparison : suppose the whole world were one family , or one kingdom , in which every particular man , according to his rank and station , enjoys equal privileges ; in this case the necessity of affairs would require , that men should live in distinct houses and distinct countries , as now they do all the world over : but yet if every man enjoyed the same liberty and priviledges , wherever he went , as he does now in his own house and country , the whole world would be but one house and family , or universal kingdom ; and whosoever should resolve to live by himself , and not receive any others into his family , nor allow them the liberty of his house , would be guilty of making a schism in this great family of the world : and what nations soever should deny the rights and priviledges of natural subjects to the inhabitants of other countries , would make a schism , and rent it self from this universal kingdom . i added , thus it is here ; the church of christ is but one body , one church , one houshold and family , one kingdom . these words our author sets in the front , and thinks to make something of them : for seeing all know , that to make the whole world one universal kingdom , it 's necessary that it be subjected under one governing head ; it unavoidably follows , that unless in the catholick church there be one supreme governing head , it cannot be like to an universal kingdom , an organized politick body . very right ! had i compared the catholick church to an universal kingdom , with respect to government , the consequence had been good ; but comparing it only with respect to communion , the consequence is ridiculous ; and yet this was all i intended in the comparison , as appears from the application of it . and therefore though the necessity of affairs requires , that neighbour christians combine themselves into particular churches & particular congregations , as the world is divided into particular families and kingdoms , ( which shows , that i no more subject the church to one governing-head , than i do the world to one universal monarch , now it is divided into particular kingdoms ) yet every christian , by virtue of his christianity hath the same right and priviledg , and the same obligation to communion , as occasion serves , with all the churches in the world , that he has with that particular church , wherein he lives ; wherever he removes his dwelling , whatever church he goes to , he is still in the same family , the same kingdom , and the same church . now whether this be a good consequence , that because i make the whole christian church one family and kingdom , with respect to christian communion ; that is that all true christians have a right to communion in all true christian churches in the world , therefore i subject the whole christian church to one supreme governing head on earth ( for with respect to christ , who is the true and only head of his church , we will allow it to be one kingdom and family in this sense ) i say , let any man judge of this , who understands consequences . if our author did not see this , the reader may judg of his understanding ; if he did , he may judg of his honesty . and thus his foundation is gone , and then all the superstructure is but a castle in the air : for if the universal church be not one organized politick body , as according to my principles it is not , then it cannot be subjected to one governing head , neither to the pope nor a general council . his third charge is , that i make somewhat more necessary to catholick communion than an agreement in the same faith , the same rules of worship , and right administration of the sacraments ; that is , catholick communion is our union in one body , and communicating in this one body is the exercise of catholick communion , which those who do not , if there be not a just and necessary cause for it , are schismaticks for all that , whatever their faith and worship be ; and schism is a damning sin . but how does this make any thing more necessary to catholick communion , than the same faith , the same worship , the same sacraments ? these are all the catholick terms of catholick communion ; but if these do not unite us into one body , we are not united for all that : not that any thing else is wanting to make this union ; but because through the lusts , and vices , and passions of men , an union does not follow upon it : but he was sensible , that catholick communion alone , would not do his business , would not prove the necessity of one supreme governing-head ( whether the pope , or a general council ) over the whole church ; and therefore he insinuates , that i make something else the necessary terms of catholick communion , besides the true christian faith , worship , and sacraments ; and what should that be , do you think , but subjection to one supreme head , which you shall see , how learnedly he proves ; for he adds , 4. that what is further necessary to catholik communion , is a catholick government , namely the episcopal . now all these words i have used upon one occasion or other , but there is no such proposition as this in all my book . i do allow episcopacy to be an apostolical institution , and the truly ancient and catholick government of the church , of which more hereafter ; but yet in this very book , i prove industriously , and at large , that in case of necessity , when bishops cannot be had , a church may be a truly catholick church , and such as we may , and ought to communicate with , without bishops , in vindication of some foreign reformed churches , who have none ; and therefore i do not make episcopacy so absolutely necessary to catholick communion , as to unchurch all churches which have it not . but the remainder of his quotations referring to the unity of the episcopacy , i must briefly explain what my notion is about it ; and truly i have proceeded all along upon st. cyprian's principles , and he must answer for it , if he have misled me . s. cyprian taught me , that there is one episcopacy , part of which every bishop holds with full authority and power ; where by one episcopacy st. cyprian understands one bishoprick , that is , the universal church , which as it is but one church , is but one bishoprick also ; it being all under the government of the episcopal power . but then this bishoprick is divided into parts , into particular diocesses , and every bishop has a part of this universal bishoprick , which he has in solidum ; that is , he has his part to govern with the fulness and plenitude of the episcopal power , without any superior authority , or jurisdiction over him . this i take to be the plainest and easiest interpretation of st. cyprian's words ; for though all learned men have agreed in the same sense , yet the phrase has a little puzled them ; for if by one episcopacy , we understand one episcopal office and power , tho' the sense will be the same , yet the expression is very obscure ; for how can every bishop have but part of the episcopal office in solidum ; that is , part of the office , and the whole power ? but if by one episcopacy , we understand one bishoprick , and the universal church may as properly be called one bishoprick , as one church , and one sheepfold , then it is all plain , that there is but one bishoprick , of which every bishop has part , in which he exercises the whole episcopal authority and power . another principle of st. cyprian's is , that this one episcopacy , or one bishoprick , is preserved one by the concord and agreement of bishops ; for if the bishops disagree , who have the supreme government of their own churches , this must of necessity divide the bishoprick and the church ; but this one bishoprick is spread over the world , by the consenting multitude of many bishops ; which , as i observed , he calls the unity and peace of the episcopacy : and for the same reason optatus calls it the episcopal college ; and bishops are called collegues . and st. cyprian tells us , the-catholick church is not rent , nor divided , but united and coupled by the cement of bishops , who stick close together . another principle is , that no bishop , nor colledg of bishops have a direct authority or jurisdiction over their collegues , to compel them to submit to their decrees and definitions , against their own judgment and conscience : that none of them pretended to be bishops of bishops , which he abhors as a tyrannical usurpation , as we see in his preface to the council of carthage . another principle is , that since there is but one episcopacy or bishoprick , every bishop , besides the supreme government of his own particular diocess , has such a relation to the whole church , that he is to take care , as much as in him lies , to see , that no part of the church suffer by the heresies or schisms of their bishops ; which is the reason , as i observed before , st. cyprian gives , why there are so many bishops in the christian church , that if any of our colledg ( i. e. any bishop ) should endeavour to broach any new heresie , or to tear and spoil th● flock of christ , the rest may come in to their help , and like good and merciful pastors , gather again the sheep of christ into their fold . these are the principles i learnt from st. cyprian ; and if our author can find a supreme head of the universal church , whether pope or general council , in this scheme , i am sure st. cyprian could not , who disowns any such superior authority to bishops . let us then now return to our author , who observes , that i assert , that all the bishops of the church are but one also , ( which a little differs from one bishops being all ) invested with the same power and authority to govern the church ; ( for which i quoted st. cyprian , tho he thinks fit to leave him out ) ; that as st. cyprian tells us there is but one episcopacy , part of which every bishop holds with full authority and power ; that all these bishops are but one body , who are bound to live in communion with each other , and to govern their respective churches where need requires , and where it can be had , by mutual advice and consent , and therefore that no bishops are absolutely independant , but are obliged to preserve the unity of the episcopacy , or episcopal college , as optatus calls it , ( which words our author leaves out , as being afraid of naming the authority of any father in the case ) whereon the unity and communion of the catholick church depends . thus far our author recites my words , and here breaks off ; but i shall beg leave to go on . for it is impossible the catholick church should be one body or society , or one communion , if it be divided into as many independent churches , as there are absolute and independent bishops : for those churches must be independent which have an independent power and government , as all those must have , which have independent governors and bishops ; and independent churches can never make one body and one catholick communion ; because they are not members of each other ; and thus the unity of the catholick church must be destroyed , unless we assert one episcopocy as well as one church , one evangelical priesthood as well as one altar , all the world over . here i must stop a little , for here he seems to lay his foundation , whereon to erect his papal monarchy , or his soveraign power of general councils ; that i assert , that bishops are not absolutely independent ; and therefore he supposes , that they must be subordinate too to some higher power and jurisdiction . how far i am from asserting any such supreme power over the whole church , i have already shown ; and now i must vindicate this principle , that bishops are not absolutely independent , from any such consequence , which is no very difficult task , if men will consider what i mean by the independency of bishops , and for what reason i asserted , that bishops are not absolutely independent . for the independency i deny , is such an independency as is opposed to the unity of the episcopacy , and to their obligation to live in communion with each other ; for because there is but one episcopacy , because all bishops are but one body , therefore i assert , they are not absolutely independent , but are obliged to preserve the unity of the episcopacy , or episcopal college : for absolute independency excludes all necessary obligations to unity and communion , as well as to subjection . an absolute independent soveraign prince is no more bound by the laws of soveraignty to live in unity , than to own subjection to neighbour princes ; now bishops indeed as to subjection are independent , for there is no superior authority in the church over them , as i have always asserted ; but they are not independent as to unity and communion ; for the fundamental laws of one episcopacy oblige them to unity and communion , and that obliges them to govern their churches by mutual advice , without which this unity cannot be preserved . i am sure st. cyprian lays so much stress on this , that he expresly asserts , that he cannot have the power nor the honour of a bishop , who will not maintain the unity and the peace of the episcopacy . now i cannot think such bishops absolutely independent , tho they are subject to no superior authority , who depend upon preserving the unity and peace of the episcopacy , for the very power and dignity of bishops . i deny such an independency of bishops , as makes their churches independent , which destroys catholick communion , as i showed in those words which our author suppressed , that unity of the catholick church depends upon the unity of the episcopacy . for it is impossible , the catholick church should be one body or society , or one communion , if it be divided into as many independent churches , as there are absolute and independent bishops ; for those churches must be independent , which have an independent power and government , as all those must have , who have independent governours , or bishops ; and independent churches can never make one body , and one catholick communion , because they are not members of each other . now this independency of churches , which i condemn , is not opposed to a superior jurisdiction ; for so churches , as well as bishops , are originally independent : but it is opposed to their being such distinct and separate bodies as are not members of each other , which destroys catholick communion , or makes it arbitrary . and this is the independency of bishops which i deny ; such an independency as overthrows the unity of the episcopacy , and consequently the unity of the church . nay , i further deny the independency of bishops , as that signifies an exemption from all censures in case of heresie , and schism , and idolatry , and such like evil practises ; which does not infer a superior authority of one bishop over another , but only an authority in the church to censure such crimes , whoever be guilty of them ; as i have already explained it at large : so that my notion of the independency of bishops , will do no service at all to the pope or general council . 5. he proceeds in his charge ; the power of every bishop in his own diocess , is not so absolute and independent , but that he is bound to preserve the unity of the episcopacy , and to live in communion with his collegues and fellow bishops ; for this is the foundation of catholick communion , without which there can be no catholick church . this has been accounted for already , and whoever observes , that the reason of all is laid upon the preservation of catholick communion , will easily guess , how little this makes for an universal power and empire over the church . he proceeds , the whole authority of a bishop , or council , over other bishops , is founded on the laws of catholick communion , which is the great end it serves ( and therefore it does not prove a supreme governing head over the church , and therefore they have no proper authority , but only in such matters as concern the unity of the episcopacy , or the peace and communion of the catholick church ; this also has been sufficiently explained before . again , this unity of the episcopacy , is the foundation of these larger combinations and confederacies of neighbour churches ; which make archiepiscopal or national churches : for since there is but one episcopacy , it is highly reasonable , and necessary , so far as it is practicable , they should all act and govern their respective churches , as one bishop , with one consent , which is the most effectual way to secure the peace and unity of the episcopal colledg , and to promote the edification and good government of the church . nay , this unity of the episcopacy is the foundation of that authority which neighbour bishops have over their collegues in case of heresy and schism , or any other notorious wickedness ; for they being bishops of the universal church , have an original right and power to take care , that no part of the church , which is within their reach and inspection , suffer by the heresy , or evil practices of their collegues . here is a good long quotation , if any body knew to what purpose it served . i own the words , and know not how i could say the same thing better , if i were to say it again . i am still of the same mind , that such combinations of bishops for mutuāl advice and counsel , is of great benefit and use for the good government of the church ; but if he would insinuate , ( as that , if any thing , must be his design ) that these combinations of bishops are for the exercise of authority over their collegues : this i absolutely deny . they are to advise and consult with each other , not as with superior governors , who are to determine them , and give laws to them , but as with friends and collegues , of the same body and communion ; as i expresly affirm , vindicat. p. 127. may not bishops meet together for common advice , without erecting a soveraign tribunal , to determine all controversies , and make ecclesiastical laws , and impose them upon their collegues , without their own consent ? when though the least , yet it may be the best and wisest part of the council are of another mind : is there no difference between advising with our equals , and making them our superiors ? may it not be a very great fault , and very near the guilt of schism , for a bishop without any cause , but meer humour and wilfulness , to reject such rules and orders of discipline and government , which are agreed by the unanimous consent of neighbour bishops , unless we give a superior authority to such synods over their collegues ? 6. his next charge is , that the collegue of bishops may grant unto some one bishop a primacy , for the preservation of catholick unity and communion , who by a general consent may be intrusted with a superior power of calling synods , receiving appeals , and exercising some peculiar acts of discipline under the regulation of ecclesiastical canons . this sentence he has made up of two places in my book , above fifty pages distant , p. 127 and 184 , for he durst not quote either of them entire , and therefore i shall be at the pains to transcribe them both , that the indifferent reader may judge of them . vind. p. 127. there are these words , this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour bishops , at as great a distance , as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience , as the bishops of the same province , or of the same nation , to live together in a strict association and confederacy ; to meet in synods , and provincial or national councils , to order all the affairs of their several churches by mutual advice , and to oblige themselves to the same rules of discipline and worship . this has been the practice of the church from the very beginning , and seems to be the true original of archi-episcopal , and metropolitical churches , which were so early , that it is most probable , they had their beginning in the apostles days : for though all bishops have originally equal right and power in church affairs , yet there may be a primacy of order granted to some bishops , and their chairs by a general consent , and under the regulation of ecclesiastical canons , for the preservation of catholick unity and communion , without any antichristian encroachments or usurpation on the episcopal authority . for ( as i proceed ) this combination of churches and bishops does not , and ought not to introduce a direct superiority of one bishop , or church , over another ; or of such synods and councils over particular bishops : every bishop is the proper governour of his own diocess still , and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent . — if a bishop differ from his collegues , assembled in synods , or provincial councils , or one national , or provincial council differ from another , in matters of prudence , and rules of discipline , without either corrupting the faith , or dividing the church , if we believe st. cyprian in his preface to the council of carthage , they ought not to deny him communion upon such accounts , nor to offer any force to him in such matters . in p. 184 , i discoursed much to the same purpose . that for the preservation of peace and order in this united body , or confederation of neighbour churches , one or more bishops may by a general consent be intrusted with a superior power of calling synods , receiving appeals , and exercising some peculiar acts of discipline , under the regulation of ecclesiastical canons , which is the power now ascrib'd to archbishops and metropolitans . but yet , there cannot be one constitutive ecclesiastical regent head in a national , much less in the universal church : not monarchical , because no one bishop has an original right to govern the rest in any nation , and therefore whatever power may be granted him by consent , yet it is not essential to the being or unity of the church , which is one , not by being united under one superior governing power , but by living in one communion : not aristocratical , because every bishop being supream in his own diocess , and accountable to christ for his government , cannot , and ought not , so wholly to divest himself of this power , as to be in all cases necessarily determin'd , and over-ruled by the major vote , contrary to his own judgment and conscience — all the bishops in a nation , much less all the bishops in the world , cannot unite into such a collegue , as shall by a supream authority , govern all bishops and churches , by a major vote , which is the form of aristocratical government , and for the same reason , a national church considered as a church , cannot be under the government of a democratical head , for if the college of bishops have not this power , much less has a mixt college of bishops and people . thus careful was i to secure the episcopal authority from such encroachments and usurpations , as it now groans under in the church of rome ; from placing the unity of the church in such a superior governing head , whether primate or synod ; and now let him make the best he can of this primacy , which he should have called a primacy of order , as i did , and not absolutely a primacy , which may signifie a primacy of power and authority , which i positively deny he has over any of his collegues : in a body of equals , though there is no superiority , there must be order ; and therefore some one must have authority to convene the assembly , and to preside in it , and if the synod see fit , may in some cases be intrusted with a superior power of executing their decrees , which involves no direct superiority over any of his collegues . all that i intended in these discourses , was to shew , what power a national or provincial synod , archbishops and metropolitans might have , upon st. cyprian's principles , without encroaching upon the original and essential rights of the episcopacy ; and those who will allow st. cyprian's principles , i believe will confess , that i have truly and fairly stated the bounds of pure ecclesiastical authority : if archbishops and metropolitans have a greater power than this , by the constitutions and laws of princes , since the church is incorporated into the state , that i meddle not with , for it is not a pure ecclesiastical authority , but must be accounted for upon other principles . well! but i assert , that catholick communion is a divine institution , and then the combination of churches for catholick communion is divine also ; and thus national churches , archbishops , metropolitans , primates , are of divine institution ; but had our author transcribed the whole sentence , every reader would easily have seen , how little it is to his purpose : the words are these : the patriarchal or metropolitical church-form is an ecclesiastical constitution , ( and therefore certainly not an immediate divine institution ) though not therefore accidental ( according to the phrase of my dissenting adversary , ) but catholick communion is a divine institution , and therefore the combinations of churches for catholick communion is divine also , though the particular forms of such combinations may be regulated and determined by ecclesiastical prudence , which differs somewhat from what we call meer humane prudence ; because it is not the result of meer natural reason , but founded on , and accommodated to a divine institution . so that here is no archbishop , no primate , no particular forms of combinations of churches , of divine institution ; they are ecclesiastical constitutions , which may be regulated and altered by ecclesiastical prudence ; but catholick communion is a divine institution , and therefore that bishops and churches should unite , for the preservation of catholick communion is divine , though the particular forms of such combinations may be determined by ecclesiastical prudence , which is somewhat more sacred than humane prudence , because it is founded on , and accommodated to a divine institution . i suppose the reader is by this time very well satisfied about our author's justice in his quotations , as the prefacer speaks . 7. he observes , that i teach , that a compliance with the order , government , discipline , and worship , as well as the doctrine of the catholick church , is necessary to catholick communion . for all christians and christian churches are but one body , and are thereby obliged to all duties , offices , and acts of christian communion , which are consequent upon such a relation . the catholick church is one body and society , wherein all the members there of have equal right and obligation to christian communion . this he puts all together as one entire reasoning , though the parts of it are above three hundred pages distant , as he owns in the margin , and belong to very different things , which is a very honest way of quoting , by which means we may make any author speak what we please , as the history of the gospel has been described in virgil's verse : the latter part of these words concern the obligation of all christians to catholick communion ▪ which , what it is , i have already explained : in the former part he would insinuate , that i make it necessary to catholick communion , that all churches should observe the same particular orders , forms of government , rites and modes of discipline and worship ; and makes me give a very senseless reason for it , because all christians and christian churches are but one body , and are thereby obliged to all duties , offices , and acts of christian communion , which are consequent upon such a relation . as if christian churches could maintain no communion with each other , unless they used the same liturgy , the same rites and ceremonies , and were all governed by the same ecclesiastical canons ; whereas we know , that all churches in all ages , have had peculiar liturgies , peculiar rites and ceremonies , peculiar fasts and feasts , peculiar canons , and rules of discipline of their own : as there are in many cases to this day in the church of rome , especially among their religious orders . in the place from which he quotes these words , i was vindicating the terms of communion in the church of england to be truly catholick : p. 392. there are these words . for the terms of our communion are as catholick as our church is ; diocesan episcopacy , liturgies , and ceremonies , have been received in all churches for many hundred years , and are the setled constitution of most churches to this day ; and this is the constitution of the church of england , and the terms of our communion ; and must be acknowledged to be catholick terms , if by catholick terms he means , what has actually been received by the catholick church . after much more of this argument , i add the words he quotes , that though it be hard to determine , what is in its own nature absolutely necessary to catholick communion ; yet , i can tell him de facto , what is , viz , a compliance with the order , government , discipline , and worship , as well as the doctrine of the catholick church : he who will not do this , must separate from the catholick church , and try it at the last day , who was in the right . i am content our dissenters should talk on of unscriptural terms of communion , so they will but grant , that the church of england is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural terms , than the catholick church it self has always been , and when they have confidence enough to deny this , i will prove it , and shall desire no better vindication of the church of england , than the practise of the catholick church . this is so plain , that i need say nothing more to explain it , that if we will live in catholick communion , we must own episcopacy , liturgies , ceremonies , which has been the ancient government , worship , discipline , of the church , and those who upon pretence of unscriptutural terms , separate from the church of england , for the sake of such catholick practices , by the same reason must have renounced the communion of the best and purest , and most catholick churches since the apostles days . but how far i ever was from thinking , that the particular rites and modes of worship must be the same in all churches , and that there can be no communion without this , any man may satisfie himself , who will be pleased to read some few pages in the vindication , beginning at p. 372 ; where i shew how impossible it is to maintain catholick communion , between distinct churches , without allowing of such diversity of rites , which are , and always were practised in different churches . thus i have done with our authour's quotations , and what agreement there is between us , the reader must judge . and now he pretends to draw up my argument against the dissenters , which he says proceeds upon roman-catholick principles : but i shall not trouble my self to examine whether my arguments against the dissenters were good or no , for i have no dispute with them now , and will have none ; but if they ever were good , they are not roman-catholick principles , which make them so ; for i have no roman-catholick principle in all my book . as for what he so often triumphs in , the late king's paper , i tell him once for all , i will have no dispute with kings ; but if he have any thing to say , let him fetch his arguments , whence he will , without alledging the king's authority to make them good , and he shall have an answer . and now from quoting , our author falls to disputing me into an agreement , which methinks argues , that we are not agreed , or at least , that i do not know we are ; for what need of disputing , if as the title of his book says , we are agreed already , but however , the dispute is like to be but short , and therefore we will patiently bear it . now to trace us to st. peters chair , he thus begins . for by their making the catholick church one body , one houshold , one kingdom , or governed society , that has a governing and governed part , they must necessarily be for a catholick hierarchy , as what alone is a fit government for so great a body politick ; that is , if the whole church be one body politick , over which there must be one supream governing head , then we must acknowledge the authority of the pope , or general council , over the whole church , which is a demonstration . but if we do not make the whole church one such organiz'd , politick body , but only one communion ( as it has appeared , we do not ) then there is no necessity of one supream government over the whole church , but it is sufficient , if the church be governed by parts , by bishops , who have all equal authority , but agree in the same communion , and govern their particular churches by common advice ; and in this case , there is a governing , and a governed part , but no one supream head. and thus all his reasoning is at an end , for destroy this one principle , that the whole catholick church is one politick , organiz'd body , with one supream power over the whole , and there is an end of the authority , both of popes , and general councils . but he will not give up the cause thus , for says he , let us therefore a little more clearly observe , what these church of england clergy-men affirm , and we shall find their notion about church government , exactly formed according to the roman model . well sir ! watch us as narrowly as you can , and see the end of it . for ( says he ) they say , there can be no one catholick communion , without one catholick government : but what does he mean by one catholick government ? one superior power over the whole catholick church ? and who ever said this , and where ? we say , that the unity of the episcopacy , or the communion and good correspondency of bishops , is necessary to preserve catholick communion among their several churches , but we never said , that one catholick government , or superior power over the whole church is necessary to this end . he proceeds : and that catholick unity and communion may be the more securely preserved , the combination of churches , considered as pure ecclesiastical societies , into archiepiscopal and national churches is necessary : not absolutely necessary , but highly expedient ; but then our authour must remember withal , that these combinations of churches , are not for a superior authority and government over bishops , but only for mutual counsel and advice , and then let him , make his best of it . and so he will make what he can of it , for he adds . so that the great end of the combination of diocesan into provincial and national churches , is the preserving catholick communion . right ! remember that , that it is for communion , not for government , and all is well : which cannot be , but by raising the combination higher , and extending it much farther , even unto patriarchial , and at last into one occumenical combined church , for this alone is commensurate to catholick communion . well! suppose then , that all the bishops in the world could meet together for counsel and advice , as the bishops of a province or nation can , and had just such an oecumenical , as there are national primates , what service would this do the church of rome ? for here is no supream power all this while over the universal church , neither pope nor general council : here is no oecumenical pastor , no supream tribunal , which all the world is bound to obey . for as i have already shown , we do not make a primate or national synod , the constitutive regent head of a national church , but only a great council for mutual advice ; and therefore were there such an oecumenical primate , and oecumenical council , yet it would as vastly differ from the roman model , as a council for advice , and a council for government ; as an oecumenical head and pastor , and the president of an oecumenical council ; and the church of rome is at a very low ebb , if it can be contented with such a primate , and such a council as this , which essentially differ from what the councils of constance and basil themselves attribute to popes and councils : but besides this , if such an oecumenical combination of bishops and churches cannot be , and there be no need of it to catholick communion , then i suppose , our authour will grant , that the argument from a national combination of churches , and a national primate , to an oecumenical combination of churches , and an oecumenical primate , is not good . 1. then this cannot be , and that for this plain reason , because all the bishops of the christian church , cannot meet together from all parts of the world , and if they could , they ought not to forsake their churches for so long a time as such a journey , and such a consultation requires : but you 'l say , every nation may spare some bishops , to send with full authority to the council , as the representatives of all the rest . this i take to be next to a moral impossibility ; i am sure it was never yet done ; there never was such a council , as had some bishops in it from all parts of the christian world. but suppose this could be done , these bishops , who meet in council , could represent no-body but themselves , and therefore can make no such decrees , as by their own authority shall oblige all the other bishops , who were not present . for a bishop is not a representable person ; he is the supream governour in his own diocess , and cannot , and ought not , to be imposed on without his own consent ; his trust and office and power is personal , and so is his account ; and therefore he can no more be represented in a council , than he can at the day of judgment : every man's conscience and soul must be in his own keeping ; and therefore can be represented by no man. had the representatives of the catholick church , a divine authority , superior to all particular churches and bishops , to oblige them to stand to their decrees , as the church of rome asserts a general council has , then indeed some few bishops chose by their national and provincial bishops , to go to the council , and to act as the representatives of such churches , might have a plenary authority to debate and determine all matters in dispute , whether relating to faith , or worship , or discipline : but such an authority as this , he knows we absolutely deny , and assert that councils are only for mutual advice , and can oblige no bishops without their personal assent , and this makes it ridiculous to talk of representatives , in giving and taking advice , which is a personal act , and requires every man 's own judgment , and his personal assent . i deny not but it may be of great use for christian princes and emperors , to summon such councils as these , as constantine and other succeeding emperors did ; for there was no such thing , as what we call a general council , till constantine summoned the first council at nice . for christian princes and emperors are concerned to encourage and support the true christian faith and worship ; and they are as much concerned not to be misguided in these matters , which instead of nursing fathers , may make them persecutors of the true church : and to prevent this , they cannot take a better way , when the church is divided by schisms and heresies , then to summon such a great council , where the matters in dispute may be freey debated ; but i look upon these rather to be councils of the empire , than of the church which have no other authority , but what either the imperial sanctions give them , or what every church gives them , by receiving their decrees : and it is evident from ecclesiastical story , that the bear authority of these councils never put an end to any one dispute , any farther than they were backed by the imperial power ; which is an argument , that they did not believe in those days , such councils to be infallible , or to be the supream tribunal of the christian church . they were indeed supream tribunals , when princes made them so , but not by any meer ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction ; if then a council of bishops be onely for mutual advice , and a council for advice requires the personal presence of all bishops , and though all the bishops of one province , or one nation , may conveniently enough meet together for advice , yet , all the bishops of the world cannot ; then i think it is plain , that the consequence from a national to an oecumenical council , is not good . especially , 2dly , since there is no need of it to catholick communion . the christian churches maintained a very strict alliance and communion with each other , for above three hundred years without it : catholick communion was better preserved then , than ever it has been since , which is a demonstration , that such a supream governing power over the whole church is not necessary to catholick communnion , for then catholick communion could never have been maintained without it ; and yet , thus it was in st. cyprian's days , who was as zealous an asserter of catholick communion , as any before or since . in those days , the bishops of neighbour churches frequently met together , to advise about the general concernments of the church , and if any thing hapned , which concerned the discipline of the whole church , as it did in st. cyprian's days , about the case of the lapsed , and rebaptizing those who had been baptized by hereticks ; they sent their letters to forreign churches , and took their advice about it , and by this means did more perfectly understand one anothers judgments and reasons , and came to a better accord and agreement , than they could have done , had they met in a general council , consisting onely of some few representative bishops . i am sure by this means st. cyprian says their decrees were confirmed by all the bishops in the world ; and optatus says , that this catholick communion was maintained all the world over , by formed and communicatory letters : it seems , they did not think then , that one governing head was necessary to catholick communion ; and therefore , though catholick communion does require the union of neighbour churches into one combined church , it does not require such an union and combination of all the churches in the world. thus i have particularly answered this author's charge , excepting his vain repetitions of the same cavils , without giving any new force or strength to them , and i think any ordinary reader may see , how far i am from setting up the supream authority , either of pope or general council over the universal church , and how impossible it is to graft such consequences upon my principles , with any shew or pretence of reason . and now as for his french popery , let it be what it will , i am unconcerned in it , since i give no supream authority neither to pope nor general council , and therefore neither agree with the italian , nor spanish , nor french , nor any popery , of what denomination soever . but i must add a word or two about petrus de marca , because it seems my honesty and credit is very much concerned in this matter , so deeply , that no man ought ever to believe me more ; and though i suppose the reader sees , what credit he is to give to this author , yet i must speak at least a good word for my own honesty : and to do that , i must give a brief account of the occasion of my alleadging the authority of petrus de marca i was charged by my dissenting adversaries , with a cassandrian design , for setting up , as they apprehended , the authority of a general council . for there is not one word , which this author has objected against me , but what was before objected by the dissenters , and answered in the vindication . now having shewn them their mistake in this charge , that i had asserted nothing which did infer the authority of a general council , as the supream regent head of the catholick church , i over and above shewed them how vain this charge of cassandrian or french popery was , though i had given such an authority to a general council . for meerly to assert the authority of a general council , does not make any man a papist of no sort whatsoever , unless he assert the authority of the pope : for though there be some dispute , whose authority is greatest , the popes , or the councils , yet no man is a papist , who does not own the pope to be the supream and oecumenical pastor ; and therefore i having expresly disowned all authority of the pope or bishop of rome , though i had owned the authority of a general council , i could be no papist , not so much as a cassandrian or french papist . so that this is the thing i was to prove , that there is no papist , but owns the pope to be the supream head of the church , the universal and oecumenical pastor . this i proved cassander did ; who asserts , that to the unity of the catholick church , is required obedience to one supream governour , who succeeds peter in the government of christ's church , and in the office of feeding his sheep — and that it is evident from all the records of the church , that the chief authority of the universal church has always been yielded to the bishop of rome , as peter's successor , who sits in his chair . this i proved also of the councils of constance and basil , that though they decreed the council to be above the pope , yet they asserted the popes supream pastorship . that all particular men and particular churches , are bound to obey the pope , unless in such matters as are prejudicial to this holy synod , or any other which is lawfully assembled ; as the council of basil expresly teaches . and this was all i undertook to prove of the french church , that whatever liberties they pretended , still they owned the pope to be the supream pastor and head of the universal church ; for which i appealed to petrus de marca . let us then consider what is my fault . our author gives us an account , that the french church teaches , as the council of basil did , that though the pope be greater than particular churches and bishops , yet he is not greater than the whole universal church ; and that the authority that is granted him in the interval of councils — doth not in the least suppose him to have any superiority or preheminence above the universal church : whence it is , that whenever from the ecclesiastical courts in france , any references , suggestions , or consultations , were made to the pope , if the popes rescripts were contrary to the old canons , the french always looked on it as abusive , and made an appeal from the pope called appellatio ab abusu , provoking him to the old canons . now he says , dr. sherlock is bold enough to deny all , and to bring no less person than the learned petrus de marca for his voucher . but where do i deny one word of this , or alledge petrus de marca's authority to prove it . i had no occasion to deny this ; for all that i was to prove was , that the french church did own the pope to be the supream head and governour of the church , and that they did so , i proved from petrus de marca : does not then petrus de marca say , what i charge him with ? yes , that he owns : what is my fault then ? why truly , only that i say , that petrus de marca wrote in defence of the liberties of the gallican church : and is not this the title of his book ? de concordia sacerdotii & imperii , seu de libertatibus ecclesioe gallicanae : of the agreement of the priesthood and the empire , or of the liberties of the gallican church . yes , this he grants ; but the archbishop was perswaded to add this title by the bookseller , to make it sell the better : and i ought to have known for all this , if i had looked any farther than titles and margins , that he wrote against the liberties of the gallican church ; and will he say , that i ought to have said so too ? that had been a great piece of modesty indeed , as great as it is in this author , whoever he be , i am sure very inconsiderable , in comparison of this great man , to charge him with down-right knavery . for my part , i am of that mind still , that the archbishop , who was as great a man as that age bred , did firmly believe , that he had truly stated the liberties of the gallican church , though he differed from some , who had stretched those liberties very much , to the prejudice of the roman see ; which the king himself expressed his sense of , when he imposed that task on him of writing this book , for he charged him to take care , that the gallican liberties might suffer no injury , and that he should let all men see , that these liberties did not diminish that reverence , which the french have most constantly maintained for the roman see above all other nations ; from whence also we may observe , that the subject he was to write on by the kings command , were the gallican . liberties , which was therefore a proper title for his book , though he was unwilling to have given it that title for fear of offending the court of rome , as it accordingly hapned ; and he was to take care so to assert the gallican liberties , as not to detract from that reverence , which the french church , as the king affirms , has always paid to the roman see. this province he undertook , and discharged to the abundant satisfaction of that king , who employed him , who was jealous enough of the gallican liberties , as far as they were consistent with the reverence of the apostolick see : but this work was not so well relished at rome ; for as the king rewarded him with a bishoprick for it , so the court of rome kept him out of it for several years ; and one would guess by this usage he met with at rome , that they had a very jealous eye on these gallican liberties , even as de marca had stated them . but our author observes that baluzius who wrote de marca's life , positively affirms , that none amongst the french , no , nor amongst the spanish and italian did more eloquently , and with greater authority of the ancients , exalt the roman chair to a greater height than de marca did . this baluzius does not say so absolutely as our author reports , but adds a qualification , which he out of his great exactness in quoting , thought fit to leave out , viz. qui modo intra limites oequi constiterit , that no man who kept within the bounds of equity and moderation , ever exalted the authority of the roman bishop more : which argues , that de marca did not fly so high , as some flatterers of the roman greatness have done , but yet gave him as great power as any man could honestly give him ; and this i hope he might do without betraying the gallican liberties . tho'as baluzius observes , the romans , whose ears are very tender in such matters , could not bear the title of his book of the liberties of the gallican church , for they suspected , that he must be an enemy to the ecclesiastical liberties , who wrote professedly for the liberties of the gallican church , which he brands with a proh nefas ! as a thing ridiculous and absurd . in the same place , baluzius falls severely upon faget , who also wrote the life of de marca , for making him a deserter and betrayer of the gallican liberties : he gives an account of the roman arts , to perswade him to condemn some parts of his book , and to insinuate that the mistakes of that book of concord were not owing to his own will and choice , but to the importunate commands and ambition of others ; this condition he absolutely refused , though it was proposed by cardinal barberini as the easiest expedient to obtain a dispatch of his affairs at rome . this he was frequently solicited to , and as constantly refused , firmly resolving while he was in health rather to renounce all right and claim to his bishoprick , than remit any of the priviledges of the gallican church , till at last they taking advantage of a great fit of sickness , when his mind might be supposed as weak as his body ; he subscribed a paper , wherein he recanted every thing in his book , which was contrary to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and immunity , as it was taught by the church of rome : an account of which baluz . gives us in his life , p. 16. 17. from whence it appears , that though de marca did not so much depress the pope , nor extend the gallican liberties , as some french lawyers had done , yet he honestly and sincerely maintained with constancy and resolution ( excepting this subscription in his sickness , ) against all the arts and solicitations of the church of rome , what he thought to be the true liberties of the gallican church ; and this surely was reason enough for me to say , ( as he himself says in the title of his book , and as the french king , and the court of rome thought he did ) that he wrote for the liberties of the gallican church , how our author will defend himself for saying that he wrote against them , with any modesty and reverence for the honesty , learning and judgment of that great man , he had best consider : i cannot pretend to understand the gallican liberties so well , as to say , who is in the right ; but i would still prefer the judgment of de marca , who was both a great lawyer and a great divine , before any of his adversaries . and yet i was not concerned to judge of this matter , whether de marca or the pragmaticks were in the right , where they differ from each other ; all that i alleadged his authority for , as i observed before , was to prove , that the gallican liberties did not exclude the authority of the pope , as christ's vicar , and st. peter's successor in the government of the church . this is what the council of basil it self owns ; and to deny it , would be an ecclesiastical liberty with a witness , but not a popish , but a protestant liberty . this is my crime , which he says , ought to be a caution to all readers , how they take up any thing upon trust from me ; and though i have done nothing to forfeit my credit yet , i do not desire any readers should trust me , but see with their own eyes ; and if they would serve us all so , i know what would become of such writers as this author . and he wishes it may be a means to engage me to more modesty , and an abatement of my contemptuous way of writing ( if i write any more ) for the time to come . i perceive he thought , this discovery would have broke my heart for ever ; but i have ventured to write once more , and may do so again , and very modestly too , when i meet with modest adversaries . i thank god i contemn no man living , but it is a little in my nature to contemn knavery and nonsence ; and therefore if our author tasts a little of it still , i must beg his pardon , for i cannot help it . as for what follows , i have nothing to say to it , it is all a dispute against the popes supremacy , which i like very well ; only i wonder , if he be in good earnest , why the oath of supremacy should stick in his teeth . i have only one request to him , to tell me , which was the infallible council , that of basil , or trent : for the first subjects the pope to a council , the last makes him superior to it ; and it were very strange , if contradictions should be infallible . an answer to the necessity of agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , &c. before i proceed to answer his second section of the agreement between the two churches about some of their imposed terms of communion , i shall in a few words rid my hands of that terrible appendix which the prefacer ascribes to another author , to prove the necessity of an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evidenced from the nature and constitution of a national church , episcopally established . thus first they prove , that we are agreed , and then they prove , that there is a necessity we should agree : but what need to prove that we must agree , did they believe , that we were already agreed ? so that this appendix is indeed a confutation of the book which he entitles , an agreement between the church of england and church of rome : whereas this proves , that of necessity we ought to agree , if we will be true to our principles ; which supposes , that whatever our principles are , we are not yet agreed . how well he has proved our agreement , i have already shewn , and now shall briefly examine how he proves our necessity of agreement . but i must observe by the way , that though the prefacer does ascribe this learned piece to another author , yet he has concealed the true father : his other author is a good roman catholick , who disputes in good earnest from the subordination of pastors in the church , to prove the supremacy of an oecumenic or universal pastor ; but the true author was an independent protestant , from whom this honest romanist borrows every argument , and almost every word , excepting such little variations as a papist must of necessity make in an independent's writing , without ever confessing his benefactor , or owning from whence he had it . the title of the book is , the catholick hierarchie , or the divine right of a sacred dominion in church and conscience , truly stated , asserted , and pleaded . printed for sam. crouch at the princes arms in pope's head-alley in cornhil , and tho. fox at the angel in westminster-hall , 1681. in the 14 chap. of which book , p. 76. being a digression concerning the subordination of pastors ; whoever has the curiosity may find this entire treatise of the necessity of agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , onely with this difference , that the independent disputes against the subordination of pastors by this very argument , that the asserting the subordination of pastors in the church , doth by all good consequence infer the supremacy of an oecumenical or universal pastor . this popish plagiary takes his book , and makes a quite contrary use of it , to prove from the subordination of pastors , which is and ought to be in the church , as the church of england owns , the necessity of owning an oecumenical pastor , they both indeed dispute against the church of england , but the first author disputes for independency , the plagiary for popery . now why might not the independent , had he not had more wit than his transcriber , have entitled his chapter , the necessity of agreement between the church of england and independents , because they both agree in rejecting an oecumenical pastor , and therefore ought to agree in rejecting the subordination of pastors , which infers an oecumenical pastor ; as well as this author calls it , a necessity of agreement between the church of england and church of rome , because they both agree in the subordination of pastors , and therefore , as he thinks , ought to agree in an oecumenical pastor : nay , he had but served his independent authour right , had he stiled it , the necessity of agreement between the independents , and the church of rome , because they both agree in this principle , that if there be a subordination of pastors , there ought to be an oecumenical pastor , which is the nearest popery of any principle i know ; for there is nothing to be done in order to this agreement , but to prove a subordination of pastors , which is a thousand times easier , than to make good that consequence from a subordination of pastors , to an oecumenical pastor . but let this authour make the best he can of his independent arguments , and call his book what he pleases , my business is only to show , that there is no necessity for those , who acknowledge a subordination of pastors , to acknowledge an oecumenical pastor : and before i consider his reasons in particular , i shall make short work with them , and confute them altogether . the querie he proposes to discuss , which he has transcribed verbatim from his independent author , is this : whether the asserting of the subordination of pastors in the church , doth not by all good consequence , necessarily infer the supremacy of an oecumenic or universal pastor . now my exception against this , and consequently against all his arguments , whereby he proves this , is , that i will allow of no consequences to prove an institution . no man can have the authority of an universal pastor , unless christ has given it him ; and therefore unless christ have appointed such an universal pastor , there can be none : and to prove by consequence , that christ has appointed one , when no such institution appears , is ridiculous . suppose then , there were as much reason for the supremacy of an oecumenical bishop over all the bishops in the world , as there is for the superiority of bishops over presbyters , which is all the subordination of pastors , that we allow , of which more presently ; yet at most this can onely prove , that there ought to be an oecumenical bishop , and that christ ought to have appointed one ; but it don't prove that there is one : and therefore he , who believes that the superiority of bishops over presbyters is an apostolical institution , but can find no such institution of an universal bishop , can never be forced by any reason or consequence , to own such an universal bishop . we own the subordination of presbyters to bishops , not from reason , but institution ; and does it then hence follow , that we must own the supremacy of an universal bishop , for some pretended reasons without an institution ? what is matter of institution depends wholly upon the divine will and pleasure ; and though all men will grant , that god and christ have always great reason for their institutions , yet it is not the reason , but the authority which makes the institution : though we do not understand the reasons of the institution , if we see the command , we must obey ; and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an institution , if no such institution appears , we are free , and ought not to believe there is such an institution , because we think there are reasons to be assigned why it should be : and thus in our case , though we should not shew why christ should institute the apostolical office and power ( to which ordinary power bishops succeed ) superiour to presbyters , and not institute an oecumenical pastor superiour to all bishops ; though we should fancy that there is as much reason for the one as there is for t'other , yet if there appear to be an institution of the superiority of bishops over presbyters , and no institution of an oecumenical pastor , we may safely own what is instituted , and deny what is not instituted , what ever parity of reason there is between them . and this , i think , plainly shews that the church of england may own the superiority of bishops over presbyters , and yet deny any such officer as an oecumenical pastor , because there is an institution of one , and not of the other . but that our author ( if we may call a notorious plagiary so ) may not complain , that we will not hear him , i shall briefly examin , what he says . he begins with explaining what is meant by church , by subordination of pastors , and by an oecumenical pastor . 1. as for the first , he distinguishes between a church and the church ; a church is any particular church ; the church belongs to the catholick church onely . why so ? is not a church , though it be a particular church , the church of england , the church of france , the church of spain ? the church of england is not the universal church , no more than the church of rome , but it is the church of england : but what he would make of this , i cannot well guess . he says , men are frighted into conformity to the impositions of any particular church , upon supposition that they are the laws of the church , i. e. the catholick church , as the people do for the most part believe : but i perceive he thinks , that our people in england are as silly as they are in some other places ; but we tell them , and every body of common sense understands without telling , that when we in england exhort them to obey the laws of the church , we mean onely the laws of the church of england ; and he ought first to have proved , that every national church has not power to give laws to her own members , before he had represented this , as such a meer scare-crow ; for his distinction between a and the church , does not prove that a church , or every particular national or diooesan church , if he pleases , has not authority over her own members . this he himself dares not deny , and therefore distinguishes between obeying a church , as the church , and as a church ; but though we do grant a difference between the universal and a particular church , yet before he had run down the authority of particular churches , he ought to have proved such a superior authority in the universal church , to which all particular churches must be subordinate : but here his author failed him , and therefore he must of necessity fail his readers . 2. by subordination of pastors he understands the standing of several men in distinct orders , or degrees of office , one above another , or under another in subordinate ranks . this he applies to patriarchates , national , provincial , diocesan , churches ; the romanists he says never stop till they arrive at the most catholick visible church and pastor in the world , i. e. an oecumenical pastor : the protestant prelates and doctors ( who go not dr sherlock's way ) do say , that there are no degrees of subordination in the ascending part , above a national church and pastor . i have already defended my way , which this author , i find , knows nothing of , no more than he does what is the sense of protestant prelates in this matter : and therefore i must tell him , that though we do own a subordination of presbyters to bishops , yet we own no subordination of one bishop to another , but do assert with st cyprian , that all bishops have originally the same authority and power : what the meaning is of metropolitical and national combinations of churches , and how far we are from setting up a national supream pastor with a kind of a national infallibility , as he insinuates , i have already shewn at large : though i think there never was a more senseless suggestion , that no church can exercise any authority and jurisdiction , nor punish the disobedient , without pretending to infallibility , which would overthrow all government in the world , unless princes , and parents , and masters be infallible too : and the reason he gives of it is as absurd to the full ; that its the most unjust and unreasonable thing in the world for me to pretend to force another to believe and practise that which i am not assured to be truth : as if no man could be certain of any thing without infallibility . now all his arguments proceeding upon this mistake , that we own a superiority of one bishop over another , that bishops own obedience and subjection to archbishops and primates , and they to patriarchs ; whereas we own no such thing , but teach , that all bishops are equal , as i have already explained it ; and that these combinations of bishops into archiepiscopal and national churches , are not for direct acts of government and superiority over each other , but for mutual advice and counsel : all his arguments from the superiour power of archbishops , metropolitans , and patriarchs , to prove that there must be an universal pastor , fall with it . 3. by an oecumenic pastor , he means the universal visible ruling head of the catholick organized church militant . this is easily understood ; the only difficulty is to prove , that the catholick church is such an organized body , as must have an universal visible ruling head. and thus i come to his reasons , whereby he proves , that the subordination of pastors in the church , does necessarily infer the supremacy of an oecumenick or universal pastor : 1. his first argument is , that there is the same politick reason for an universal pastor , that there is for any subordinate pastor , that hath pastors subjected unto him . now suppose this were true , we do not sound the original right of government , of superiority and subjection between the pastors of the church , upon any politick reasons , but only upon institution ; and therefore though the politick reasons were the same , if the institution be not the same , that makes an essential difference , and spoils all the arguments from a parity of reason . the only subordination we allow of , is the subordination of presbyters to their bishops , and that we found on an apostolick institution , and if we will speak in the ancient language , this is not the subordination of one pastor to another : for none were called the pastors of the church in st. cyprian's days but bishops , who are the apostles successors , to whom christ intrusted the care of feeding his sheep . for though presbyters are intrusted with the care of the flock , yet they are not compleat pastors , because they are under the direction and government of their bishop in the exercise of their ministry , and according to ignatius his rule must do nothing without him : but bishops are the supream governours and pastors of their particular churches , and we allow of no subordination of bishops , that is , of pastors , to each other . this our transcriber was sensible of , and therefore here he leaves his copy : the independent author gives his first instance in a diocesan bishop ruling his parish priests or parochial pastors , the chief end of the said bishop being iurisdiction , determination of ecclesiastical causes , regulation and ordination of his clergy , unity , order , uniformity . now our popish transcriber was sensible , that there was not such a subordination between bishops , as there is of presbyters to bishops , and therefore he changes a diocesan bishop into a provincial pastor ruling his diocesan bishops , and regulation and ordination of his clergy into regulating abuses , and consecration of bishops . so that he was conscious to himself , that there is not the same politick reason for the subordination of bishops to each other , that there is for the subordination of presbyters to their bishops , which is the only subordination we own , and thus i might dismiss his first argument . but is there not a subordination of bishops to archbishops allowed and practised in the church of england , and interwoven with the constitution of it ; and it this be thought necessary to the unity and good government of a national church , is there not greater need for a principium unitatis & regiminis , a principle of unity and government in conjoyning many national churches in one patriarchal , or all in one oecumenic , as for uniting provincials in one primateship , or for subjecting diocesans to their respective provincials ? this is the whole force of the argument , which i have sufficiently answered already , but shall briefly consider it again . 1. then i observe , that whatever superiority or jurisdiction archbishops challenge over bishops , it is but a humane institution ; for all bishops , with respect to the original institution of episcopacy , are equal : and therefore the superiority of archbishops oven bishops cannot prove , that christ has appointed a supream pastor over the whole church , and all the bishops of it ; for christ has not made an archbishop superiour to a bishop , much less a pope superior to them all . so that at most , if they proceed upon this argument , they must quit all pretence to a divine right , and confess the pope to be as very a humane creature as an archbishop is , and then we know what to say to them . 2. for the being and authority of archbishops , and consequently of such an oecumenical bishop , is not necessary and essential to the unity of the church , as no humane institution can be : christ instituted his church , which is but one church , without archbishops and metropolitans , and consequently without an oecumenical bishop , and therefore they cannot be necessary to the unity of the church . for if christ instituted this one church in a parity of bishops , it must be one without such a superiority , as is only of humane institution . the church cannot be one without the essential principle of unity , and if an oecumenical pastor be this essential principle of unity , then either he must be appointed by christ , and so his institution does not result from a parity of reason with the archiepiscopal and patriarchal authority , which were not instituted by christ , and then this argument is lost ; or else christ instituted one church without the essential principle of unity , which is as great an absurdity as to say , that there can be one church without a principle of unity . 3. as the archiepiscopal and patriarchal authority is originally of humane institution , so it is plain , that before the church was incorporated into the state , and it may be some time after , it did not give a direct authority and jurisdiction to one bishop over another : for st. cyprian , who was a primate himself , disowns such an authority , as makes them bishops of bishops ; and in st. ieromes time the bishop was the highest order in the church ; and of what place soever they were bishops , they were all equal , which is a contradiction , if one had a direct superiority over another ; and therefore such combinations of bishops ( as i have often observed ) were not essential to the unity of the church , but were a good prudential means to maintain a strict allyance between neighbour bishops , was very useful for mutual advice and council ; gave great authority to church discipline , when every particular bishop , though he had the supreme authority in his own church , yet did not act meerly upon his own head , but with the consent and advise of the whole province , or patriarchate , which confirmed the authority of every bishop , when those , who were duely censured by their bishop , saw it in vain to complain to other bishops , who all observed the same rules of discipline : and an archbishop or primate was very necessary in such combinations , not for unity and government , but for order , as it is in all other bodies and societies of men : at least not for any acts of government over their fellow bishops , but such as did belong in common to them all , as ordaining bishops for vacant sees , or composing such differences as the single authority of the bishop could not compose in his own diocess . 4. i readily grant , that since the church is incorporated into the state , archbishops and metropolitans have a greater and more direct authority over their collegues , as far as the canons of the church confirmed by the supreme national authority extend : but whatever is more than i have now explained , is not a pure ecclesiastical authority , but a mixt authority derived from the civil powers , and this may be greater or less , as the civil powers please . all compulsory jurisdiction must be derived from the civil powers , because the church has none of her own , and when the church is incorporated into the state , as it is very fitting , that the ecclesiastical authority should be enforced by the civil authority , so those , who have the exercise of this ecclesiastical authority , seem the fittest persons to be entrusted with such a civil jurisdiction , as is thought convenient to give force to it : which is the true original of that mixt authority , which the bishops and archbishops now exercise by the canons of the church , and the laws of the land. but though this justifies the archiepiscopal or metropolitical authority over a national church , yet it is a demonstration , that there can be no such oecumenical pastor , as there is a national archbishop , unless we could find an universal monarch too , as well as a king of england , of france or spain ; for otherwise , whence should this universal pastor derive his oecumenic authority , unless there be an universal prince ? meerly considered as a bishop , he has no superiority or jurisdiction over any of his collegues or fellow bishops ; and he can never have such a jurisdiction over the universal church , as a metropolitan has over a national church , unless there be an universal king to give this universal authority to him , as there is the king of england , of france , or spain , to give such a national authority to their patriarchs and primates : whereas the pope of rome is so far from deriving his authority from secular princes , that he challenges a superiour authority over them and their subjects in their own dominions : which shews how senseless it is to infer the authority of an universal bishop or pastor from the authority of a national primate , because they cannot derive their authority the same way , there being no universal monarch to give him such authority ; and the bishop of rome , who alone challenges this universal pastorship , is so far from owning such a title to it , that he assumes an authority over soveraign princes . and therefore though it may be pardonable in an independent to use such an argument for the pope's authority , i know not how our popish plagiary will come off with it ; for it effectually overthrows all pretences to a papal supremacy , to derive it from no higher principle than what gives being to a national primacy , which is not the institution of christ , but the authority of soveraign princes , and civil powers ; which the pope cannot have , and if he could , would think scorn to receive his power from them : for that would spoil his claim as christ's vicar , and st. peter's successor ; and they who give can take away too . 5. but setting aside all this , there is not a parity of reason for an oecumenic pastor , and a national primate , neither of them are necessary to the unity of the church , which is preserved by the concord and agreement of bishops , not by such a governing authority and superiour power of one bishop over another : as for advice and counsel , such a national combination of bishops under a metropolitan , may be of great use , because all the bishops in a nation may without any inconvenience meet together ; but there is not the same reason for an universal bishop , because all the bishops in the world cannot meet together in council with him , as i have already discoursed . and as for some peculiar acts of authority and jurisdiction , especially where there is a mixture of the ecclesiastical and civil authority ; this may very prudently be intrusted with a national primate : but it is both an intolerable grievance , which has been complained of by roman catholick princes and people , that appeals should lie to rome , and the bishops and people of all nations in the world , be forced to have their causes heard there ; and it is a derogation from the authority of soveraign princes , to have a foreign bishop exercise a superiour jurisdiction in their own kingdoms . this i think is sufficient , if men be reasonable , to answer his first politick reason for an universal pastor . 2. his next argument is very comical ; the whole of which he has borrowed also from his independent author , though sometimes he ventures upon new phrases , and new illustrations , which make it more comical still : he proves , that they that maintain the government of the church by bishops , archbishops , primates , &c. must also own and acknowledge an universal visible pastor , from the nature of an universal visible church . this may be true for ought i know ; for who can tell but his &c. which is all he has added to the original , may include an universal pastor ? but his argument is fallaciously put , ( which i confess is none of his fault , but his author 's , whom he has honestly copied ) it should have been this , those who assert the government of the church by bishops , archbishops , primates , ( though he should have left out bishops , as he did in his former argument , because their authority is of a distinct consideration from archbishops and primates ) from the nature of an universal visible church , must also own an universal visible pastor from the nature of an universal visible church : for if we do not derive the authority of archbishops and primates , from the nature and essential constitution of the catholick church , as it is evident we do not ; how can the nature of the universal visible church , force us to own an universal pastor , when it does not force us to own a national primate ? if there be such a connexion between them that the consequence holds from one to the other , we must own them both for the same reason ; for there is no proportion nor no consequence between things , which have different natures and causes . but let us hear how he proves this : this church , he says , must be an organized , or unorganized body , made up of partes similares onely . right ▪ the universal church is unorganized as to the whole , though made up of organized parts . but this we must not say , for then we spoil his argument ; and yet he knows that every one , who denies an universal pastor set over the whole church , must , and does , say it . so that the sum of his argument is this : if you will allow the whole church to be an organized body , that is , to be under the government of an universal pastor , then you must own an universal pastor ; but if you will not own this , he has nothing to say to you , but that you ought in civility to own it , to make good his argument . if men will be so perverse as to own particular national churches to be organized bodies , and to deny the universal church to be thus organized , ( as we all do ) then they may own a national primate , and deny an oecumenical pastor ; and if men own the universal church to be such an organized body , they must own an universal pastor , whether they own archbishops and primates or not ; and therefore archbishops and primates might have been left out of this argument , because they signifie nothing in it ; and consequently the whole argument is nothing to his design , to prove that those who own archbishops and primates must own an universal pastor . well , but he undertakes for us , that we will not grant , that the universal church is an unorganized body ; because it lays a necessary foundation , for particular co-ordinate churches , congregational , or presbyterian : if he had said episcopal , he had said right , and we know no inconvenience in this to say , that all episcopal churches are co-ordinate , since all bishops by an original right are equal . but besides , if the catholick church be considered in its largest acceptation and extent , comprehending the militant and triumphant parts , the scripture tells us , it 's an organized body , being called a body of which the lord iesus christ is the living head. this is purely his own , for his author had more wit than to say it : the whole church militant and triumphant , or the church in earth and heaven , is but one church , and this one church is united to christ , the head of the church , and this proves , that the church on earth cannot have any other head , as the principle of unity , but only christ : for the head of the church must be the head of the whole church , as the head is the head of the whole body : and therefore the church on earth , being part of the church , not the whole ( for the church in heaven is the largest , and best part of the body ) it cannot have a visible head on earth , because such a head cannot be the head of the whole body ; for those who say the bishop of rome is the head of the visible militant church on earth , yet never pretended , that he is the head of the invisible triumphant church in heaven ; now the church on earth can never have a head , which is not the head of the church in heaven , unless we will say , that part of a body , as the church on earth is , may have a head by it self , which is not head to the other part of the body , which is a thing , that never was heard of in the world before , that a head should be head only to part of the body , and not to the whole , when the body is but one . but what does he mean , when he says , that the church militant and triumphant , is an organized body ? what organization is there in the church triumphant ? they are all indeed united to christ , and so are his body , but there are no different organical parts in this body , no differing ranks and offices , that we know of , in the church in heaven , no distinction between clergy and laity , prophets and apostles , pastors and teachers there , for these offices cease with the use of them , and therefore they are not united to christ in one organical body , which has different members , and offices , in heaven ; and therefore thô the church on earth consists ▪ of such organized bodies , yet it is not their organization , which unites them to christ , for then this would be necessary in heaven , as well as in eartth , for the same one body , and every part of it , must be united to christ in the same manner , and by the same kind of union ; and if the union of the church on earth does not consist in its organization , to be sure , there is no necessity , that the whole church on earth should be one organized body , to make it the body of christ. the organization of particular churches is for the edification and good government of all the members of it , not immediately for their union to christ , and therefore if the whole church may be edified , and well governed , by the organization of particular churches , the church being called the body of christ , cannot prove , that the whole church on earth is , one organical body . but if particular churches be organized , it 's most natural and fit , that the mother teeming church , should have the most proportionate adaptation of parts . a mother that brings forth organized children , is supposed to be organized her self . nihil dat quod non habet : wherefore all other less comprehensive churches , coming out of the womb of mother church , and proved to be organized bodies , it 's naturally necessary , that she her self should be homogeneous , or of same kind , otherwise the mother must be more monstrous than the daughters . here he forsakes his guide again , and falls into nonsense . could he find out a mother church , which is none of the daughters , a catholick church , which is distinct from all particulars , this would be a notable argument indeed , to prove the catholick church to be organized , because particular churches are ; but if there be no teeming mother church , but what is a particular church it self , if no church brings forth churches , as a woman brings forth her daughters , nay if churches are not brought forth , but christians , who are afterwards formed into church-societies , if all this at best be nothing but metaphor and allusion , and that without any real likeness and similitude too , we may safely allow him such kind of arguments as these , for his organized catholick church . well but now these particular churches are transformed from daughters into integral parts of the mother catholick church , nay , are daughters and integral parts too , which constitute the mother ; and then a body which is made up of organized parts , is always it self organized , e. g. in all animals , in a man the head , hand , legs , &c. are each organized for the compleating the totality of that part ; and therefore are becoming organs to the whole man , and hence the man is an organized body . now indeed if the whole church were such a body as the natural body of a man is , and did consist of particular churches , which did as much differ in their nature , and use , and organization ▪ as the head , and hand , and legs , do in the natural body ; this were a very notable argument to prove the whole church to be an organized body , consisting of particular churches , as of integral parts : but now the apostle makes every particular church to be such an organized body , consisting of all the integral parts of a church , a bishop , presbyters , deacons , and faithful people ; and therefore particular churches are not properly organized parts of the catholick church , as the hands or legs are of a humane body , which is made up of several other members of a different nature , but as organized wholes , every particular church being a complete and entire church , not a part of a church ; and the catholick church is considered as one , not so much by uniting all particular churches , considered as particular churches , which is to unite a great many wholes together , to make one whole , which is perfectly unintelligible ; but by uniting the several parts , of which each particular church consists , into one , they being the same in all ; and this makes one organized catholick church , of the same nature and constitution , the same officers and members , with every particular organized church . as for instance : a particular organized church , as i have now observed , consists of a bishop , presbyters , deacons , and faithful people , and the whole catholick church consists of the same parts , and can have no other ; and yet there are no bishops , presbyters , deacons , christian people to make up this catholick church , but what belong to some particular churches , and yet particular churches are not parts of a church , but compleat entire churches , as having all the integral parts , of a perfect church , and therefore particular organiz'd churches cannot make up a whole church , as the several parts make a whole body , because they are each of them a whole ; where then shall we find bishops , presbyters , deacons , people , to make up one catholick church ? now in this case there can be no other notion of the catholick church , but the union of the same parts of all particular churches into one , and then the union of all these united parts into one body , makes the one catholick church . as to explain this briefly . st. cyprian tells us , that there is but one episcopacy , or one bishoprick , as i have already shown ; and therefore all the bishops , who are now dispersed over all the world , and have the supream government of their particular churches , must be reckoned but one bishop ; for thô their natural persons are distinct , they are but one ecclesiastical person , their office , power , and dignity , being one and the same , not divided into parts , but exercised by all of them in their several churches , with the same fulness and plenitude of power ; and thus we have found out one bishop for the one catholick church , all the bishops in the world being but one , for thô they are many distinct persons , they are but one power , and exercise the same office , without division or multiplication . and thus all the presbyters in the world , who are under the direction and government of their several bishops , are but one presbytery of the catholick church , for if the episcopacy be but one , the presbytery must be but one also , in subordination to this one episcopacy , the like may be said of deacons , and of christian people , that they are but one body and communion under one bishop . where there is but one bishop , there can be but one church , and therefore one episcopacy unites all christians into one body and communion : how this is consistant with the many schisms and divisions of the christian church , shall be accounted for else-where . this is a plain intelligible account , how all the particular churches in the world are but one church , because all the parts and members , which answer to each other in these particular churches are but one by the institution of christ : all their bishops but one bishop , all their presbyters but one presbytery , all the christians of particular churches , but one body and communion , and thus the catholick church is an organized body , consisting of the same parts , that all particular churches consist of : just as if five thousand men , whose bodies have all the same members , should by a coalition of corresponding parts , grow up into one body ; that all their heads , their arms , their legs , &c. should grow into one , which would make a kind of universal organized body , of the same nature with what every single individual man has . and that there can be no other notion of the catholick church , as considered in this world , ethink , is very plain from this , that there is but one notion of a church ; and therefore the catholick church and particular churches , must have the very same nature and integral parts . if a bishop , presbyters , and christian people , make a particular church , there must be the very same parts in the catholick church , or you must shew us two distinct notions of a church , and that the catholick and particular churches differ in their essential constitution : if the notion be the same , and all particular churches constitute the catholick church , then these particular churches must constitute the catholick church , just as they are constituted themselves , that is , of bishops , presbyters , and people ; and therefore all the bishops of particular churches , must make but one catholick episcopacy , all the presbyters , but one presbytery , all the christian people , but one body and communion ; and then the catholick church , and particular churches are exactly the same , one body of bishops , presbyters , and people . and this utterly destroys all subordination between bishops , for if to the notion of the catholick church , all bishops must be considered as one , than every bishop must be equal , for an inferior and superior bishop cannot be one : and if the notion of the catholick church did require one supream oecumenical pastor , to whom all particular bishops are subordinate , then the catholick and particular churches are not of the same species , for the one has a soveraign , the other a subordinate head , and therefore is not a compleat and perfect church , nor of the same kind with the church , which has the soveraign head. and thus i think , i might safely dismiss all our author's criticisms , about the several kinds of totums , which he has transcribed from the independent copy , excepting some peculiar absurdities of his own : for the catholick church properly speaking is no totum at all , with respect to particular churches , which are not properly parts of the catholick church , considered as particular organized churches , but the catholick church is one church , by the union of all the corresponding parts of particular churches , which we have no example of , that i know in nature , nor is it to be expected to find the exemplars of such mystical unions in nature , which depend not upon nature , but upon institution , but it may not be amiss briefly to show our author 's great skill in such matters . he takes it for granted , that the church catholick must be some kind of totum or whole , and therefore undertakes to prove that in all totums there must be a subordination of parts , and therefore there must be a supreme oecumenical pastor in the catholick church . now he says , totum is most legally ( i suppose it should be logically ) divided into quatenus integrum , and quatenus genus ; such a whole as a body is , which has all its parts , or such a whole as a genus is to a species ; and one of these he thinks the catholick church must be : but then his author minded him , that there was an aggregate whole , such a whole as a heap of corn is , but he told him also , that this was but a kind of integrum ; though if this integrum signifies such a whole as has integrating parts , the union of which makes the whole , such an aggregate as has neither any parts nor any union , is a pretty kind of integrum , but reduction may do great things , and therefore i won't dispute that : but since he has named this aggregate whole , if any man should be so perverse as to say that the catholick church is such an aggregate body , consisting of all particular co-ordinate churches ; what would become of his subordination of pastors ; for what subordination is there in aggregate bodies , in those grains suppose , which make up a heap of corn , which are all alike ? the independent author foresaw this objection , but medles not with it , like a wise man who would not conjure up a devil which he could not lay ; but this transcriber is bold and brave , and sometimes ventures out of his depth without his bladders , and then he is usually ducked for it . he tells us , p. 70. that an aggregate whole has integral parts ; which i believe is a new notion ; for i thought it had been a collection of incoherent things , which had no union nor relation to each other , as parts have to the whole : but how much he understands of this matter , appears from the example he gives , for he takes an army to be such an aggregated whole ; if he had said a rout or a rabble had been such an aggregate , he had come near the business ; but i fear the king's guards will not take it well to be thought a meer aggregate body : but he could find no other aggregate , wherein there is a subordination of parts , and therefore an army must pass for such an aggregate . but let us consider his totum integrum , which is a natural or political whole , such as the body of man , or a community is , which is made up of several parts , which are integral and essential to its composition . now according to the right notion of subordination , the whole is divided into the next , but greater parts , and they into the next lesser , and they into lesser , or least of all . well then , let us apply this to the body of man , which are the greater and lesser parts , and least of all into which it must be divided : which are the superiour , and which the subordinate parts in a humane body ? there are some indeed which are higher , and others lower in the scituation of the body ; some more noble and more useful than others ; but there is no subordination between them , that i know of , but the soul governs them all , and they have the same care one of another . indeed subordination relates onely to governed societies , which may be divided as he speaks into greater or less , superior or subordinate parts ; which is another kind of integrum , such as we call a community . but suppose this be what he means by his integrum , not a natural , but a political whole ; how does he prove that in every such integrum , there must be such a subordination of parts , as at last centers in one supreme governour ? for what does he think of democracies , or aristocracies ? who is the supreme where all are equal ? and should any man say , that all the bishops of the catholick church are equal , without any supreme head over them , as democratical or aristocratical princes are , how would he be able to confute him from his notion of integrum ? and therefore the meer notion of an integrum will not prove such a subordination of parts , as center in one ▪ supreme head ; but he must prove that the constitution of the christian church is such , as is under the government of one supreme visible head. his next totum is genericum : his author had confessed that this does not belong to the church ; and he confesses it after him in the very same words : this notion i 'll not further prosecute , because according to the best logical and theological rules , the application of a genius , doth not so well suit the nature of the catholick church , it being more properly an integrum than a genus . and yet he would not lose this opportunity neither , to let us see his great skill in logick : but since they both confess , it is nothing to the purpose , i shall not trouble my readers with it . 3. he argues from the nature of subordination it self , of any kind , which always supposes a supremum & infimum — . and if there be in the church a subordination of pastors , as our protestant prelates assert , then there must be a supreme as well as the lowest term , viz. a catholick pastor for the highest range or round of the ladder , and a parish priest , or ( as our bishops would have it of late ) a diocesan , for the lowest , the continuation being always to a neplus ultra at both ends of the line . which , for ought i see , does as well prove an universal monarch , as an universal pastor . for he tells us , this holds in any kind of subordination . we do grant indeed , that there is a subordination of pastors in the church , i. e. that presbyters are subordinate to bishops ; but we say with all antiquity , that a bishop , even a diocesan bishop , is not the lowest , but the highest term ; for a bishop is the highest order in the church , and all bishops are of equal power , and this without any danger of independency , as i have already shown . 4. his next argument is from the derivation and original of pastoral office and power . the sum of which in short is this ▪ that every pastor must receive his pastoral power , from some superior pastor , that as presbyters are ordained by bishops , so bishops by their metropolitans , they by their primate , and they by the oecumenical bishop , from whom they receive the pastoral staff. but he forgot all this while , from whom this oecumenical bishop must receive his orders ; and whether those who ordain the pope , are his superiors . such talk as this might become the independant well enough , from whom he transcribes it , but is pretty cant for a romanist , for whoever has authority to confer orders , may certainly confer them , whether he be a superior or equal , and therefore he ought to have proved , that none but a superior can have authority to confer orders ; and then he must find a superior to the pope , to give him his oecumenical power . the catholick church has always owned the power of order to be in bishops , who are the highest order of the church , and have a plenitude of ecclesiastical power , which is the reason why presbyters cannot ordain without their bishop , because they are not compleat pastors , but act in subordination to , and dependance on their bishops , and therefore have not such a fulness of power in themselves , as to communicate it to others . 5. in the next place he argues from the chief ends of subordination of pastors in the church , viz. that there may be place for appeals in matters of controversie , in cases of male-administration by the subordinate clergy , final determinations of difficult ecclesiastical causes , correction of heresie and schism , as also establishment of ceremonies . schism and ceremonies belong to the next head of arguments , where his author placed them , but this transcriber has not judgment enough to write after his copy , but will sometimes venture to alter , thô without sense . but there are as many choice passages in his pursuit of this argument , as one could wish , which would make one suspect , that the independent author himself was a well-wisher to popery , he disputes so heartily for a last supream judge to receive appeals , and for the infallibility of such a judge : but there is nothing more required to answer this argument , but to give a plain state of this case of appeals . we must distinguish then between ecclesiastical causes , and consider the original right of appeals . as for ecclesiastical causes , nothing is a pure ecclesiastical cause , but what concerns the communion of the church , who shall be received into communion , or cast out of it , or put under some less censures , which confines this either to faith or manners : but as for other causes , which are called ecclesiastical because they concern ecclesiastical things or persons , such as the repairs of churches , advowsance of livings , tithes , glebe , oblations , &c. they are rather of a civil than ecclesiastical cognizance , thô bishops and ecclesiastical persons are entrusted by the civil powers with the determination of them ; and in such matters as these , it is fit , there should lie appeals , as there do in all other civil matters ; but then it is sit also , that these appeals should be bounded as all other civil appeals are , within the kingdom or territory , where the cause arises ; for to carry such appeals out of the kingdom , is as great an injury to the authority of the prince , as to the liberties of the subject . a soveraign prince has all civil power and jurisdiction , and to suffer appeals to foreign bishops or princes , is to own a superior in his own dominions ; and therefore in such matters as these , no appeal can lie to an oecumenick bishop . as for causes purely ecclesiastical , the bishop being supream in his own diocess , there can be no original right of appeal from him , for there is no appeal from the supreme : he has a free power in the government of his own diocess , and must render an account of his actions to christ , who is the supreme lord of the church , as st. cyprian tells us . but , as notwithstanding this , it is very expedient , and in some degree necessary , that neighbour bishops should unite into an ecclesiastical body for the maintainance of catholick communion , and the exercise of discipline , as i have already shewn ; so the very nature of such combinations admits and requires appeals , that if any presbyter or private christian be too severely censured by his bishop , or without just cause , he may find relief from the synod or primate , or in whomsoever the power of receiving appeals is placed : for bishops are men , and liable to humane passions and frailties , and it would be impossible to maintain the authority of church censures , without such appeals . for though there be no original right of appeals from the sentence of one bishop to another ; yet every bishop has authority to receive whom he judges fit , into the communion of his own church ; and should one bishop depose a presbyter , or excommunicate a lay christian unjustly , should they go into another diocess , if the bishop of it judged them worthy of communion , he might receive them into communion notwithstanding these censures ; for he is judge in his own church , as the other was in his . but how contemptible would ecclesiastical censures be , if they reached no farther than single diocesses ; and what dissensions would this create among bishops , should one receive those into communion , whom the other had cast out ? which makes it highly expedient , that neighbour bishops should be made , not the judges of their fellow bishops , or their actions , as it is in superiour courts , which have a direct authority over the inferiour , but umpires and arbitrators of such differences as may happen between the bishop and his clergy , or people ; which will preserve the peace and concerd of bishops , and give a more sacred authority to ecclesiastical censures : but then these appeals must be confined to this ecclesiastical body , and not carried to foreign churches ▪ for by the same reason that these ecclesiastical bodies and communions must be confined within such limits as admit of such combinations , of which i have given an account above ; these appeals also must be confined to the ecclesiastical bodies , as st : cyprian expresly affirms , that the cause should be heard there where the crime was committed . thus we see there is no need of an oecumenical pastor to receive appeals , much less of an infallible judge for this purpose ; and thus i might dismiss this argument , were it possible to pass it over without observing some peculiar strains of reason and rhetorick in it . as for example : that appeals are to no end , if there be not some supreme catholic pastor to arrive at , in whose determination we are bound to set down and rest satisfied . as if there could be no last appeal but to a catholick pastor , or no man were bound to rest satisfied in any other last appeal . but i perceive the satisfaction he means , is the satisfaction of having our cause determined by an infallible judge , who cannot err : which it may be is the first time a roman catholick , for i must except his independent original , ever made the pope an infallible judge not onely in matters of faith , but of all causes , which are brought before him by appeals . but why may not the last appeal be made to any one else , as well as to the catholick pastor ? no : the mind of the whole catholick church may be had in the principium unitatis ; but no other national , provincial , or diocesan pastor have the mind of the whole catholick church : which i can make nothing more of , but that the mind of the catholick paston is the mind of the catholick church ; and therefore the catholick pastor , if he speaks his own mind , speaks the mind of the catholick church too ▪ he is the head , and if we will know a mans mind we must resort to the head , not to the arms or legs , where you can onely expect a dumb : kick or box under the ear , as we have had enough of from our protestant prelates : — a diocesan ; provincial , or primate , are but the churches more surly and less intelligible organs : ( but arms or legs , which give dumb kicks , or boxes on the ear ) but if you will understand the sense of the church ▪ you must resort to the body speaking in the head , not to the kicking heels . this is all demonstration , besides the advantages of apt figures , and the elegancies of expression to set it of . well , the last appeals then must lie to the catholick pastor , because he knows the mind of the whole church , and is its speaking head ; whereas metropolitans and primates are but dumb , surly , less intelligible organs , whose mind you can onely understand by kicks , or boxes under the ear ; which yet i think , is a very intelligible way , though i believe few people love to understand that way : for this reason then , we must go to the head , that we may understand the mind of the whole church , for then we cannot err. but is this head then infallible ? yes , most certainly ! for the pretensions made by the catholick pastor to infallibility , are founded on the principles of the episcopal constitution . for an episcopal church ( setled by subordination of pastors within it self ) without a catholick head , is an animal without a head : which is a pretty strange sort of creature . in all our appeals from pastor to pastor , from church to church , in any causes or controversies , if we do not still come to a less fallible church , and at last arrive at the most infallible , comprehensive of our selves as members , cui bono hic labor , & hoc opus ? that is , to what purpose do we appeal from one fallible church to another , unless we can at last lodge our final appeal in an infallible church ? so that the reason why we must appeal to the catholick pastor , is that our cause may be determined by an infallible judge , who has the mind of the whole church : and the proof of the infallibility of this catholick pastor is , that to him must be made the last appeals , which were to no purpose , if he were not the most infallible . thus infallibility proves the necessity of appeals , and appeals prove the necessity of infallibility ; for one good turn requires another . but still me-thinks there is a little difficulty , why there should be any appeals at all to a fallible judge ? why should not all causes in the first instance be brought before the infallible judge ? why must we take such a round by bishops , provincials , metropolitans , primates , before we come to the catholick pastor ; when there can be no satisfaction till we come to the infallible judge , and have the mind of the whole church from him ? and as our author observes , cui bono , do men appeal from one fallible creature to another ? if the right of appeals be grounded on infallibility , why must we appeal to those who are fallible ? to salve this , which is a real difficulty ; our author would insinuate ( for he is afraid down right to own such an absurdity ) that there are degrees of infallibility , which if admitted we must arise to the highest , but why not go to the highest at first , but rise by degrees ? if it be granted that a bishop is less fallible than a parish priest , and an archbishop less fallible than a bishop , and a primate than he , upon the same ground we may expect the catholick pastor to be less fallible than all the rest . but what a lamentable ground is this for infallibility ! and what a lamentable . infallibility is that , which is only being less fallible , than some other fallible creatures ? but the pleasantest conceit is , that mens infallibility encreases with their several orders , and degrees in the church , that a bishop is less fallible , and therefore more infallible than a priest , and an archbishop than a bishop , &c. now i suppose he will grant , that infallibility does not result from mens personal abilities , but is a supernatural gift , and that christ never gives any thing less , in such a supernatural way , than absolute infallibility : and therefore , whatever infallibility men can challenge , by vertue of a promise , must be absolute , and absolute infallibility has no degrees : if then the infallibility of the catholick pastor be founded on a divine promise , it has no relation at all to the several degrees of fallibility in other church officers ; unless he can show , where christ has promised several degrees of infallibility , to the several orders and degrees of ecclesiastical ministers , and then indeed we may conclude , that he has bestowed the most perfect infallibility upon the catholick pastor , if it be first proved , that he has instituted such a catholick pastor . but it is evident , that to be more or less fallible , depends upon mens personal abilities , learning , wisdom , honesty , and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say , that every bishop must be less fallible than a presbyter , and an archbishop less fallible than a bishop , and a primate than he , unless you can prove , that all bishops must be wiser , honester , and more learned men , then presbyters , and archbishops than bishops , and popes than archbishops and primates : which i believe is a pretty hard task , and yet our wise author at last resolves the popes infallibility into this belief , for it is not to be supposed , that the catholick church would commit the greatest charge to a person of the least iudgment and understanding . so that it seems infallibility at last is dwindled away into mens personal judgment and understanding ; and thô it may be the catholick church might be careful in such a choice , yet we can easily suppose , that cardinals , who may not be men of the best judgments themselves , and may be divided by interests and factions , or brib'd with mony , or over-awed by power , or influenced by friendships , may not always choose the wisest man in the world , and if they did , yet he could be no more infallible this way , than the wisest man in the world is , who after all is a fallible creature , as all men are : and i dare appeal to all sober and considering roman-catholicks , whether our author has not utterly overthrown the infallibity of the pope , and all appeals to him , by what he adds . to what purpose is it for us to betake our selves for further light to those , whom the church has entrusted with higher power and larger trust , if we have no reason to judge them , not only to be holyer , wiser , and juster men , than those we appeal from , but less fallible in judgment , and errable in practice ? for i am confident few roman-catholicks think their popes to be the wisest and best men in the world , and therefore if their inerrability depends upon their wisdom and honesty , they cannot think them infallible neither , and i suspect our author has no great claim to infallibility himself , who at this time of day , when the stories of popes are so well known , should found infallibility upon the wisdom , holiness , and justice , of popes . by this one would guess , that he makes no great matter of the popes infallibility ▪ that he has found out such a fallible foundation for it . he says , that the oecumenic pastor in his human capacity may mistake and err , and so did st : peter , but not fundamentally , yet as supream head in his catholick capacity ( quatenus in cathedra catholica , & comparative ) to all inferior subordinate pastors , he hath a kind of infallibility , which is a power intrusted in him by the catholick church , to pass a final iudgment of determination in all causes and controversies , to be a ne plus ultra to all appeals and litigations in the church . so that in the first place he is not infallible in his human capacity , and yet he founds his infallibility on his wisdom , holiness , and justice , which are human and personal perfections . in his publick capacity he would have him infallible in the chair , but yet it is but a comparative infallibility , which is none at all : then his infallibility is not an infallibility in judging , but a power to make a final ▪ determination , whether it be right or wrong , and any man might have this power , as well as the pope ; especially since he is not entrusted with this power by christ , but by the catholick church , that is too , only by the church of rome , for no other church entrusts him with it , and thus he quits all divine claims to infallibility , and the pope is no more infallible , than the church can make him , by entrusting him with a final decision of controversies , at all adventures . and therefore he adds , we are not bound to believe his iudgment is infallibly true , but are to subscribe to it , as the last , because we can have no further , and higher appeal on earth . that is , we must subscribe to it , whether we believe it true or not , which is an admirable sort of infallibility . thus he says , the english clergy subscribe the 39 articles , not that they believe them ( as they commonly say ) to be true and orthodox , but because they be the last resolutions of the church of england , in those points , they sit down satisfied to subscribe them ▪ as instrumenta pacis & unitatis , but indeed maxime emcolumenti , by which what he means , cannot guess , but am very much of his mind , that upon the same ground ( were there no other reason of subscriptions ) they may subscribe to the council of trent . but this is a scandal on the clergy of the church of england ; we subscribe to the truth of the doctrines , and for my part i would not subscribe , did i not think them true ; and this is false with reference to the church of rome , which anathematizes all persons who do not own , and acknowledge , and believe , all the articles of the council of trent : however infallibility is at a low ebb in the church of rome , when they can exact submissions and subscriptions onely upon protestant principles , who pretend to no infallibility at all : i have examined this argument a little more at large , to make him sensible how dangerous a thing it is to write after an independent copy : for had any man intended to have burlesqued infallibility , ( as possibly his author , from whom he transcribes , did ) he could not have done it more effectually , than by such principles as these . 6. his sixth argument ( in catholick hierarchy the seventh , for he has dropt one from the nature of the church , which he made an introduction of , and there it has been considered ) is , that this catholick headship is inseparable from an ecclesiastical body , made up of subordinate pastors and churches , may be abundantly evidenced from these following enumerated church necessities . the necessity , 1. of a catholick judgment of schism . 2. of a catholick interpretation of scriptures . 3. of a catholick determination of ceremonies , for order and decency . 4. for a catholick composure of forms of prayer . 5. for a catholick canonization of saints . 6. a catholick call and convention of councils oecumenic . which are word for word the argument of the independent author . i shall briefly consider them all . 1. the necessity of a catholick judgment of schism . i. e. that there should be some judges who are schismaticks , for otherwise , 1. patriarchal or national churches may be schismatical and no competent remedy found for the said schism . 2. there can be no determination of a schism from the catholick church , nor any proportionate punishment of it : for a patriarch or national primate cannot be judicially proceeded against , but by an oecumenic pastor ; which i think is the same with the first : for a national schism must be a schism from the catholick church , or none ; since national churches among us , depend on no foreign patriarchs . 3. because superiour churches are to judge the inferiour ; no particular church has an absolute definitive power in it self , but there lies an appeal against it to the catholick church and pastor . which instead of proving , that there is such a catholick pastor , supposes that there is one ; for else there can lie no appeal to him . 4. that particular churches will never agree about schism , but the very disputes about schism , will make schisms without end . now , suppose a man should turn the tables , and prove by this argument , that there is no catholick pastor , nor catholick judge of schism ; because there are , and always have been schisms in the christian church , which it is impossible there should be , did the church know of such a catholic judge : for how could there be any such dispute about schism , if there were such a judge ? if you say , that it is the not owning such a judge , which makes the schisms : that may be true , but it is true also , that it is a sign the christian world does not know of any such judge ; for if they did , they would own him , and put an end to their schisms : if it be necessary , there should be such a catholick judge of schism , i am sure it is necessary he should be known , or else , as experience testifies , the disputes about such a judge , will make more schisms than such an unknown and disputable judge can ever end . now since there either is no such catholick judge of schism , or he is not sufficiently know to all christians ▪ methinks it proves , that there is no need of such a catholick judge of schism ; for there is as much need ●e should be known , in order to put an end to schisms , as that there should be such a judge ; and if the necessity of ending schisms proves , that there should be such a judge , i am sure the continuance of schisms proves as plainly , that he is not known , because he cannot end them . it is ridiculous to imagine , that there should be any such thing as schism , were there a known oecumenical pastor and judge ; and it is as ridiculous to prove that there is such a judge , from the necessity of such a judge to end schisms , when it is demonstrable from the continuance of these schisms , that the christian world knows of no such judge : and it is very strange , that christ should appoint such a judge , and not take care that he should be known . good arguments must convince schismaticks in this world ; and christ will judge them in the next , and i know of no other catholick iudgment of schism . 2. from the necessity of a catholick resolution of difficult and dubious places of scripture . for the scripture is not of private interpretation , and there are great inconveniences in leaving scripture to the interpretation of private men , or particular , though national , churches . but let the inconveniences be what they will , the same argument returns again , that if there be such an infallible interpreter of scripture , he ought to be known ; and that there are such disputes about the interpretation of scripture , proves , that the christian world do not own such a catholick interpreter , and therefore that they know nothing of him . and there is another argument , that there is no such catholick interpreter of scripture , because we have no such catholick interpretation : and what is the christian world the better for a catholick interpreter , if he does not interpret ? and yet in the church of rome it self , we have no expositions of scripture , but from private and fallible men : the truth is , the pope and his councils have expounded plain scriptures to a dubious , difficult , unintelligible sence , but never , that i know of , made any text easie and intelligible , which was difficult before . to expound scripture , is to make us understand it , not to impose upon our faith without understanding ; and therefore this is not so much an act of authority , as of skill and judgment ; any man , who can so explain scripture to me , as to make me understand it , shall gain my assent , but no authority is sufficient to make me assent without understanding . and yet such a catholick expositor our author would set up , whose authority shall make me grant that to be the sence of scripture , which his reasons and arguments cannot perswade me of . but all reasonable creatures must understand for themselves ; and christ no where commands us to believe that to be the sence of scripture , which we cannot understand to be so . i know no necessity that all christians should agree in the interpretation of all difficult texts of scripture : there is enough in scripture plain , to carry men to heaven , and as for more difficult and obscure texts , they are for the improvement of those who can understand them , and need no such catholick expositor , because it is not necessary that all men should understand them . most of the controversies of religion , especially between us and the church of rome , are about texts of scripture , easie enough to be understood , and an honest teachable mind ▪ would sooner end our controversies , than his catholick expositor . 3. another necessity for an oecumenic pastor , is , a necessity of a catholick determination of decency and order : i. e. that the same rites and ceremonies , for decency and order , should be observed in all christian churches all the world over . now i know no necessity of this ; and that which is not necessary it self , cannot make an oecumenic pastor necessary . de facto , there have been diversity of rites in the christian church in all ages ; thus it was in st. augustine's time , as appears from his epistle to ianuarius 118 ; and then either there was no catholick pastor , or he did not think such a catholick uniformity of rites necessary . none of the fathers ever condemn such a diversity as this , but exhort all christians to conform to the innocent customs and ceremonies of the church , where they came , though different from the customs of their own church ; which st. austine tells us in that epistle , was the advice of st. ambrose . and when pope victor excommunicated the asian churches for their different custom in observing easter , irenoeus , and other bishops , did vehemently oppose him in it ; and therefore , either did not believe him to be the catholick pastor , or did not think , that the catholick pastor ought to impose an uniformity of rites upon all churches . the decency of worship is nothing else , but to perform the external acts of worship in such a manner , as may express our reverence and devotion for god : and therefore , since there are no catholick signs of decency , there can be no catholick uniformity in these matters . the decency of garments , postures , gestures , differ in several countries ; and so do the expressions of honour and reverence : and therefore such external rites being onely for external decency , and having no sacredness by institution , may vary with the different customs and usages of countries : we must worship god in a decent manner ; this all christian churches are bound to , and this they do , when they worship god in such a manner as among them signifies reverence and honour . but says our author , then one church will esteem this or that thing decent in the worship of god , which another reckons absurd . then say i , they are as absurd as country people are , who gaze at foreigners , and laugh at their exotick habits , and think every thing ridiculous , which differs from their own customs . but this uniformity is lost in the catholick church , where it 's most necessary to be had . an uniformity in external rites is not necessary in the catholick church , and it may be cannot be had . but why is it necessary there should be uniformity then in particular national or diocesan churches ? ans. because it is fit and decent , that those who worship god in the same assemblies , should worship him in the same manner , and to do otherwise would contradict the publick decency of the worship . every bishop ( as being the supreme governour of his own church and diocess ) has authority to appoint the decent rites of worship in it ; and when all the bishops of a nation are united into one national body , they may consent in some common rites of worship for the national church , since the usages and customs of the same nation , the rules of decency , and the expressions of honour and reverence , are the same , which gives an account , what churches have this power to determine the decencies and order in ceremonies ; every bishop has an original right to do this for his own church , but as a national combination of bishops , to govern their several churches by a mutual consent , is of great use , so when they are united into a national body , it is much more decent , that they should agree upon an uniformity of rites for the national church ; but there is not the same reason , that this should extend to foreign churches , much less to the whole world , both because these combinations of bishops are limited to national churches , and the customs of different countries change and vary . 4ly . the necessity of a catholick canonization of saints , for supposing a necessity of a due observation of saints days , which the church of england hath always insisted on and pleaded for , it is to be enquired , who or what church canonized the saints , &c. the church of england indeed does observe some festivals , in commemoration of the saints , but she needs no oecumenick pastor to canonize them : she observes the festivals of no saints , but such as the christian world acknowledge to be so , without the popes canonization : and the use she makes of saints , needs no canonization , which is only to bless god for them , and to excite our selves to an imitation of their vertues ; not to build temples and altars to them , or to worship them with religious honours as our mediators and advocates . this canonization of saints was a strange kind of argument , from a pretended independent , and it is such an argument , as i thought at this time of day , a romanist himself would have been ashamed of : for pray , what authority has the church to canonize saints , and who gave her this authority ? such consecrations and canonizations , indeed were in practice in pagan rome , and tertullian sufficiently scorns them for it . he tells us , that there was an ancient decree , that the emperor should not consecrate any god , without the approbation of the senate , for the emperor in those days was the pontifex maximus , or the oecumenick priest. this the father says was to make divinity depend upon human votes ; and unless the god pleases men , he shall not be a god : how applicable this is to the canonization of saints , let our author judge , and tell me , whether there were any such practice known in the christian church , in tertullian's days . to canonize a saint , to be sure , is to vote him into heaven ; and if the oecumenick pastor has this authority , he is somewhat more than the head of the visible church on earth , for his power extends to the invisible church too . 5ly . the necessity of a catholick composure of church prayers , i. e. that the same liturgie should be used in all christian churches ; which never was practised in former ages , and no need it should be : we prefer a liturgie before private and extempore prayers ; we think it most uniform , that a national church should use the same liturgie ; but if every bishop , who is the supream governour of his own church , should have a liturgie of his own , i see no hurt in it , if it be a true christian liturgie , and neither corrupt the christian faith , nor worship . when he can give me one wise reason , why the whole christian world must use the same liturgie , and that there must of necessity be an oecumenick pastor to compose this liturgie , i will consider it farther . his harangue about our charging dissenters with schism , does not relate to this matter : for setting aside the civil authority , whereby our liturgie is confirmed , their schism does not consist in using another liturgie , for they use none ; but in separating from the communion of their bishop , who has authority to appoint what liturgie shall be used in his church : for the liturgie being agreed on in convocation , makes it an act of the church , confirmed by the authority and consent of all the bishops , besides the concurrent votes and suffrages of the inferior clergy : and if every particular bishop have authority to appoint , what form of prayer shall be used in his church , all the bishops of england may agree in the same liturgie , and those who deny obedience to their bishops , and separate from them upon such accounts , are guilty of schism : but where there is no such subjection and obedience owing , as there is none between particular bishops , and distinct national churches , they may make liturgies and forms of prayer for themselves , and are accountable to no body else for it . 6thly , his last necessity for an oecumenick pastor , is , for calling , convening , and dissolving oecumenical councils . now , if there be no such absolute necessity of oecumenical councils ; if they may , and have been called by emperors ; if they may meet together of themselves , by mutual agreement , then there is no necessity of an oecumenical pastor for this purpose . but such an assembly , he says , must be a church assembly , or else it can claim no power in the church , and all church assemblies are of right convened by the pastor of the said church , in which it is , as in a diocess , the clergy is convened by the authoritative call of the bishop . this is the force of his whole argument , wherein there are two things supposed , which we desire him to prove , 1. that an oecumenical council is not for mutual advice , but for direct acts of authority and government . 2. that a council receives its authority from an authoritative call ; when he has proved these two propositions , his argument may deserve a new consideration . an answer to section ii. concerning the agreement between the two churches , about some of their imposed terms of communion , their ministry , ceremonies , and image-worship . 1. the ministry . having answered all their pretences of agreement , between the church of england , and the church of rome , concerning one supream oecumenical pastor ; what remains will give me no great trouble , and i shall give my self , and my readers no more than needs must . 1. the first agreement is about the ministry , unto which all are required to submit , which is the same with that of roman-catholicks , and maintained by the same arguments ; that is , concerning the divine institution of bishops and subject presbyters . now this charge we own , that we do acknowledge the divine right of episcopacy , and that presbyters by the institution of their office are subject to bishops ; and if the roman-catholicks own this , we agree with them in it ; and so we will in any thing else , that is true , and think it no injury to our cause ; for we do not think our selves bound to renounce what is true , only that we may differ from roman-catholicks : and yet the mischief is , that in despight of his title and design , he will not suffer us to agree with them here , but endeavour to prove , that we do not agree with them . thus he tells us , 1. touching the difference there is between a bishop and a presbyter , as amongst the papists some held , that they were of the same order , differing only in degree , and others that they were of distinct orders ; so among our clergy ( i perceive our author has a mind to be a protestant at last , by his crying our clergy ) there were some , who in king james the first days , asserted that bishops and presbyters were of the same order , but now it is carried for their being of two distinct orders ; but what is this to the agreement of the two churches , that there are divines in each church , which differ about this point ? if neither church have determined this , then they agree onely in not determining it ; but if it were the currant doctrine in the council of basil , that bishops and priests are of the same order , and it be the avowed doctrine of the church of england , that bishops are a distinct and superior order ; then i think the two churches do not agree about this point . and our author himself takes care to prove , that we are not agreed : for the romanists , he says , do not so much stick to the divine right of the episcopal order , as to hold , that without a violation of the divine law ; a presbyter cannot be intrusted with the episcopal insignia , and ordinary iurisdiction ; yet , it s the avowed doctrine of the church of england , that the giving the power of conferring orders to a presbyter , is so contrary to the divine law , that its ipso facto , null and void ; and in pursuance of this doctrine , she re-ordains all those , who have had onely a presbyter's ordination , even whilst she is against a re-ordination . and thus he has himself confuted his first point , the agreement of the two churches about the ministry , for a disagreement about the power of orders , is so concerning a point in the ministry , that there can be little agreement after it . this determines the dispute that bishops do not differ in order , but onely in degree from presbyters ; for if bishops by a divine or apostolical institution were a distinct and superior order , presbyters could never be intrusted with the ordinary power and jurisdiction of a bishop , such as the power of conferring orders is ; much less that a presbyter should have power to consecrate bishops , and bishops should be subject to presbyters , as he affirms of the abbot of hy : this overthrows the essential constitution of the ministry , if bishops are by institution a superior order to presbyters , that presbyters should have authority to consecrate and govern bishops ; and overthrows one of the principal arguments for an oecumenic pastor , as it is urged by our other author , from the power of conferring orders which he says cannot be done , but by a superiour pastor ; and surely presbyters , though soveraign abbots , are not superiour pastors to bishops , nor to presbyters neither . and yet the church of england does not deny , but that in case of necessity , the ordinations of presbyters may be valid ; and upon this principle justifies the presbyterian orders of foreign churches , while such unavoidable necessity lasts , as i have also done at large in the vindication , to which this author so often refers . but the case of schism is a different thing , and i believe our author himself , though he grants a power to the pope to entrust presbyters with the power of conferring orders , will not say , that schismatical presbyters may take this power , or that their ordinations are valid , if they do . and this is the case between us and our dissenters , they ordain in a schism ; and though necessity may make an irregular act valid , yet schism will not : and i would desire to know what reason it is for which they null the protestant reformed ministry ; which , he says , is so much less severe than the principles of the church of england . the artifice of all this is visible enough , to heighten and inflame the difference at this time between the church of england and dissenters , but in vain is the snare laid in the sight of any bird. but that the reader may better understand the mystery ; of all this , i shall briefly shew , why the church of rome is so favorable to that opinion , that bishops and presbyters are of the same order , and differ onely in degree : why they allow the ordinations of abbots soveraign , who are but presbyters , to be both valid and regugular ; that they are exempted from the iurisdiction of the diocesan , and have in themselves episcopal authority , whereby they can ordain , correct , suspend , excommunicate , and absolve ; nay , exercise this jurisdiction over bishops themselves , as this author tells us of the abbot o hy : which will shew , how far we are from agreeing with the church of rome about episcopal power . the plain account of which in short is this : that they distinguish their orders in the church of rome , with relation to the sacrament of the eucharist : and since the doctrine of transubstantiation prevailed , which is such a wonderful mystery , for a priest to transubstantiate the elements into the natural flesh and blood of christ ; this is looked upon as the highest act of power in the christian church , and therefore that must be the highest order , which has the highest power : and since a meer priest has this power of consecration , which is as high an act , as any bishop can do : therefore they conclude , that episcopacy is not an higher order than the priesthood , but differs onely in degrees with respect to the power of jurisdiction . and the competition between popes and bishops , to serve their several interests , did mightily incline them to favour this opinion . the papal monarchy could never arrive at its utmost greatness , without depressing and lessening the authority of bishops ; and therefore aspiring popes granted exemptions , dispensations and delegations to presbyters ; that there was no part of the episcopal office , but what a presbyter might do by papal delegations , which made presbyters equal to bishops , but advanced the pope vastly above them . when by these arts , which were often complained of , the pope's power grew boundless , and infinite , and it was thought necessary to bring it lower ; it could not be done without calling in the assistance of presbyters , and allowing them to vote in the council : for the majority of bishops were engaged by interest and dependance , to maintain the papal greatness ; and therefore if these matters must have been determined by the major votes of bishops , there could be no remedy against the papal usurpations . for which reason , in the council of basil , those bishops , who were devoted to the interest of the pope , and knew they were able to secure the cause , if none but bishops might vote , insisted on this , that according to the presidents of former councils , all matters might be determined onely by the votes of bishops ; and now the equality of order between bishops and presbyters , was trumpt up to serve another turn , to prove their right to vote in councils , to assist those bishops , who groaned under papal usurpations , in some measure to cast off that yoke , and vindicate their own liberties . to this original the equality of order between a bishop and presbyter , is chiefly owing in the church of rome ; from this authority the abbots soveraign derive their power , which is a subversion of the supream authority of bishops , has no president , and would never have been allowed , in the primitive church ; and therefore as for the dispute about the abbot of hy , what the matter of fact is ( which those learned men , whom he assaults , i doubt not , are able to defend , were there a just occasion for it ) is nothing to our purpose : if it were as he says , it is an intolerable encroachment upon the episcopal authority , and void in it self . we who deny transubstantiation , and disown any such authority in the pope , to delegate the episcopal power to meer presbyters , do not , i suppose , very exactly agree with the church of rome in this matter . 2. much at the same rate we agree in asserting the difference between a bishop and presbyter , to be of an immediate divine right : this indeed we do constantly affirm , that the institution of episcopacy is by immediate divine right , but is this the currant doctrine in the church of rome ? that he knew was false , and therefore had no sooner said it , but he unsays it again : for says he , it 's true , that those , who are for the divine right of the supream jurisdiction of the pope , over the whole catholick church visible , do hold the divine right to be but mediate ( mediante papa ) but the followers of the councils of constance and basil , are against the supream uncontroulable power of the pope , and for the immediate divine right of episcopacy . and it 's notorious from the debates in the council of trent , that the french , spanish , and many other roman-catholicks stuck to their immediate divine right too , and the great reason , why opposition was made in the court of rome , against the immediate divine right of bishops , was an opinion that the supremacy of the pope could not be secured on the granting it . but dr. sherlock has found out a notion , which will be of great use to them ; for the divine right of a primacy is a great step to the supremacy ; and this the doctor doth establish consistently enough with the divine right of bishops . as for my own notion , i have sufficiently vindicated that already , from doing any service to the pope's supremacy , and see no occasion to add any thing more here : but i wonder he should pitch upon this instance of the divine right of episcopacy , to show the agreement between the two churches , when he himself is forced to acknowledge , what fierce debates there were in the council of trent about this matter : he says indeed , and that very truly , that the french and spanish bishops in the council , did dispute very vehemently for the divine institution of episcopacy , and he knows what a prevailing opposition was made against it : the pope sent express orders to the legates , that whatever they did , they should not suffer that to pass ; laynez the jesuit was appointed by the legates , and papalins , to make an elaborate lecture against it . wherein he asserts , that christ built his church upon peter , whose name signifies a stone in the hebrew and syriack , and therefore according to the most catholick exposition , peter himself is that rock , whereon christ built his church , that the keys of the kingdom of heaven , were given to peter only , and by consequence , power to bring in , and to shut out , which is jurisdiction : so that the whole jurisdiction of the church , is committed to peter only and his successors . and if the bishops had received any jurisdiction from christ , it would be equal in all , and no difference between patriarchs , archbishops and bishops ; neither could the pope meddle with that authority , to diminish , or take it all away , as he cannot do in the power of order , which is from god. that to make the institution of bishops , de jure divino , takes away the hierarchy , and introduces an oligarchy , or rather an anarchy . that according to the order instituted by christ , the apostles were ordained bishops , not by christ , but by st peter , receiving jurisdiction from him only , or if they were ordained by christ , christ only prevented st. peter's office for that one time . that the bishops are ordinaries , because by the pope's law , they are made a dignity of perpetual succession in the church . that councils themselves had no authority but from the pope ; for if every particular bishop in council may err , it cannot be denyed , that they may all err together , and if the authority of the council , proceeded from the authority of bishops , it could never be called general ; because the number of the assistants is always incomparably less than that of the absent . with much more to this purpose , which is all full and home to the point , which as the bishop of paris observed in his censure of it , makes but one bishop instituted by christ , and the others not to have any authority but dependant from him , which is as much as to say , that there is but one bishop , and the others are his vicars , to be removed at his pleasure . whatever opposition was made against this in the council of trent , it could never prevail : the popes supremacy was advanced in that council to its greatest height and glory , but the divine institution of episcopacy was dropt , though the whole council was satisfied , that the divine right of supremacy , and the divine institution of episcopacy were inconsistent : for this reason , the pope and legates , and italian bishops opposed the divine institution of the episcopacy , and for the same reason the other party so vehemently contended for it ; and then i will leave any man to judge , which of these two opinions must pass for the sense of the council and church of rome : we wish with all our hearts , the church of rome did agree with us in the divine institution of episcopacy , which was the sense of the primitive church ; but unless all parties in the council of trent were very much mistaken , the supremacy of the pope , as it is taught by that council , does utterly overthrow the divine institution of bishops , and make them onely the pope's creatures and dependants . 3. as for his third head of agreement about the hierarchy , which is made up of archbishops , bishops , deans , prebends , canons , arch-deacons , chancellors , officials , priests , deacons , &c. this is onely an ecclesiastical body of human institution , for the good government and discipline of such combined churches ; and alterable again , as the necessities of the church requires : and yet , there is an essential difference between such protestant national combinations of churches , and the popish hierarchy ; the first is independent on any forreign powers , is perfect and entire in it self ; the second has an oecumenick pastor for it's head , and derives its power and authority from him ; and this is enough to be said about our agreement in the ministry . ii. the ceremonies , or external worship . this is the next instance of agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , and any man , who considers the matter , must needs be very much surprized at it . for if the two churches were so very well agreed about ceremonies , it is very strange that the church of england , from the beginning of the reformation , to this day , has rejected such a vast number of ceremonies , as were then , and still are , in use in the church of rome . and for my part , it is my desire and prayer , that they may always agree so , while the church of rome maintains and practises such a corrupt worship . to make this out , he says , our first reformers opposed the ceremonies of the church of rome , upon the same principles that our dissenters now oppose the ceremonies of the church of england , viz. by this argument , all uninstituted worship is false , superstitious , and idolatrous worship . but the romish ceremonious worship , is uninstituted . ergo. and if our author can shew me any such argument urged by our first reformers against ceremonies , that are meerly for decency , and order , and external solemnity of worship , i will grant , they argued very ill , and did much worse to retain any such ceremonies . but if he cannot shew this , as i am sure he can't , then the reader knows what to judge of him and his argument too . as for the controversie between the church of england and dissenters about the use of ceremonies in religion , it is nothing to our present dispute ; and though our author has a mind to revive these disputes among us , he shall not draw me into it : it is sufficient we dispute against them , and against the church of rome , upon very different principles . against them we defend the lawful use of indifferent rites and ceremonies in religious worship , though there be no express command for it in the word of god , if they serve the ends of order and decency , which are expresly commanded . against the romanists we never object , that their ceremonies have no divine institution , that they are not commanded , but either , that they are forbid , or that they are so numerous , that they are very burdensom , or that they are abused to superstitious purposes , or that the signification of them is so dark and obscure , that they are of no use in religion . which is best expressed in the words of our church , concerning ceremonies , why some be abolished , and some retained . of such ceremonies as be used in the church , and have had their beginning by the institution of man : ( and therefore our church , from the beginning , never quarrel'd with ceremonies , because they had not a divine institution ) some at first were of godly intent and purpose devised , and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition : some entred into the church by undiscreet devotion , and such a zeal as was without knowledge ; and for because they were winked at in the beginning , they grew daily to more and more abuses , which , not onely for their unprofitableness , but because they have much blinded the people , and obscured the glory of god , are worthy to be cut away , and clean rejected : other there be , which although they have been devised by man , yet it is thought good to reserve them still , as well for a decent order in the church , ( for the which they were first devised ) as because they pertain to edification ; whereunto all things done in the church , ( as the apostle teacheth ) ought to be referred . with a great deal more to the same purpose , which every body may see , who will turn to the beginning of his common-prayer-book . and yet i deny not , but our first reformers might , as we do at this day , condemn all uninstituted worship , and condemn several practices of the church of rome under that notion : such as invocation of saints , and worship of images , &c. but she never took her ceremonies to be any acts or parts of worship , but only some adjuncts and external circumstances , for the decent and orderly performanee of religious worship . and to say , as this author does , that the dissenters did at last prove , to the conviction of the church of england clergy , that the controverted ceremonies were parts of external worship ; and that we were forced to fall in with the roman catholick in denying that uninstituted worship is false , superstitious , and idolatrous : to speak softly is not true . the dissenters themselves never thought that external circumstances were parts of worship , but endeavoured to prove , that our ceremonies were not meet circumstances of worship , but sacraments ; but i never heard of any divine of the church of england , that allowed them to be so , or that thought they had proved it . what the sense of the present clergy is , may be learned , as from a great many other excellent books , so especially from the case of indifferent things , and the church of england's symbolizing with the church of rome . which are in the collection of cases , lately written for the satisfaction of dissenters , when the government thought fit for other reasons , to require a vigorous execution of those laws against them , which had lain dormant for some time : to show the world at that time , what persecuting spirits they were of , they used their utmost diligence , both by private conferences , and publick writings , managed with all the softness and tenderness , that any dispute is capable of , to satisfie their scruples , and thereby to prevent their sufferings , which could be prevented no other way ; and let our author try his skill , if he pleases , to find out in those cases , such an agreement , as he pretends , between the church of england , and the church of rome , which i believe he may as soon do , as find out that persecuting spirit in them , he so much talks of , unless good arguments and soft words , may pass for a persecution . but dr. covel he says , calls ceremonies the external act of religion : i grant he does so , and i think it a very loose definition of a ceremony : but then we must consider , that he plainly enough tells us , what kind of acts of religion our ceremonies are , that they are only to make the act of devotion to be more solemn , and that solemnity is in some measure a necessary adjunct to all publick service . and if solemnity be but an adjunct , and ceremonies but for solemnity , they cannot be in a strict notion acts of religion , but adjuncts of publick worship . and as he calls them , the hedges of devotion , and thô not the principal points , yet as some of the fathers call them , the second intention of the law , intermediate means not to be despised , of a better and more religious service . which plainly enough shows , what distinction he made between ceremonies strictly so called , and acts of worship . and therefore he tells us , that there are three acts of religion , 1. the internal , which is the willing desire , to give unto god his due worship and honour . 2. the external answering to this , which is no otherwise good or commendable , than that it vertuously serveth to this end 3. the commanded act , that is the act of every vertue ordained by religion to god's honour . the second , which is the external act , and includes the whole external worship , he calls ceremonies , not as ceremony now signifies , among us , the external decencies and solemnities of worship , but as it was anciently used to signifie all external worship . and therefore he afterwards distinguishes between these ceremonies . that , 1. some were for iustification , such as the law commanded — — in place whereof afterwards sacceeded those that were for ornament , and to signifie such vertues as were requisite in those parties , that rightly used them . these are those ceremonies , which before he told us , were only external solemnities , and in some measure necessary adjuncts of worship , which are the only ceremonies in dispute among us , and the dissenters , which he calls adjuncts and solemnities as we do he adds . 3. some are parts of the immediate worship , as sacrifice , prayer , adoration , and such like ; some only dispose , as fasting , austere living ; some are only instruments , as churches , altars , chalices , and all those , which religiously being separated , serve only to make the worship more solemn , and that solemnity more holy. so that thô he calls the whole external worship , and every thing , that belongs to it , ceremonies , and acts of religion , as having some relation to religious actions , yet he expresly distinguishes between the parts of worship ; and the external adjuncts and instruments of it , and therefore does not call our ceremonies acts of worship , as that signifies a part of god's immediate worship , but in a more lax sense , to include all external adjuncts and solemnities of worship . and therefore the church of england never had any occasion to justifie her worship by such distinctions as the church of rome has invented of primary and secondary , essential and accidental , proper and improper , worship , whereby they endeavour to justifie that worship , they pay to saints and angels , and images ; which we have no use of , because we worship none but god. and our author is a very pleasant man , who would justifie the worship of images , under the notion of ceremonies : surely the church of england is not agreed with them here too ; for we know no such ceremonies as are the objects of worship , and that an image is in the church of rome ; we use some indifferent and significant ceremonies in the worship of god , but we do not worship our ceremonies . iii. the agreement about image-worship . this will be answered in a few words . he forms his argument from a passage in the answer to papists , protesting against protestant popery ; and from another in the discourse against transubstantiation , p. 21. and from the ceremony of kneeling at the receiving the lords supper . the answerer says , that to pay the external acts of adoration , to , or before , or in presence of a representative object of worship , as representing is the very same thing in the discourse against transubstantiation , it is observed , that the doctrine of the corporal presence of christ , was started upon occasion of the dispute about the worship of images ; in opposition whereto the synod of constantinople , about the year of christ , 750. did argue thus : that our lord having left us no other image of himself , but the sacrament in which the substance of the bread is the image of his body ; we ought to make 〈◊〉 other image of our lord. in answer to this argument , the second council of nice in the year 787. did declare , that the sacrament after consecration is not the image and antitype of christs body and blood , but is properly his body and blood. and then the church of england has enjoyned bowing or kneeling at the reception of the lords supper , for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of christ therein given to all worthy receivers ; and for avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy communion , as might otherwise ensue . from these premises our author thus argues . so that kneeling is expressive of the inward reverence of the heart to christ , and so is an act of religious adoration ; the kneeling then before the sacramental signs , is the same with kneeling to them ; bowing before them , is the same with bowing to them ; a worshipping before them , the same with giving a religious worship to them . which sufficiently shews , that in one great instance the church of england retains the same kind of image worship with the roman-catholicks ; and so far are we agreed with them . in very good time ! but there is one thing yet , remains to be proved , which he has conveniently dropt : and that is , that the church of england owns the sacramental bread to be the image of christ , and the representative object of worship : this he knew , he could not prove , and therefore says nothing of it , for it does not follow , that , because the council of constantinople affirmed , that the sacramental bread is the image of christ's body ; therefore the church of england teaches so : i am sure , that author say no such thing , and if we should allow it in some sense to be the image , as that signifies the sacramental figure of christ's body ; does it hence follow , that it is the representative object of worship ? and thus his to , and before , and in presence , is all lost ; because the bread according to the doctrine of the church of england is no representative object of worship , and therefore we neither bow to , nor before , nor in presence of the bread , as a representative object ; and therefore the answer that author gave , that we do not kneel to the sacrament , but receive it kneeling , is a very good answer still . thus i have considered all his pretences of agreement , between the church of england , and the church of rome , which they are as unfortunate at , as they are at representing : and methinks it argues some distrust of their cause , that they dare not down-right defend it , but are forced either to represent it away almost into protestant heresy , or to shelter themselves in their agreement with a protestant church ; but the better way is to turn protestants themselves , and then we will own our agreement with them . the end . books lately printed for will. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse intituléd , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condem , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommedation of the difference , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods , by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestane and a papist , the first part : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensut veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part : wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable , to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both , quarto ▪ an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part , in the first dialogue , between him and his lay-friend . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english reformation ; in a book that came lately from oxford . ser notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59901-e1290 vindication of the defence of dr. stillingfleet . p. 281 , &c. defence , p. 572. tert. de bapt. c. 17. barrow . supremacy . p. 189 , &c. quarto . hieron . ad marcel . ep. 54. vindicat. p. 15. 217. vindic. p. 162. ibid. p. 157. agreement , pag. 7. vind. p. 36. see vindication of the defence , p. 329 , &c. episcopatus unus est , cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur cypr. de unitate . see the defence . p. 208. &c. unus episcopatus , episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus , cypr. ad antonian . ep. 52. pam. quando ecclesia , quae catholica una est , scissa non sit , neque divisa , sed fit utique connexa , & cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutino copu . lata . cytr . ep. 69. ad florentium pupianum . cypr. ad ste phan . ep. 67. vindic. p. 124 , &c. episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem , qui episcopatus nec unitatem tenere voluit , nec pacem , cypr. ad anton. ep. 52. agreement . p. 13. vindic. p. 195. 196. vindic. p. 396. maximè cùm jampridem nobiscum & cum omnibus omnino episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam cornelius collega noster — decreverit — cypr. cp . 68. pam. cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ communionis societate concordat . opt. l. 2. see vindicat. p. 131. &c. cassand . consult . de pontifice rom. agreem . p. 18. &c. marcae per archiepiscopum burdegalensem regis nomine imperatur , ut adversus ●●nc libellum ( optati galli ) scribut , sed ea m●thodo , ne libertates . ecclesiae ●●llicanae , quas per latus non occultè petebat optatus , aliquam paterentur injuriam ; quinimo id sedulo ageret , ut omnes intelligerent , libertates illas nihil ●etrahere de reverentia , quae debetur romanae sedi , quam pr● cunctis semper nationibus 〈◊〉 constantissimè retinuerunt . baluz . vita petr. de mar. agreement , p. 33. offendit tamen ( quis crederet ) hic liber romana ingenia , nullam aliam ob causam ut marca existimabat , quàm quòd in fronte operis admoneret , hîc agi de libertatibus ecclesiae gallicanae . unde romanis ( quorum aures teneritudine qu●dam plus trahuntur — ) promptum suit sibi persuadere , illum libertati ecclesiasticae adversari , qui de libertatibus ecclesiae gallicanae ( proh nefas ! ) agebat ex professo . baluz . in vita petri de marca . p 9. notes for div a59901-e7120 agreement , p. 61. the catholick hierarchy , p. 77. agree . p. 62. hierar . p. 77. agree . p. 65. hierar . p. 77. agreem . p. 67. cath. hierar . p. 79. agreement , p. 61. cath. hierar . p. 80 , 81. agree . p. 74. hierar . p. 83. cypr. ep. 55. ad cornelium . agreem . p. 77. &c. cath. hier. p. 85. &c. agreem . p. 80. cath. hier. p. ●7 . agreem . p. 81. cath. hier. p. 87. agreem . p. 84. cath. hier. p. 89. vetus trat decr●tum , ne 〈◊〉 deus ab imperatore consecraretur , nisi a senat● probatus — apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pe●sitatur , nisi homini deus 〈◊〉 , deus nonerit , homo jam deo propitius esse debebit tert. apol. p. 6. paris , 1664. agreem . p. 85. cath. hier. p. 8● . agreem . p. 87. cath. hier. p. 92. notes for div a59901-e10430 agreem . p. 36. father paul's history of the council of trent , b. 7. p. 570 , &c. agreem . p. 47. agreem . p. 50. covel's modest examination , c. 6. p. 55. ibid. p. 56. p. 58. agreem . p. 48. answer to papists prot. p 81. a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery in an answer to the cavils of lewis sabran, jesuit / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1688 approx. 252 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 60 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59899 wing s3370 estc r21011 12048942 ocm 12048942 53115 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59899) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 53115) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 823:11) a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery in an answer to the cavils of lewis sabran, jesuit / by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 111, [3] p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1688. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. "books printed for, and are to be sold by w. rogers": p. [1]-[3] at end. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sabran, lewis, 1652-1732. catholic church -controversial literature. jesuits -controversial literature. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-01 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur liber cui titulus , a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery , &c. guil. needham , r. r. in christo p. ac d.d. wilhelmo archie pisc . cant. à sacr. domest . iuly 4. 1688. a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery : in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london : printed for william rogers at the sun , over against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . 1688. to the reader . i must confess , f. lewis sabran of the society of jesus , as he writes himself , has all the good qualities belonging to his order , excepting that learning , which some of his order have formerly had , but he is excusable for that , because of late , that has been the least of their care ; but what they want in learning , they make up in confidence and noise , which is a nearer conformity to the temper and spirit of their first founder . when i first saw his sheet which he wrote against the first part of the preservative , i read it over , and laid it aside , as i thought it deserved ; for i easily perceived , that he could not , or would not understand the plainest sense , and i saw nothing he had objected , which could impose upon the most unlearned protestant ; and i had no mind to engage with a man , who has not vnderstanding enough to be confuted : but the honest footman thought fit to call him to an account , and i believe all impartial men thought the footman had the better of him , and yet the jesuite had an honourable occasion to retreat , had his wit served him to take it ; for no man would have expected that a jesuite should have encountered a footman ; but here his courage out-ran his wit , as it often happens to knights errant in their bold adventures . i do intend as little as possibly i can to concern my self in the dispute between the jesuite and the footman ; the footman is able to defend himself , and i e'en quake for the jesuite for fear he should ; but having a little leisure at present , i will spare some few hours to vindicate the preservative from this jesuite's cavils , for it will appear , that they are no better . as for those many good words he has bestowed on me , i take them for complements on course , and to be plain with him , they are all lost upon me , for when i have reason and truth on my sid● i am perfectly insensible of all the sportings of wit and satyr , for there are no iests bite , but those that are true . i do not intend to pursue this jesuite in all his rambling excursions , but shall keep close to my business , to vindicate the preservative , and that in as few words as i can ; and this will come into a very narrow compass ; for he has as little to say , as ever man had , if you keep him out of his common-place disputes ; but if you suffer him to draw you into those beaten roads , there is no end of him ; for he has the confidence of a jesuite to repeat all the old baffled arguments without blushing . i confess , i am a little ashamed to meddle with so trifling an adversary , and know not how i shall answer it to the ingenious gentlemen of the temple , to whom he so often appeals against the master , for spending my time so ill , unless his character of a jesuite will plead my excuse , which has been a formidable name in former ages : and if this will do , i have a very honourable and a very easie task of it , an adversary to encounter with the glorious character of a jesuite , but without the sense of a footman . a vindication of the first part of the preservative . the charge against me is very formidable , that i advance such principles in the preservative , as make void the use of reason , faith , fathers , councils , scripture , and moral honesty , if he had said less , he might sooner have been believed , or might have proved it better , when such wild and extravagant accusations confute themselves ; but iesuits commonly spoil all by over-doing . let us examine particulars . sect . i. the principles which are pretended to overthrow all right vse of common sense vindicated . the first instance of this nature is , that i charge catholicks with this great crime , that they will not allow the reading heretical books , and prove my charge , because god not only allows , but requires it . the paragraph he refers to is in p. 3. of the preservative , in these words : men of weak judgments , and who are not skilled in the laws of disputation , may easily be imposed on by cunning sophisters , and such as lie in wait to deceive : the church of rome is very sensible of this , and therefore will not suffer her people to dispute their religion , or to read heretical books , nay not so much as to look into the bible it self ; but though we allow all this to our people , as that which god not only allows but requires , &c. from hence he charges me with saying , that god not only allows but requires people to read heretical books , but the honest footman plainly told him , what the meaning of heretical books was , that i spoke the language of their church , which calls all books heretical which are not of the roman stamp : and this is all that i meant by it , as every honest reader would see . does not he use the very same way of speaking himself in the same paragraph , when he retorts this crime upon us , that we use all endeavours to hinder our flocks from hearing catholick sermons , and reading catholick books , for are any christians so absurd as to forbid people to hear catholick sermons , and to read catholick books ? no sure , not what they think catholick : and why may not i use heretical , as well as he use catholick in the sense of the church of rome ? by heretical meaning such books as the church of rome calls heretical , as by catholick he means such books as the church of rome calls catholick ; for they are both equally heretical and catholick . but he complains in the preservative considered , p. 4. that he had asked three very material questions , and the footman had not vouchsafed an answer to them , and i believe the footman was in the right , for they deserved none . but let us hear them , this ( says he ) seemed to me extravagant , not to say impious , and to all those who have inherited from st. paul that faith to which he exacts so firm and unwavering an adherency , that if an angel from heaven should teach us any thing in opposition to it , we ought not to mind him , or return him any other answer than anathema . how can , said i , this positive certainty stand with an obligation of reading heretical books which oppose that faith , to frame by them , and settle a judgment . but now , if these heretical books do not oppose that faith , which was preached by st. paul , i hope , there was no need of answering this question ; and if the catholick books do , i would desire him to answer the question ; and if there be a dispute depending , which of them contradicts st. paul's doctrine , i would desire him to tell me , how we shall know , which of them does it , without examining them ? when we know these books , which contradict st paul's doctrine , we will reject them with an anathema , and for that reason we reject the council of trent , whose authority we think to be inferior to an angels , and that shews , that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such books to make void common sense ; for though we reject the council of trent , yet we read it , as they find to their cost . his next question ( or else i cannot make three of them ) is , by what text doth god deliver this injunction ? viz , of reading heretical books ; which in his sense of heretical books is a very senseless question ; for no man pretends , that god commands us to read books , which we know to be heretical ; though a man who is inquiring after truth , must read such books , as the several divided sects of christians may call heretical . but his killing question is to come . i asked further , how standing to the first principles of common sense , a church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves , could countenance laws which exact of dissenters , that they stand not to that their iudgment , but comply against it , and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of excommunications , sequestrations , imprisonments , &c. which is to make it death not to act against a strict duty of conscience , acknowledged by the persecutors to be such . but what is this to reading heretical books ? is there any law in the church of england , thus to punish men for reading heretical books ? there is we know in the church of rome , where besides other heretical books , to have and to read the bible in the vulgar tongue without license , which is rarely granted , and ought not to be at all , brings a man in danger of the inquisition , which one word signifies more than any man can tell , but he who has felt it , witness the late account of the inquisition of goa . well , but to allow a liberty of judging , and not to suffer men to stand to their judgment , is contrary to common sense : it is so , but who gives a liberty of judging , and forbids men to stand to their own judgment ? i am sure , the church of england accounts any man a knave , who contradicts his own judgment and conscience . there is no inquisition for mens private opinions , no ransacking consciences in the church of england , as we know , where there is . yes ! we constrain this liberty of iudging by the dread of excommunications , sequestrations , imprisonments , exclusion from the chiefest properties of free born subjects , even by hanging and quartering ; which is to make it death not to act against a strict duty of conscience , acknowledged by the persecutors to be such . it is a blessed time for these jesuits , who like that no body should be able to persecute but themselves , to rail at persecution ; but let that pass . it seems then it is contrary to common sense to allow a liberty of judging , and to deny a liberty of practice ; for god , suppose , to allow men to choose their religion , and to damn them , if they choose wrong . that is to say , a natural liberty of judgment , and by the same reason , the natural liberty of will , is inconsistent with all government in church and state : if this were so , it would indeed make persecution ( as he calls it ) in a free-judging church very absurd , but it is very reconcileable to common sense , for a church which denies this liberty of judging , to persecute too ; and this justifies the persecutions of the church of rome : let protestants here see , if such jesuits could rule the roast , what it will cost them to part with their liberty of judging ; they loose their argument against persecution : for an infallible church which will not suffer men to judge , may with good reason persecute them , if they do : that all men , who like liberty of conscience , are concerned to oppose popery , which it seems is the only religion , that can make it reasonable to persecute , nay , which makes it unreasonable not to persecute , for it is as much against common sense for a church , which denies a liberty of judging to allow a liberty of conscience , as for a church to deny liberty of conscience , which allows a liberty of judging . thus far the preservative is safe , and let his following harangue against the liberty of judging shift for it self , that is not my business at present . his next quarrel is , that ( preser . p. 4 , 5. ) i advise protestants not to dispute with papists , till they disown infallibility . i own the charge , and repeat it again , that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with papists , till they renounce infallibility , as that is opposed to a l●berty of judging ; for so the whole sentence runs : here then let our protestant fix his foot , and not stir an inch , till they disown infallibility , and confess , that every man must iudge for himself in matters of religion , according to the proofs , that are offered to him . this the jesuit either designedly concealed , or did not understand , though it is the whole design of that discourse : for the plain state of the case is this . the church of rome pretends to be infallible , and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her authority , and to receive all the doctrines she teaches upon her bare word , without examination ; for we must not judge for our selves , but learn from an infallible church : now i say , it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to dispu●e with us about religion , when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false , for it is to no purpose to dispute , unless we can judge ; and therefore a protestant before he disputes with them , ought to exact this confession from them , that every man must judge for himself , and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended infallible authority of the church against his own sense and reason , and this is to make them disown infallibility , as far as that is matter of controversie between us and the church of rome , to disown infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of judging . if it be absurd to dispute with a man , who denies me a liberty of judging , then i must make him allow me this liberty before i dispute , and then he must disown the over-ruling authority of an infallible judge , which is a contradiction to such a liberty . by this time , i suppose , he sees to what little purpose his objections are ; that to require such a disowning of infallibility , is to say , 't is impossible to convince a man that in reason , he ought to submit his iudgment to any other , though infallible : no sir ! but 't is to say , that i cannot make use of my reason in any thing , till i am delivered from the usurping authority of such an infallible judge , who will not suffer me to use my reason , or to judge for my self : it does not make void the use of common sense and reason , when it should lead us to submit to any just authority ; but to submit to such an unjust authority , makes void the use of common sense and reason , because he will not allow us to use our reason . the iews had no reason , as he pretends to reject st. paul's disputation , till he had renounced infallibility , because he never urged his own infallibility , as the sole reason of their faith , and to debar them from a liberty of judging , as the church of rome does ; if he had , it had been as vain a thing for the iews to have disputed with st. paul , as it is for protestants to dispute with papists . his next exception is against those words , ( pres. p. 6. ) what difference is there betwxit mens using their private iudgments to turn papists , or to turn protestants ? to this he answers ▪ the same as betwixt two sick men , the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able doctors hands , whom he knows to have an infallible remedy ▪ ( which none but mountebanks ever had yet ) whilst the other chooses his own simples , and makes his own medicines . the case is this ; i was giving a reason , why papists , who have any modesty should not dispute with protestants , because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment : if ever they make converts , they must be beholden to every man's private judgment for it , for i think men cannot change their opinions , without exercising a private judgment about it ▪ and i suppose when they dispute with men to make them papists , they intend to convert them by their own private judgments : now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn papists or to turn protestants ? one indeed may be false , and the other true , but private judgment is private judgment still ; and if it be so great a fault for men to use their private judgments , it is as great a fault in a papist , as it is in a protestant . so that all that i said is , that there is no dif●erence with respect to mens using their private judgment , whether they use their private judgment to turn papists , or to turn protestants , for both is but private judgment ; and to confute this , he tells us , that there is a great difference between turning papist , and turning protestant , which i granted there was ; but is nothing to the present argument . i say , there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change , when the change of both is owing to private judgment , and he learnedly proves , that the change itself is different , as widely different , as papist and protestant differ . but though the footman had plainly told him this , the jesuite had not wit to understand it , and therefore ( preservative consid. p. 11. ) adds , is there no difference then betwixt one , who follows his fancy in chusing his way , and him who chuses a good guide , and follows him , because they both chuse ? do both equally rely on their fancy ? i grant , there is a difference between these two , as there is between a protestant and a papist ; but when the dispute is , whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment , or give up themselves to follow a guide with a blind and implicite faith , and every man must determine this by his own private judgment , which is the case i proposed , which way so ever they determine this question , whether to follow their own reason , or to follow a guide , in this point , they both equally rely on their own private reason , and judgment , or as he calls it , fancy . in the next place he says , i take the catholicks part , and tho' faintly , yet speak well in so clear a cause . the intention of those disputes is only to lead you to the infallible church , and set you upon a rock , and then it is very natural to renounce your own judgment , when you have an infallible guide , this i do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie papists in disputing with protestants , that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible church . that our own judgment must bring us to the infallible guide , but when we have found him , we have no farther use for our own judgment . i offered two answers to this , neither of which he durst meddle with , but nibbles at a passage in each . the 1. he thus represents , they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular articles of faith , because the sense given of scripture and fathers takes its authority from the church understanding it so . but my answer was this ; that if disputes be only to lead us to the infallible church , then it puts an end to all the particular disputes of religion between us and the church of rome : we may dispute on about an infallible iudge , but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular articles of faith , such as transubstantiation , the sacrifice of the mass , &c. for these are to be learnt only from the church , and cannot be proved by scripture or fathers without the authority of the church . which is a demonstration if faith must be resolved into the infallible authority of the church , for then no arguments are a sufficient foundation for faith without the authority of the church , or if they be , there is no necessity of resolving our faith into church authority , because we have a good foundation for faith without it . he answers , this is false . the sense ( of scripture ) takes its authority from god ▪ who spoke that word , though we are certain , that we have the true sense of that word , because we receive it from the church , which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense , by the infallible spirit of god , that is to abide with her for ever , according to christ's promise , john 14.16 . this is a choice paragraph . the question between us is , whether they can by scripture convince a man , who does not yet believe the infallible authority of the church , as we protestants do not , that their doctrines of transubstantiation , the sacrifice of the mass , the worship of images , &c. are true gospel-doctrines : this i say they cannot , if they be true to their own doctrine , that we cannot be certain , what the true sense of scripture is , without the infallible authority of the church of rome . for a man cannot be convinced by scripture , till he be sure , what the true sense of scripture is , and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the authority of the church in expounding scripture , then a protestant , who disowns such an authority , can never be sure , what the true sense of scripture is , and therefore cannot be convinced by scripture-proofs , which shews how absurd it is for a papist , who professes to believe all this , to attempt to perswade a protestant who rejects the authority of their church , of the truth of popish doctrines from scripture : either he thinks these doctrines so plainly contained in scripture , that a man , who rejects the authority of the church , may be forced to acknowledge , that they are in scripture , and then he must reject the necessity of church-authority for the understanding of scripture , which is to yield up a very concerning point to protestants ; or else he must confess , that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging scripture-proofs to a man , who rejects the authority of their church , without which he knows there are no scripture-proofs of any authority . but this , which was the true state of the controversie , the jesuite takes no notice of ; all that he says is this : that the sense of scripture takes its authority from god , that is , is ultimately resolved into god's authority , who intended such a sense in it , but as to catholicks , ( for such he must mean ) their certainty of the sense of scripture is resolved immediately into the authority of the church , which is guided in expounding scripture by an infallible spirit : now is not this the very same , that i sai● , that all scripture-proofs must be resolved into the authority of the church , and are not good without it , as it is impossible they should be , if we cannot certainly know , what the true sense of scripture is , but from the exposition of the church . and yet if the church of rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of scripture , than in delivering the letter of it , there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility : as is evident from the many corruptions of their vulgar latine , which one pope corrected after another , and yet it is not corrected still ; that it was a little over-sight in this jesuite , ( though possibly he knew nothing of the matter ) to make the church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of scripture . but to do him right , he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between iohn and william , which is the right way to a place . for , says he , is john disabled from convincing william of his mistake by reasons , because he hath with him a guide who certainly knows the way , and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons , if his guide assured him , that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way . this has something of argument in it , and therefore shall be considered , and i am glad to meet with any thing , that deserves to be considered . the sum of his argument ( which i shall represent fairly for him , because he has not shewn it to the best advantage ) is this . that roman-catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of scripture , either by the use of reason , or by the expositions of an infallible guide : but that reason must be subordinate to the guide , and if reason dictates one sense of scripture , and the church teaches another , reason must submit , and a true catholick must embrace the sense of the church , though it be against his reason ; but yet if reason , and his guide be both of a side , and he can prove by reason , that to be the true sense of scripture , which the church gives of it , he may then wave the authority of the church , when he disputes with those , who reject such authority , and argue from the reasons of things , and the natural interpretation of scripture it self . as iohn may convince william , who rejects the infallibility of iohn's guide , which is the true way by plain reason , while his reason is not contradicted by his guide : and if our jesuite can make more of this argument himself , let him . i am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his preserv . consider . p. 11. john is not disabled of convincing william of his mistake , because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible guide . where he has set it upon another bottom , and a very silly one for his purpose : for if the force of his reasons be resolved into the authority of an infallible guide , it is all lost to him , who disowns the infallibility of the guide : or if he means , that iohn is taught such reasons by an infallible guide , as are able by their own evidence to convince william without any regard to the infallibility of the guide , we desire no more than to see such reasons , and to be left to judge for our selves ; but this ends in a protestant resolution of faith , for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of reason , which in it self is neither more nor less evident , for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible guide . and yet by what follows , he can mean no more , but that the authority of an infallible judge must over-rule every man's private reason ; for he appeals to the learned gentlemen of the temple , hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their master , that all the iudges of the land may very reasonably convince by law an impertinent party , though he should oppose , that they may not do it , because their interpretation of the law is to deliver the true sense of it . which is glorious nonsence , that all the judges of the land can convince a man , who is not convinced , but declares still , that they have not given the true sense of the law. in all civil causes there must be a final judgment , and every private man must submit to the decision of authority , whether his own reason be satisfied or not ; but it is not so in matters of religion , in which no man at the peril of his soul must be over-ruled by any authority , till he be first convinced . so that the jesuite had said a good thing by chance , but for want of understanding it , had lost it again ; and any man may see , that i could as easily have lost it , as he , had i a mind to it ; but i will not part with it without an answer , because it is the most plausible thing , that can be said , and possibly other men may understand it , who can't answer it , though he don't . his argument then as first proposed is this , that they allow of reason in expounding scripture , so long as they do not contradict the sense and exposition of the church ; and therefore they may dispute with hereticks from scripture , without concerning the authority of the church in the dispute . now in answer to this , there are some material questions to be asked . as , 1. whether they can dispute with protestants by scripture-arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of scripture by their own private reason ? and whether this be agreeable to the doctrine of the church of rome , that every man may judge of the sense of scripture by his own private reason ? 2. whether the scripture be so plain and perspicuous , especially in the doctrines in dispute between us and the church of rome , that every honest impartial inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible interpreter ? if they be , i think , they never ought to talk of the obscurity of scripture , nor the necessity of an infallible judge more ; if they be not , and if they know , that they are not , then they know before hand , that the evidence of scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a protestant , who rejects an infallible judge , and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such doctrines by scripure . good catholicks are satisfied with the authority of the church , and hereticks who reject such an infallible authority , cannot be confuted and convinced by meer scripture . 3. i ask again ▪ whether the evidence of reason in expounding scripture be a sufficient foundation for a divine faith ? if it be , then protestants , who disown an infallible judge , may have a true divine faith without the infallibility of the church , and then we may be true believers without being roman-catholicks ; and i should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a iesuite , for there is good use to be made of such a confession : if scripture as expounded by reason without an infallible judge is not a sufficient foundation for a divine faith , then to what end does their disputing with protestants from scripture serve , if this cannot make them true believers . 4. i ask once more , whether the belief of the scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the authority of the church ? whether any man can believe the scriptures to be the word of god without it ? if they cannot ( and i would be glad to hear the iesuite say they can ) then i am sure the scripture is no proof of any thing without the churches authority , and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from scripture against those who deny the authority of the church . from hence i think , it evidently appears , that the authority of the scriptures , and the authority of the church , are not two distinct arguments in the church of rome , for then i grant , they might use either way of proof , and dispute from scripture against those , who deny the authority of the church ; but if the authority of the scripture as to us is resolved into the authority of the church , then the scripture alone is no argument , but the authority of the church is all . whereforedo you believe the scripture ? because the church tells me it is the word of god ; wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of scripture ? because the church so expounds it : is not this the true resolution of the roman faith ? is this misrepresenting too ? but if it be the truth , does not every man see , that as to us the scripture has no authority , no sense , but from the church , and therefore can prove nothing separated from the authority of the church . if they allow of any proofs from scripture separated from the authority of the church , then whether they will or no , they must allow of the protestant resolution of faith ; that is , to resolve my faith into the authority of the scriptures , as expounded with the best reason and judgment i have , in the careful use of all such means , as are necessary for the understanding that holy book : now if they will allow this to be a good resolution of faith , we will allow of all their scripture-proofs , and give them leave to make us converts to the church of rome by scripture , if they can : but if they do allow of this , then we protestants are in a very good way already as to the resolution of our faith , and so that controversie is at an end ; and if they will not allow this , then they confess , that scripture-proofs of themselves are not good , for if they were , we might certainly resolve our faith as protestants do , immediately into the authority of scripture . and thus much for iohn and william and the infallible guide ; if iohn has any reasons independent on the authority of his guide , he may then try his skill upon william , who rejects his guide , but if all his other reasons are resolved into the authority of his guide , and are no good reasons without it , then he may spare his reasons till he has made william submit to his guide . and this is the case between the scripture and the church , in the church of rome : the scripture wholly depends both for its authority and interpretation on the authority of the church , and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing , but what the church makes it signifie and prove . the scriptures may be supposed to be the word of god , and to have some sense antecedent to the churches authority , but no man can know this without the church , and therefore as to us both the authority and interpretation of the scripture depends upon the authority of the church , and is no argument , to prove any thing by itself . but i cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant answer the iesuite gives to a very substantial argument of the footman , to prove that at least some doctrines of the church of rome by their own confession , cannot be proved by scripture without the authority of the church , he shews that petrus de alliaco , scotus , and tonstal do confess , that transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary scripture-proofs , but on the authority of the church , for the scripture might , and that very reasonably too , be expounded to another sense , had not the church determined otherwise . now what does the iesuite say to this ? 1. he prevericates like a iesuite in repeating the argument , that the words of scripture brought in proof of transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the catholick church hath ever received and delivered ; and that had not the church ever taught that sense , one might believe otherwise , for all the letter of scripture : for the authors alledged by the footman do not say , as the iesuite makes them , that the catholick church hath ever received and delivered that sense of transubstantiation , which the church of rome now teaches ; but tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited , that it was free for all men , till the council of lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the presence . which supposes , that this doctrine was never determined by the church till the council of lateran , and therefore not ever received , and delivered , and taught by the catholick church . 2. in a parenthesis he adds , how truly ( this is said of the catholick divines , that they did affirm this ) it belongs not to my present purpose : very truly said , it is not to his purpose , but very much against it : but if he means , that he was not concerned to know , whether these passages are truly cited from these authors , it seems he is not concerned to defend his argument , for that is very much concerned in it , it is a plain confession he had nothing to say , and therefore would not be concerned about it : and will our learned iesuite confess , that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by petrus de alliaco , scotus , and tonstal ? or will he so easily give up such men as these , and let the ingenious footman run away with them and his argument together . 3. he answers , let it be so ; but what follows here ? but the necessity of an unerring interpreter ? what follows ? why it follows , that they cannot prove transubstantiation from scripture without the authority of the church , and consequently that it is not scripture but their church they rely on for the proof of their doctrines , which is the thing the footman intended to prove by it , and has done it effectually : but how an unerring interpreter follows from hence , i cannot see , unless it be to prove that to be in scripture , which the most searching and inquisitive men cannot find there : and this indeed is the true use of an unerring interpreter in the church of rome , to impose upon mens faith to believe that to be in scripture , which no man can see there ; for what men can see there , one would think they might believe to be there , without an unerring interpreter . as for what he adds , that the arians gave as natural a sense of 1 iohn 5.7 , 8. as the catholicks did , is to be answered at present only with abhorrence and detestation . but to proceed . in the next place , to shew them , how absurd it is to dispute even about an infallible judge , i direct our protestant to ask them , whether the belief of an infallible iudge must be resolved into every man's private judgment ? whether it be not necessary to believe this with a divine faith ? and whether there can be any divine faith without an infallible iudge ? to this the jesuite answers ( ans. p. ● ) there can be no divine faith without a divine revelation , nor a prudent one without a moral evidence in the motives of credibility , on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it . this he calls a moral infallibility , and shews by what steps , it may fasten on god's veracity , and with a submission not capable of any doubt , embrace the revealed truth . now all this amounts to no more than protestant certainty , void of all doubt , which the church of rome would never yet allow to be a divine and infallible faith. but what is this to my question ? which was not , whether a divine faith required a divine revelation , but whether there can be any divine faith without an infallible iudge ? which it seems , he durst not own , nor say one word to . and yet here lay the force of the argument , as i told him in the same place , if we must believe the infallibility of the pope or church of rome , with an infallible faith , there is an end of disputing ; for no reasons or arguments , not the authority of the scripture itself ( which i hope he means by his divine revelation ) without an infallible iudge , can beget an infallible faith , according to the roman doctors . for this reason they charge the protestant faith with uncertainty , and will not allow it to be a divine , but humane faith , though it is built upon the firmest reasons , the best authority , and the most express scripture , that can be had for any thing ; but because we do not pretend to rely upon the authority of a living infallible judge , forsooth , our faith is uncertain , humane , and fallible . this he knew to be true , and yet knew , that he could not build the belief of an infallible judge upon the authority of an infallible judge , unless he could find one infallible judge to give testimony to the infallibility of another , and a third to give testimony to the second , and thus to dance round in a circle of infallibility , without finding any beginning or end ; and therefore he slips this pretence of an infallible judge , and would found a divine faith upon revelation , or prudential motives of credibility , which indeed is to quit infallibility , and to take up with a protestant moral certainty , or moral infallibility as he calls it , that he may retain the name at least , when the thing is lost . nay , he gives a substantial reason against an infallible faith of the churches infallibility . for if the infallibility of the church were more than morally evident , it were impossible , that any heresie should be , the wisest word , that he has said yet , but i shall make him repent of saying it , before i have done ; for this is an evident demonstration against infallibility . he says , we can have no more than a moral evidence for the infallibility of the church ; and if this be true , and our faith be founded upon the authority of the church , then we can have no more than a moral evidence for the truth of the christian religion , or any article of it : for as i argued in that very place . though the iudge be infallible , if i be not infallibly assured of this , ( if i have only a moral evidence of his infallibility ) i can never arrive to infallibility in any thing , ( or can never get higher than a moral certainty ) for i can never be more certain , that his determinations are infallible , then i am , that he himself is infallible , and if i have but à moral assurance of this , i can be but morally assured of the rest , for the building cannot be more firm than the foundation is ; and thus there is an end to all the roman pretences to infallibility . though he slipt this at first reading , i hope he may judge it worth answering upon second thoughts . but how he will get rid of his own reason , i cannot guess , if the infallibility of the church were more than morally evident , it were impossible , that any heresies should be : by which he either means , that de facto the being of heresies in the world is a sensible argument , that there is no infallible assurance of the infallibility of the church ; for an infallible proof cannot be resisted , and then all the world must believe the churches infallibility , and give up themselves to the directions of the church , and then there could be no heresies : or else his meaning is , that since there must be heresies in the world , as the apostle tells us , therefore god has given us no more than a moral evidence of the infallibility of the church ; because an infallible assurance of this would have prevented all heresies , which god , it seems , for very wise reasons , did not intend thus irresistibly to prevent . now rightly to understand this matter , i would desire to know why they say god has bestowed infallibility on the church ? was it not to prevent heresies and schisms ? is not this the popish objection against the protestant resolution of faith , that for want of an infallible guide men fall into errors and heresies , and divide and disturb the peace of the church with schisms ? is not this the great reason they urge for the necessity of an infallible guide to prevent all heresies and schisms ? and yet now it seems , there must be no more than a moral evidence for the infallibility of the church , that there may be heresies : how often have they been told by protestant divines , that if god intend an infallible judge to prevent all heresies , the being of an infallible judge ought to be as evident and demonstrable , as that there is a sun in the heavens , that all men might see him , and believe him : and now they tell us , this infallible judge must not be thus evident , that men might not know him , that there may be room for heresies to creep into the world. now methinks it is pretty odd , that there should be an infallible judge to keep heresies out of the church , and that the being of this judge should be no more than morally evident , that heresies may creep into the church . it seems the romish resolution of faith leaves as great scope for heresies to come into the church , as the protestants does , and therefore from henceforward , all the arguments for infallibility from the necessity of keeping heresies out of the church , are given up ; and they must never more object against the protestant rule of faith , that by this means heresies get into the church . his argument , i confess , concludes fully against any infallible certainty of an infallible judge ; and the reason is to the full as good against an infallible judge , as against an infallible way of knowing , that there is one , and now since i cannot be infallibly assured of this infallible judge , i will trouble my head no further about him , and therefore leave his preservative considered , p. 13 , &c. to any footman that pleases to answer it . his next objection is much of the same nature . that protestants cannot reasonably be disputed into popery , as that signifies , resolving our faith into the infallible authority of the church to believe whatever the church believes , and for no other reason , but because the church teaches it , and the reason , whereby i proved it , is , because no arguments or disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the church . and this he has just now granted , that we cannot have an infallible certainty , but only a moral evidence for the infallibility of the church , and if there can be no more than a moral evidence for this , then no arguments can give us an infallible certainty of it , because this cannot be had . and what has he to say now ? a very shrewd objection i assure you , and it is this : we saw dr. sherlock just now pleading for the jews against st. paul , ( that i have accounted for already ) now he reasons against christ our god , blessed for ever more . his words prove that christ , who owned himself infallible , did imprudently to preach or work miracles ; for since they could not give an infallible certainty , ( an evident one he means by his whole discourse ) no prudent jew , nor gentile , could be disputed by him into faith. those who corrected his first paper for him , which they have done in several places , as being sensible the footman had great advantage of his loo●e way of writing , have made some alterations here in the preservative considered , p. 24. this position proving , that christ our lord , who owned himself infallible , did imprudently to preach or work miracles , by which he exacted a certain firm faith grounded upon his infallibility in teaching : for since his preaching and miracles did not give an evident infallible certainty of his infallibility , ( and such an evident one dr. sherlock must mean , for the certainty we have of a real infallibility cannot be in reality fallible ) no prudent jew or gentile could be disputed by christ into faith. this is expressed with greater art and subtilty than the first , but however they palliate it , it is equally absurd and sensless . the fallacy lies only in this , that by an infallible certainty , they will have me mean only a certain firm faith , or an evident certainty , whereas i plainly mean such an infallible certainty , as the church of rome opposes to the certain firm faith , and evident certainty of protestants . the papists perpetually object against protestants , that their faith is uncertain ; we assert , that our faith is not uncertain ; that we have all the evident certainty , that the thing is capable of : but this will not satisfie them , unless we can produce some such infallible certainty , as they pretend to have ; and by this argument they perswade men to forsake our communion , and to go over to the church of rome , that they may have the certainty of infallibility for their faith : this i tell our protestants , they cannot be disputed into , because no reasons or disputations can give them an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the church , and yet unless they can be infallibly assured of that , they are no nearer to infallibility in the church of rome , than in the church of england : now had our jesuite read this , as he ought to have done before he answered it , had it been possible for him had he not been a jesuite , to have said , that by infallible , i meant evident ? for we protestants pretend to evident certainty , and this we have , and iews and gentiles might have of christ's preaching and miracles , and when i opposed this infallible certainty to protestant certainty , surely i meant as much more by it then evident as papists do , when notwithstanding all our protestant evidence , they charge us with the want of infallibility . and yet for ought i can perceive now , they are contented to let evident certainty pass for infallible , and the corrector of f. sabran's sheet has given us a notable reason for it , for which protestants are bound to thank him , for he has made them all infallible . for the certainty we have of a real infallibility cannot be in reality fallible . that is to say , when the object is infallibly true , our faith or assent to it , cannot be fallible : and thus before they can prove us protestants to be fallible creatures any more , they must prove , that what we believe , viz. the holy scriptures , and the apostles creed , are not infallibly true . though i thought the infallibility of faith had not been owing to the object of our faith , but to the evidence of it . this the footman plainly saw , and therefore minds him of the difference between true certainty and infallibility . doth dr. sherlock say , that the jews could not be disputed into faith , unless that faith were infallible ? no , he leaves that to be talked of by you , who are the great pretenders to it . the jesuite is very angry at the reverend licenser for this . what do you own , that we only are to look on the faith even as preached by christ , to be necessarily infallible ? is it no part of your belief that you are any way concerned in , that that certain faith which christ exacted from the jews , st. paul from each christian , must of necessity be infallible ? fair and softly ! we believe , whatever christ and st. paul taught to be infallibly true , but we know , that a fallible creature , as all private christians at least are , cannot believe with an infallible faith ; that is , no man , who knows himself fallible , though he may be very certain of what he believes , can say he is infallible in his faith , unless there be a divine promise , that he shall never err ; for if he be not infallible , he can be infallible in nothing . protestants believe christ to be an infallible teacher , and the christian faith to be infallibly true , and this they believe with all the firmness and certainty of assent ; but this is not , what the church of rome used to call infallibility , though the jesuite ( if it be not meer want of understanding in him ) seems to be hammering out a new notion of infallibility ; but it is but a rude and imperfect embryo yet , we shall see , what they will make of it in time . and here i find my self obliged to look a little backwards , to see how he states the churches infallibility , for he mightily complains of protestant misrepresentations about it . our guide then , he tells us , is the catholick church , either diffusive in its whole extent , ( that is , as it contains or signifies the whole number of christians all the world over ) or representative in its head and bishops , the pope and a general council . the church diffusive , or the whole number of christians on earth , is most certainly the true notion of the catholick church on earth ; is that church , to which , most of the promises made to the church in scripture , are made ; but how this church diffusive should be our guide , wants to be explained : if the church diffusive , or the whole number of christians , is the guide , who is to be guided , unless the guide is to be a guide only to himself : however , i hope then every particular christian will be allowed a private judgment of his own ; for the church diffusive will be a very strange guide , if it cannot use its own reason and judgment ; and how the whole , which consists of all particular christians , should judge for itself , when no particular christian must judge , is somewhat mysterious : that is , that all christians must judge , and yet none must judge . but i will not dispute with him about this , but whenever he will collect the votes of the church diffusive , or of all the christians in the world , i promise to subscribe to their definitions the representative church , is the head and bishops , the pope and a general council . i thought , the pope in jesuits divinity , had been the church virtual , and a general council the church representative . but i have in a late discourse proved , that the pope is not the head of the catholick church , nor a council of bishops the representative of it , and he may try his skill upon it , when he pleases . now it seems , the church diffusive has the keeping of the general faith of christians , first received from christ and his apostles , and preserved by all bishops in their respective diocesses , and in the minds and actions of each faithful believer in the whole catholick church . strange ! that our jesuite should now at last turn a meer blackloist , or traditionary divine . this general faith of christians he compares to the common laws of the land , to shew i suppose his skill in the law , and make the learned gentlemen of the temple to pity or scorn the master's ignorance : well let that be as it will , for i pretend to no skill in laws , but as for this general faith of christians , whatever it be like , i would gladly learn from the church diffusive , what it is ; for i matter nothing else , but the general faith of christians ; but how to learn this , he has not told us ; it is preserved , he says , by all bishops in their respective diocesses , and in the minds and actions of each faithful believer in the whole catholick church . well then , must we examine all bishops and every particular believer about this ? this is impossible to be done : will any one bishop , or any one particular believer , ( since every bishop , and every particular believer has it ) suffice to tell us , what this general faith of christians is ? is this an infallible conveyance of the faith to depend upon the tradition of bishops and christian people ? is there no faithful and authentick record of this faith , from whence we may learn , what christ and his apostles delivered to the church ? so one would think by this jesuit's account , who takes no notice of the holy scriptures , as if the common faith of christians could not be learnt from them , but from the tradition of the church diffusive . thus much for common law , but the church has her statute laws too , and they are the decisions or canons of general councils , declaring and applying to particular instances the common law and belief of the church : but how does the pope and a general council , or the church representative , as he calls it , come to have the power of declaring and applying the common faith of christians , which is in the keeping of the church diffusive , and therefore one would think , could be declared by none else ? do the pope and a general council infallibly know the sentiments and opinions of all the christian bishops and people in the world ? this they must do , or else they cannot declare the common faith of christians , unless they can infallibly declare , what they do not know : if their authority be only to declare the common faith of christians , how shall we know , that they declare nothing but the common faith of christians ? for if they do , their decrees are not valid , for they declare that which is false . this jesuit has greatly intangled and perplexed the cause by laying the whole stress upon the declarative and applying power . had he said , that the pope and a general council had authority to declare what is the christian faith , and though they declared that to be the true faith , which the church diffusive never heard of before , yet after their decision , it must be received as the common faith of christians , though it had not been so formerly , there had been some sense in this , though no truth : but when he says the church can only declare what is , and always has been the common faith of christians , if i can find by ancient records , that what the council declares to be the common faith of christians now , was either not known or condemned in former ages ; if i certainly know , that she declares that to be the faith , which at the very time of the council was so far from being the common faith of christians , that it was not the common faith of the council , but was contradicted by the wisest and best part of it ; then i certainly know , that the council has not declared the common faith of christians , and therefore that its decrees are of no authority . but he proceeds . we hold , that this general faith received from the apostles , and preserved in all the members of the catholick church , explained upon occasion by the church representative , is infallibly true , and this is all the infallibility the catholick church pretends to . and there is no protestant but will own this infallibility . that the faith at first received from the apostles , the same faith , which was delivered by the apostles , preserved in all the members of the catholick church , and the same faith explained upon occasion by the church representative , so that it is evident after the explanation , that it is the same faith still ; i say , every protestant will acknowledge , that this faith is infallibly true ; for we believe the faith delivered by the apostles to be infallibly true , and if it appears , that the same faith is still taught by the church , whether in or out of council it matters not , it must be infallibly true still . but yet there is a little difference between us and the jesuit ; he believes , and would have us believe , that the present faith of the church of rome , viz. the doctrine of the council of trent , is that faith , which was received from the apostles , preserved in all the members of the catholick church and only explained upon occasion by the council of trent , which was the church representative ; this we deny : this we know , this we can , and often have proved to be false . and i beseech you , what greater infallibility can any church pretend to , than to have the world receive all her decrees as infallibly true ? but they do not pretend , that either th● whole church ▪ or any person , or persons in it , are held to possess any intrinsick infallibility , which they own to be proper to god alone . thank 'em for nothing , they do not believe , that the church or pope or council are by nature infallible , for all the world would laugh at them , if they did . we do not say , ( as he adds ) that they cannot of themselves deceive us , but that god according to his promise directing them by his infallible spirit , it cannot possibly happen , that they should deceive us . the modesty of a jesuit ! who claims no more infallibility for the pope and general council , than the apostles had , and wonders any man should grudge them this , since they do not pretend to an intrinsick infallibility , not to be infallible by nature , but only by grace . thus he adds , that they do not pre●end to new revelations and lights , nor admit any new article of faith ; though where a doubt arises the church-hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by christ to the apostles , and preached by them , which perhaps some part of the church might have had a less clear understanding thereof ; but this is done , not by making any new article of faith , but more clearly delivering what was ever believed by the apostles , and all catholicks from their time to this : that is to say , what ever the church determines , though the christian church in former ages knew nothing of it , yet it must not be called a new article of faith , but a declaring what had been revealed by christ to his apostles , and preached by them , though the world had long since forgot it : whatever the church determines to day , we must believe to have been the faith of the apostolick age , though there are no other evidences nor symptomes of it , but because the church which is infallible says so . and this is all the infallibility the church pretends too ! a very small matter to be denied her by christians , it is only to believe whatever she says , without disputing or examining her faith ; nay to believe that to be the old faith , which the most authentick records of the church prove to be new . i have thus stept out of my way , to see what fine thing he had to say of the churches infallibility , which he promised a very favourable representation of ; but it is all the old cant still , a little disguised by some ignorant blunders , or artificial non-sense ; as for his proofs of this infallibility , i am not concerned with them at present , and after so many discourses on that argument they need no answer . another argument whereby i proved , that no man can be disputed into popery , which denies us the use of our own reason and judgment in matters of religion , was this , because it is impossible by reason to prove , that men must not use their own reason and iudgment in matters of religion : for to dispute is to appeal to reason , and to dispute against the use of reason in religion , is to appeal to reason against the use of reason : in answer to this he tells us , that men must use their reason to come to this knowledge , that god hath revealed what they believe . now i would desire no more but this to prove that we must use our reason in matters of religion : for no man at this day can know what is revealed without it . i do assert , and let him disprove me when he can , that since god has given us reason to judge of the truth or falshood of such things , as are knowable by the light of nature , and a standing rule of faith and manners in the writings of the old and new testament , for matters of revelation , we must believe no mans or churches pretences to infallibility , who either teaches any doctrine , which plainly contradicts the light of reason , or a standing revelation ; and therefore we must judge of mens pretences to the spirit , by the doctrines they teach , and therefore must particularly judge of their doctrines too : this is the fair state of the controversie between us , and here i leave it , and let him take it up again , when he pleases . and here he returns back to the conference between a sturdy protestant and a new convert , which belonged to the former head , the design of which is to shew the new convert , that by going over to the church of rome he has gained no more infallibility , than a protestant has , nay has lost some degrees of certainty , which he might have had before : for thus the protestant tells him : you rely on your own reason and judgment for the infallibility of your church , and consequently of all the doctrines of it , and therefore your infallible faith is as much resolved into your own fallible iudgment , as the protestant faith is : so that the difference between us is not , that your faith is infallible , and ours fallible , for they are both alike , call it what you will , fallible or infallible — we have more rational certainty than you have , and you have no more infallible certainty than we . you think you are reasonably assured your church is infallible , and then you take up your religion upon trust from your church , without , and many times against sense and reason , according as it happens . so that you have only a general assurance of the infallibity of your church , and that no greater than protestants pretend to in other cases , viz. the certainty of reason and argument , but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular doctrines , that if you are mistaken about the infallibility of your church , you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else , which you have no other evidence for . but now we are in general assured , that the scriptures are the word of god , and in particular assured , that the faith which we profess , is agreeable to scripture , or expresly contained in it , and does not contradict either sense or reason , nor any other principle of knowledge : so that we have as much assurance of every article of our faith , as you have of the infallibility of your church , and therefore at least have double and triple the assurance that you have . i have repeated this at large , that the reader might see what the dispute is , and indeed the very repetition of it is a sufficient justification , for it carries its own evidence along with it . now as to what i said , that we are in general assured , that the scriptures are the word of god. to this he answers , the conclusion would be this , catholicks are as certain of the sense of scripture , as protestants are that they have the letter . now i believe any reader will be as much puzled to guess , how this comes in , or what relation it has to this dispute , as i am . i tell the new convert , that his old protestant friend has as much certainty of his religion as he has ; for tho' he flatters himself with the conceit of an infallible church , yet his belief of the churches infallibility is founded only on reason and argument , as the protestant faith is , and therefore his faith is no more infallible than the protestant faith is , and so far they are equal . but then i add , that the protestant has at least as good assurance , that the scriptures are the word of god , as the papists can pretend to have , that the church is infallible , and so far they may be allowed equal still , that the one thinks he has an infallible guide , the other an infallible rule of faith : now how can the jesuit's conclusion come in here ? catholics are as certain of the sense of scripture , as protestants are , that they have the letter . for the comparison did not lie between the sense and the letter of scripture , but between that evidence papists have of the infallibility of their church , and protestants have , that the scriptures are the word of god ; both which is not infallible , but a rational evidence , and therefore so far equal : and this he has nothing to say to . in the preserv . consid. p. 29. he represents it otherwise : this is the case ; on one side there is supposed an infallible interpreter of the christians great law-book , ( for thus dr. sherlock states the case ) on the other are some men ( far the greater part unlearned and weak ) who allow not any sense to this book , which seems to them to contradict their sense or reason , or any other principle of their knowledge . and i am asked , whether i proceed more prudently in receiving the sense of the law from that interpreter ( which is actually supposed infallible ) or in proceeding by the second method . now this is as wide of the mark as t'other ; i never suppose an infallible interpreter ; never make any dispute , whether i should submit to an infallible interpreter , or follow my own reason ; which were indeed a ridiculos question , supposing the interpreter were actually infallible ; but our only dispute was , whether a man , who by the appearing evidence of reason , is perswaded to believe an infallible judge , believes more infallibly than a protestant does , who believes also upon the evidence of reason and argument ? this is the question he cannot answer , and therefore would lose , if he could . but then i added , that protestants had much the advantage of papists , because besides that general assurance they had , that the scriptures are the word of god , and the infallible rule of faith , they are in particular assured , that the faith they profess is agreeable to the scripture , or expresly contained in it , and does not contradict either sense or reason , nor any other principle of knowledge ; whereas papists have no other evidence for the particular articles of their faith , but the infallible authority of their church , which is the last resolution of their faith , and that many times in contradiction to sense , and reason , and scripture , as far as fallible men can judge of it : so that we have as much assurance of every article of our faith , as they have of the infallibility of their church : the meaning of which is , that we have a rational assurance of every article of our faith in particular , as they think , they have the assurance of reason and argument , that their church is infallible . to which he answers , if he means , they have the same proofs for this , which catholicks have for the infallibility of the church — it is false . no , sir , i do not mean the same , for i hope they are better , but proofs of the same kind , i. e. from reason and argument , which are the only proofs they can pretend to , for the infallibility of their church ; and therefore our assurance ( for that i said , not proofs ) is of the same kind too , a moral rational assurance , not infallible , for that they have not for infallibility itself , as our answerer confest above . but the argument he hints in his answer , p. 5. is so very new , and so very pretty , that i cannot pass it : if he means , they have the same proofs for this , which catholics have for the infallibility of the church , that is , for the being of that church which declares her self infallible ( for a church erring in such a point , would cease to be the church of christ ) then 't is evidently false . the argument is this , that the infallibility of a church , which declares herself infallible , is as evident as the being of that church ; for if she declares her self infallible , and is not infallible , such an errour as this makes her cease to be the church of christ. so that the church of rome is either an infallible church , or no church : well , for argument's ●ake , we will say she is no church , and try then , how he can prove her infallibility . but he has another bold stroke in what follows : that the christians of this age have the same evidence of her ( he must mean the church of rome ) being the church of christ , and of her teaching truth , and consequently of her infallibility , which she hath of christ , viz. prophesie , miracles , &c. what will no less evidence serve his turn ? is it full as evident , that the church of rome is the church of christ , and speaks truth , and consequently is infallible ( which it seems every one that speaks truth must by consequence be ) as that there was such a person as christ , the true prophet and messias ? i hope by prophesies , he does not mean the revelations of st. iohn , nor by miracles , the school of the eucharist . his next exception is against that argument : if you must not use your reason and private iudgment , then you must not by any reason be perswaded to condemn the use of reason ; for to condemn is an act of iudgment , which you must not use in matters of religion : so that this is a point which no man can dispute against , and which no man can be convinced of by disputing , without the reproach of self contradiction . here our jesuit is as pleasant as his wit would serve him ; the sum of his answer is , that a man may be convinced by reason , that he ought to choose a guide , and not to trust his reason in all things . i readily grant it , for this is to use our reason ; but the inquiry is , whether reason can convince any man , that he ought to follow this guide in contradiction to his own sense and reason : whether because reason will direct a sick man to choose a physician , it will direct him also to submit to this physician when he certainly knows that he gives him poison . the next principle , which overthrows the use of common sense and reason ( for that is his charge against me ) is this , that we must allow of no reason against the authority of plain and express scripture . this he allows to be a true catholic principle ; and therefore i hope the principle does not overthrow common sense , unless catholic principles may do it . but he does not like an instance or two i give of it in the first and second commandments : i say , such an express law is that , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . no reason in the world can justifie the worship of any other being , good or bad spirits besides god , because there is an express law against it , and no reason can take place against a law. a rare consequence ( says the jesuit ) to infer a negative from an affirmative antecedent . but i thought , him only shalt thou serve , had signified thou shalt serve none but him ; and that i think excludes all other beings from any share in our worship . now to take his own instance , were there such a law , that a subject should love his king only , this would exclude father or wife , or any other friends or relations from a share in our love . here he begins to distinguish between that worship they pay to creatures , and to god , and alleadges st. austin's authority for it ; but if he have a mind to renew that dispute about the sense of the primitive fathers , as to invocation of saints , he knows his man , and had best keep to him , or at least do him right , before he engages any farther . it had been more to the purpose , to have examined that explication i gave of the first commandment , and how i proved , that it is an express law against the worship of any other being , but the supreme god , but what is most to the purpose , is seldom most to his purpose . the next instance i gave of this rule was the second commandment : thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image ; and there the jesuite stops with an &c. for he durst not trust good catholicks , who might read his paper , though they will read nothing else , with the whole commandment ; and this i affirmed ▪ and affirm still , is so express a law against image-worship , that no reason must be admitted for it . what ( says he ) if you be told , that although the iews had perhaps a command of making no graven image , &c. again why not and not to worship it ; we do not say they were forbid to make any graven image , but they were forbid to make them for worship ; and therefore his following instances of bezaleel and solomon , who made no images or likenesses of things in heaven or earth for worship , are nothing to the purpose ; he adds , yet this being a positive law , and not confirmed in the gospel , doth not oblige us ; will this reason be admitted ? he answers for me , no ; but i answer yes , if it be true and he dare stand to it ; but this is no reason against an express law , but an exception to the law itself , as of no force . i do affirm , that if the second commandment be still in force , it does so expresly condemn all image-worship , that no reasons can justifie image-worship against such an express law ; but if it be a law no longer , the case i confess is altered , and i desire to know , whether he will stand to this ; but he had best advise with some wiser men first , who understand the sense of the church and of the fathers , and of their own divines a little better about this matter . but before they abrogate this law , i would desire them to make it a commandment by it self , and call it the second commandment , as we do , for fear of abrogating the first commandment with it , of which they make it a part : though the truth is , the church of rome could spare them both , and thank you too . his parting blow is a very terrible one . i direct protestants never to admit any arguments meerly from the usefulness , conveniency or pretended necessity of any thing , to prove that it is . as for instance : a supreme oecumenical bishop and an infallible iudge of controversies , are thought absolutely necessary to the vnity of the church , and certainty of faith , and confounding of schisms and heresies . — now if i thought all this were true ( as i believe not a word of it is ) i should only conclude , that it were great pity that there is not an vniversal pastor , and infallible iudge instituted by christ ; but if you would have me conclude from these premises , ergo , there is an vniversal pastor and infallible iudge , i must beg your pardon for that ; for these arguments do not prove that there is such a iudge , but that there ought to be one , and therefore i must conclude no more from them . this , he says , is not only to misuse humane reason , but to deny wisdom and reason in god ; alphonsus the royal mathematician , was ever looked on as guilty of a horrid blasphemy , for having said he thought he could have ordered some things better than god did , at the first creation . 't is one of as deep a dye , to think god ought to have done , what we belive , that ●e hath not done . but do i any where say , that god ought to have done , what i believe he has not done ? do i any where say , that god ought by necessary and infallible means to have prevented schisms and heresies ? dare our author himself say this , who assigns this as the reason , why the infallibility of the church is no more than morally evident , because otherwise it were impossible that any heresie should be : which at least supposes , that god did not intend to make it impossible , that there should be heresies and schisms ; and therefore though we should grant it absolutely necessary to prevent all heresies and schisms , that there should be an oecumenical pastor and infallible judge ; is this to grant it necessary , that there should be one , or to say , that there ought to be one , unless i had said also , that it were absolutely necessary that all heresies and schisms should be prevented ? is there no difference between saying , that such a thing is absolutely necessary to such an end , and to say , that such an end is abfolutely necessary . but however , where do i say , that god has not done that which i believe he ought to have done ? is it the same thing to say , such a thing is not , and such a thing is not proved by such an argument ? and yet this is the utmost that i say , that the supposed necessity of an infallible judge , does not prove ▪ that there is such a judge , but only that there ought to be one , and i must conclude no more from it ; and does this overthrow the use of reason , to conclude no more from an argument , than the argument will prove ? whatever any man apprehends necessary , to be sure , he is mightily inclined to believe , but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature , must have good evidence for what he believes , and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence , that it is ; not that god will not do , what is necessary to be done , but because that may not be necessary , which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so : which is the very reason i assign for it in the words immediately following . indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning : because what we may call useful , convenient , necessary , may not be so in itself ; and we have reason to believe it is not so , if god have not appointed , what we think so useful , convenient , or necessary : which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning , than to conclude , that god has appointed such a iudge , when no such thing appears , only because we think it so useful and necessary , that god ought to do it . which is not to excuse a bad saying with a good one , as the jesuite pretends in answer to the footman , ( preservat . consider . p. 36. ) but to justifie a good saying with a good reason . but if it were such blasphemy in alphonsus to say , that he thought he could have ordered some things better than god did at the first creation , let the jesuite consider what it is , to mend what god has done in the work of our redemption , upon a meer supposition , that it may be mended : for popery is nothing else but a mending ▪ or more properly speaking , a corrupting the gospel of christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it . and i think to say , that god has done , what there is no other proof he has done , but only that we think he ought to have done it , is to say , that god ought to have done , what it does not appear he has done ; and if not to be , and not to appear , be the same in this case , then this is equivalent to saying , that god ought to have done , what he has not done . and this i hope is sufficient for the vindication of those principles , which are pretended to overthrow the use of common sense and reason . sect . ii. the principles pretended to make void all faith vindicated . he begins with proving the protestant faith , not to be a divine faith , because it is not a certain one ; which if it were true , is like proving a man not to live , because he is weak : for if there be as much certainty , as is absolutely necessary to the essence of faith , it may be a true faith , though weak , as a weak man is alive still : and faith receives its denomination of divine or humane faith , not from the certainty or uncertainty of it , but from the authority on which it rests ; a divine authority makes a divine faith , humane authority an humane faith , and both these may be either certain or uncertain , or , to speak properly , strong or weak : so that to prove , that the protestant faith is not divine , because it is not certain , is like disproving the essential properties by changeable accidents , that a man is not a reasonable creature , because he is not strong : for there is no more necessary connexion between faith being divine , and being strong or certain , than between reason and bodily strength ; a weak man may be a reasonable creature , and a weak faith may be divine , if it be founded on a divine authority . but i wish the jesuite had told us , what that degree of certainty is , which makes a faith divine , whether any thing less than the certainty of infallibility can do it ; for this used to be the old argument , that our faith is not divine nor certain , because it is not infallible , but if they will abate any thing of infallibility , we will vie all other degrees of certainty with them , and that he very fairly quitted before , when he owned and proved , that there could be no more than moral evidence for the infallibility of their church , and then i am sure , they can have no more than a moral evidence for the rest of their faith , which is all founded upon their churches infallibility . well , having proved , that our faith cannot be divine , because it is not certain , he next undertakes to prove , that our faith is not certain : because we cannot have an act of faith of any one article , till our rule of faith proposes it , i. e. till we know certainly what scripture teaches of it , not by any one text , but by comparing all the texts that speak of that subject . very well , we cannot believe any thing upon the authority of scripture , which is our rule of faith , till we know , that it is in scripture ; wisely observed , and we grant it . let us see , what follows . 1. then a protestant must certainly know , that he hath all the books of holy writ . 2. that all those , he owns for such were really written by inspired pens . the second we accept of , but there is no need to submit to his first condition . that a protestant must certainly know , that he hath all the books of holy writ ; that is , he must be able to prove , that there never were any other books written by the apostles or other inspired men , but what we receive into our canon of scripture ; which is to prove a negative , which is always thought unreasonable , and at this distance from the apostolick age is impossible , but whenever the church of rome will prove this of their canon of scripture , we will prove it of ours . in the mean time it is sufficient , that we reject no books , which have been always acknowledged by the universal church , and that the books we receive have been received for inspired writings by the universal church ; and if ever there were any other books written by the apostles or evangelists , which are now lost , we have reason to believe , that the church does not need them , but has a perfect rule of faith and manners without them ; for the divine providence would never permit , that the church should want any necessary part of the rule of faith. he proceeds . 3 ly . and ( since the letter kills ) that he understands the true sense of each text which relates to the object of that act of faith. 4ly . that he remember them all , so as comparing them , to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer , and what is the result of them all , ( for any one he understands not , or hath forgotten , may possibly be that one that must expound the rest ) he cannot have one act of faith. now , not to take notice of his ridiculous , not to say blasphemous , misapplication of scripture in that parenthesis , the letter kills , by which st. paul understands the law , which he calls the letter , or an external administration , and the ministration of death , and of condemnation , in distinction from the gospel , which is the ministration of the spirit , and the ministration of righteousness , 2 cor. 3.6 , 7 , 8 , 9. but our learned jesuite understands it of the letter of the gospel as distinguished from the sense of it , which is such a distinction as no men of sense ever thought of , till the church of rome found it necessary to distinguish the letter and the words of scripture from the sense of it , and to separate them too , which they have effectually done ; but yet how the letters , which are very innocent things in all other books , should be such killing things in scripture , is worthy of the wit and learning of a jesuite to unriddle : but i say , to let this pass , i grant a protestant must understand the true sense of scripture ( which must be done by venturing to understand the killing letter of it ) before he can know , much less believe , what the scripture teaches ; but that they should understand and remember every place of scripture which relates to such a subject , i see no reason for ; if we have one or two or more plain and express places for it , it is enough , at least for ordinary christians , and a great deal more than the church of rome has for any of her new articles of faith. for we are sure , what is plainly and expresly said in one place cannot be contradicted by another ; and therefore if i had no more than that one plain text , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve , i should think it a sufficient proof against the worship of saints and angels , though there were no other text in the bible against it . now whatever papists say ( for we desire to hear them prove as well as say ) this is so far from being impossible to any , or almost any man , that every considering protestant has sufficient assurance of all this to found a divine faith on . well , but what says dr. sherlock to give protestants any certainty ? truly not one word , for that was not my business to shew what positive certainty protestants have , but to shew upon what vain pretences papists charge the protestant faith with uncertainty . and 1. i observe , that could they prove the protestant faith uncertain , this is no sufficient reason to turn papists , because protestants are uncertain , does this prove the church of rome to be infallible , because the church of england is fallible ? must certainty be necessarily found amongst them , because it is not found with us ? is thomas an honest man , because john is a knave ? yes , he says , if the stolen goods were found with john , an honest iury he conceives would bring thomas in not guilty . and if protestant uncertainty , and popish infallibility , were to be decided by an honest popish jury , we might guess pretty near at their verdict . but he says , there is a true faith , and consequently a certain rule of faith. protestants on one side chuse one rule , viz. the holy scriptures , for we have no other rule ; catholicks another ; therefore not the holy scriptures , for that is the protestant rule : but here he ignorantly misrepresents his own church ; for the church of rome does own the scriptures to be the rule of faith , though not a compleat and perfect rule ; but the dispute between protestants and papists , is not so much about the rule , as about the judge ; but he seems not to understand this distinction between the rule and the judge of faith. but now for his conceiving ! i conceive then , that if the protestant rule be proved uncertain , ( that is , the holy scriptures ) 't is plain , the catholick rule must be the certain one . but when the scriptures are proved uncertain , i fear , there will be no rule at all . but however , his argument is so far true , that if he could prove , that there are but two rules , that one is false , and the other true ; then when he has proved one to be false , i grant without any more disputing , that the other is true : but now , though there can be but one true rule , there may be a great many false ones , and then both the rules in competition may be false and uncertain . in the preservat . consider . ● . 38. he endeavours to salve this ; and now does not put the question about two rules of faith , for that he says , we are agreed on . that the scriptures are the word of god , that if we understood the full extent of its sense and meaning , there would never be error or heresie amongst us . which shews , that , as i observed before , he did not understand the difference between a rule of faith , and a guide or expositor , till some wiser m●n had told him of it . well , now the thing in question is , by what method we ought to come to that knowledge , as far as it is necessary to a christian. and i say , that all the methods are reduced to these two heads : that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what god hath revealed , either by a knowledge communicated to each of us , or by a knowledge communicated only to guides appointed to direct the rest . what he means by this communicated knowledge i cannot tell ; for we think the scriptures may be understood without either publick or private enthusiasms , as all other books are to be understood , by considering the use and signification of words , the scope and design of the place , and by comparing one text with another , and the like : thus the guides of the church must understand scripture , and by their assistance thus private christians may understand scripture . this all mankind confess to be one way of understanding scripture , the same way that all men use to understand any writing , nay the only natural way , that we know of : no , says the church of rome , there is another possible way , for god to direct the guides , the pope of rome , or general council by an infallible spirit in expounding scripture : right say i , this is possible indeed , for god can do it , if he pleases , but it does not follow , this is any way at all , till it appears , that god has revealed , that he will take this way : so that before there can be any competition between these two ways of expounding scriptures , it must be proved , that there are two ways ; the protestant way is acknowledged by all mankind , for nature teaches no other way of understanding books , whether of humane or divine composition ; that there is such a way as the popish method must be proved by revelation , for it depends wholly upon the will of god , and therefore can be proved only by revelation : now to make a competition between two ways of expounding scripture , before it is proved there are two ways is ridiculous ; and much more ridiculous to prove the certainty of the unknown and unproved way , from the uncertainty of the known way : if they can prove , the protestant way of expounding scripture , which is the only way we know of , to be uncertain , the consequence is , that there is no certain way of expounding scripture , not that the church of rome is the infallible interpreter of scripture : and therefore any protestant who is perswaded to own the infallibility of the church of rome , because he is told , that the protestant faith is uncertain , is a very foolish convert , and has so little sense and reason , that it were fit , he had an infallible guide , if he were to be found . so that he is a little too forward , when he says , that all the methods ( of coming to the knowledge of scripture ) are reduced to these two heads , for we know , but of one way of expounding scripture , till he proves another ; and when he can prove his infallible guide , we will give up protestant certainty , as i told him before , but till he has in another way proved the infallible authority of his church in expounding scripture , though he could prove our faith uncertain , this cannot prove his own to be infallible . in the next place i directed our protestant to ask these popish disputants , what they meant by the uncertainty of the protestant faith. for this may signifie two things , either , 1. that the objects of our faith are in themselves uncertain , and cannot be proved by certain reasons . or , 2ly , that our perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering . the jesuite answers , that this is not a true di●ision , for there is a third thing also , to wit , that whatever reasons there may be for a thing , he who believes it , hath for the motive of his belief those certain reasons . — for he that believes in christ only because his mother hath taught him so , hath a very uncertain , and no divine faith. but suppose this mother be the church , and he believes it only , because the church hath taught him so , has this man a divine and certain faith ? no doubt must our jesuite say , because the church is infallible . but suppose this man can no more prove the church to be infallible , than that his natural mother is infallible ; what difference is there between those , who believe upon the authority of the church , and of their mother ? i can assign none , and shall be glad to learn the difference from our jesuite . he who believes the true christian faith , and lives in conformity to it , shall certainly be saved , or else i fear we must at least damn half the christians in the world , whether protestants or papists , for want of understanding the reasons of their faith. nay i am afraid all traditionary christians must be damned , who believe this is the true faith to day , because their fathers and mothers were taught so and believed so yesterday . so that i guess upon second thoughts our jesuite will compound this matter with me , and let fall the third part of the division , and i am contented at present , till i hear farther from him . but he might have observed that i said , not only that the objects of our faith are in themselves certain , but that they may be proved by certain reasons . and therefore for him to say , that they are indeed in themselves certain , but not to any protestant , whose rule of faith cannot make him certain of any one article , without offering to shew , that the reasons , why we believe are uncertain , is to drop half of the first branch of the division , and then to complain of the want of it . when the footman had minded him , that our rule of faith is the scripture , and therefore if what he says be true , the scripture cannot make us certain of any one article of faith , instead of answering this blunder , his superiors only correct his words in a parenthesis , preserv . consid. p. 40. the protestant rule of faith ( considering the method he applies it by ) cannot make him certain , &c. which is a plain confession , that the footman was too hard for the jesuite , but then he should have shewn us , how we had misapplied , and what the uncertainties of our reasons are , but i suppose , he will take time to consider that . as for what he calls my rule of faith , which he says justifies turk , iew , and gentile . we believe all that god hath revealed , and nothing else , is not all , that he hath revealed certain ? though i grant a divine revelation is the only rule of my faith , yet here i spoke not of the rule but of the objects of my faith , and challenge him to shew , that we do reject any thing that god has revealed in the gospel of his son , or believe any thing else ; and dare him , as i well might all professed christians , to deny the truth or certainty of what is revealed in the gospel : but turks and iews believe what they think in their judgments god hath revealed , that is their rule , and 't is yours . and is there any fault to be found with this so far ? do papists believe , what they think in their judgments , god has not revealed , or what they think , he has revealed ? if they believe , what they think god has revealed , then they justifie jews and turks too , as much as protestants . no says the jesuite , your own private judgments are on both hands your guides , and not any authority established by almighty god. now i confess , i am not ashamed to own , that turk and jew and gentile , that is all mankind except papists , agree with protestants in this , that all men must believe with their own judgments , and that there is no other faculty to believe with : and much good may it do papists , that they have found out a way to believe without judgment , wherein they differ from the rest of mankind . as for their authority appointed by god , on which they must rely without using their own judgment , when they can prove any such authority we will submit to it . i proved that the articles of the christian faith , which protestants believe , are certain and founded on certain reasons , as they themselves must grant , unless they renounce the christian religion , for here infallibility itself cannot help them out . for infallibility cannot make that certain , which is in its self uncertain , an infallible man must know things as they are , or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible , and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain , and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain ; for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its object , but sees it just as it is . now this he says is notoriously false , since she ( the church ) is not infallible by any light of her own , but by the guidance of the spirit of truth . now this is nothing to the purpose by what light the church sees , the question is , whether an infallible church can know that to be certain , which is uncertain ? if she can , then she infallibly knows that which is not true . but were not the apostles certain of what christ told them , when they acknowledged him the son of god before he gave them certain reason for it ? but was not christ's telling them so a certain reason ? if they believed without reason , i am of opinion ▪ how blind an impiety soever it be , that they believed too soon . i envy no church the priviledge of believing infallibly without reason or evidence , but it is well for the church of rome if she have this priviledge , for unless she can be infallible without reason , nay in contradiction to it , i am sure , she is not infallible . but what tergiversation is here ? does the church of rome infallibly know , that the christian religion is certainly true ? does she infallibly know , that the certain truth of christian religion is founded upon certain reasons ? if so , then the christian religion is certain and founded on certain reasons ; and then those who believe the christian religion for the sake of such certain reasons have a certain faith , whether they believe upon the authority of the church or not , unless a faith built upon certain reasons may be uncertain , or cannot be certain : for if the church infallibly knows , that there are certain reasons for the truth of christianity , then there are certain reasons distinct from the infallibility of the church , and they may be a foundation for a certain faith without the churches infallibility . i observed , that their great argument to prove the uncertainty of the protestant faith is , that there is a great variety of opinions among protestants , and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance . he says , i should have added , thô they use the same rule of faith , and apply it by the same means . but there was no need of adding this , it was supposed in all the arguments i used , which he answers only by saying , 't is an unanswerable argument against your rule of faith , and evidently proves it uncertain . what does it prove the scripture to be uncertain ? for that is our rule , or does he mean this of our way of applying it , that is by using the best reason and judgment we have to understand it : and then his argument is this , some men misunderstand scripture , and therefore no man can rightly understand it ; some men reason wrong , and therefore no man can reason right ; some men are confidently perswaded , that they are in the right , when they are in the wrong , and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right : an argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at . some men believe they are awake , when they are in a dream , therefore no man can know , when he is awake : there are silly confident people , who are cheated with slight appearances of things , therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities . or to put but one case , which will sensibly affect him : some men , nay the greatest part of chris●ians , do not believe the infallibility of the church of rome , and therefore no man can be certain , that the church is infallible : for here are all his conditions , the same rule , applied the same way , for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a moral evidence for the infallibility of the church . now in moral evidence every man must use his own judgment ; thus we do , we consider all the arguments they alledge for the infallibility of their church from scripture , from promises , from prophesies , from bellarmin's fifteen notes of the church , or whatever other reasons and arguments they use ; upon the whole we conclude , that the church of rome is not infallible , they that it is : now if he will stand to his argument , that variety of opinions , when men use the same rule , and apply it the same way , is an unanswerable argument , that the rule is uncertain , then it is impossible that they should have so much as a moral certainty of infallibility ; since all mankind besides are against them . his answer to dr. st.'s arguments , to prove that the scriptures may be a very certain rule , though men differ in expounding them , are so very senseless , that i have no patience to answer them , especially since he grants all that the dean intended to prove , that a rule may be a certain rule , though men , who do not understand it , may mis-apply it . but the principle he has laid down for mine , i confess , is very extraordinary and surprizing , that if two men have the bible , read it , endeavou● to understand it , and believing they do , draw from the same scriptures two different conclusions , two opposite articles of faith , both are bound to stand to their private judgment , and to believe themselves in the right , though all the world should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended rule , to have used a false one. i affirm , that one man may expound the scripture right , and know , that he does so , though another expounds it wrong ; and he makes me say , that when two men expound the scripture to different and contrary senses , they are both bound to believe , that they are in the right : this it is certain they will do , and there is no remedy against it , but what is worse than the disease , that men should not use their own judgments , and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right , which is as bad , as to believe themselves in the right , when they are in the wrong : but that for this reason , all the world should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended rule to have used a false one , is very senseless , unless by all the world he means the world of roman-catholicks , for no other men , as i have already shewn , nay not he himself , if he will stand to his own word , will accuse the rule to be false , because men make a false judgment of it ; for to call every man's private judgment of the rule his rule , which is the substance of his following harangue , is to resolve neither to think , nor speak , like other men : for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his rule , is evident from hence , that upon better information he alters his judgment , without changing his rule . i concluded this section concerning the uncertainty of the protestant faith with this observation , that this very argument from the different and contrary opinions of protestants to prove the uncertainty of the protestant faith , signifies nothing as to our disputes with the church of rome : for ask them , what they would think of the protestant faith were all protestants of a mind ? would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the protestant faith ? then the protestant faith in opposition to popery is very certain , for they all agree in condemning the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . and thus i think they get nothing by this argument : for if the dissensions of protestants proves the uncertainty of their faith , as to such matters wherein they differ , then by the same rule their agreement in opposition to popery , shews their great certainty in such matters . and this i suppose is no great inducement to a protestant to turn papist . our jesuit had so much wit in his anger , as to conceal the force of this argument , and to represent it thus , were all protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the protestant faith. by which alone no man living could guess , what i was proving ; and to this he answers , not at all , and i agree with him in it ; for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of faith , no more then meer disagreement , or variety of opinions proves the uncertainty of faith. but they prove them both alike , as i observed , which he calls a ridiculous inference , and as he has reported it , he has made it ridiculous enough , this is the same rule , and their disagreement proves not their uncertainty . this is to mangle and transprose an argument that it may not be understood : but to confute this he says , all vnion is no argument of the spirit of god , for people may combine to do ill : but what is this to agreement in opinions ? may not that argue the certainty of faith , because some men agree to do ill ? for a general consent and agreement of mens understandings , may be an argument of the truth of what they consent in , though the agreement of their wills may not be a vertuous but a wicked combination . but yet st. paul assures us , disunion and dissention is a certain mark of the absence of the spirit of god , that is , contentions and quarrels and schisms are indeed so far the works of the flesh. but when two men or two churches differ in their opinions of things , can neither of them be in the right ? is the spirit of god with neither of them ? is truth on neither side ? then the controversies between the church of rome , and the church of england , prove that the spirit of god is no more with the church of rome , then with the church of england . the plain case is this ; our roman adversaries perswade protestants , that they can have no certainty of their faith , because protestants are so much divided about it , and therefore they must go to the church of rome , which alone pretends to infallibility . but say i , why should these differences among protestants oblige them to go over to the church of rome , when protestants have no difference about this matter , but are all agreed , that the church of rome is so far from being infallible , that she is a very corrupt church : i do not say , that the differences of protestants is a good argument to prove the uncertainty of their faith , nor their bare agreement to prove the certainty of it , but i say , one proves as much as t'other , and therefore 't is a better reason to protestants not to turn papists , that all protestants are agreed , that the church of rome is not infallible , but has greatly erred , then it is for protestants to go to the church of rome for infallibility , because they differ in some things among themselves ; especially considering that many points they now differ about , will not be reconciled by their going to the church of rome ; for the same points are as fiercely disputed among them too , as to instance at present only in the quinquearticular controversie . chap. iii. a vindication of some positions , which are pretended to make void all scripture-proof , all use of fathers and councils , and of civil charity , and moral iustice to our neighbours . as for scripture-proof : i was directing protestant● what kind of scripture-proof to demand for transubstantiation : and having shewn that the doctrine of transubstantiation does manifestly contradict the evidence of all our senses and the most necessary principles of reason , i told them , that it is but reasonable , that the evidence for transubstantiation should at least be equal to the evidence against it , and therefore they must demand such a scripture-proof of transubstantiation , as cannot possibly signifie any thing else ; or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against transubstantiation : for sense and reason pronounce transubstantiation to be naturally impossible ; and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon scripture , as it is to reconcile transubstantiation to sense and reason , there is not such good evidence for transubstantiation , as there is against it . this he repeats after his usual manner , to take care that no body shall understand what it relates to , or see the force of the argument ; and in answer to it he gives us a new instance of his good will to the doctrine of the trinity . he says , a text which cannot possibly have another sense , doth not leave it in any one's liberty , who owns scripture to be an heretick ; therefore the church produced no such text against the arians or nestorians ; whence it evidently follows , that according to dr. sherlock , the arians and nestorians were not bound to believe the trinity and incarnation of christ. but did i say , that nothing can be proved but by such express texts , as it is not possible to understand otherwise ? i said , this was necessary to prove any doctrine which sense and re●son declare to be absolutely impossible . and will he say the doctrine of the trinity is such a doctrine ? no he says , preservative considered , p. 45. but they so appeared to the nestorians and arians , and that is the case put by dr. sherlock : but i put no case about meer appearing , but of such palpable contradictions as the sense and reason of all mankind agree in : as papists themselves cannot deny , and know not how to justifie , without pressing the almighty power of god to make good their absurd imaginations . now where there is only an appearance of contradiction , where a doctrine only lies cross to mens natural reason , there such express texts as do more evidently prove that doctrine , then that doctrine does evidently contradict reason , is a sufficient foundation for the belief of it , because in this case there is more evidence for it than against it : and did not the church alledge such scripture-proofs for the trinity ? and are there no such proofs to be alledged ? he thinks they did not , because then the arians could not have continued hereticks ; for a text which cannot possibly have any other sense , doth not leave it in any ones liberty to be a heretick . but i suppose , he will allow , that i spoke not of a natural but of a moral impossibility ; now a moral impossibility of interpreting scripture otherwise is , when a man cannot reasonably do it without offering manifest violence to the words , and this a wilful and obstinate heretick may do , how plain and self-evident , how uncapable soever the words are of any other possible sense to a reasonable and impartial inquirer . this principle , i confess , makes void all scripture-proof of such doctrines as sense and reason pronounce absolutely impossible , but this is no injury , but the greatest right we can do the scripture . but i cannot without some indignation observe , how the doctrine of the ever blessed trinity is upon all occasions introduced by these men as contradicting sense and reason , which would make one suspect , they kept it for no other reason but to justifie the absurdities and contradictions of transubstantiation . as for the making void the use of fathers and councils to unlearned men , it is the thing i designed , and i am very glad if i have done it : but as for learned men they may make such use of them still , as such writings are designed for ; not to make them the rule of faith , but either to learn what was the doctrine and practice of the church in their days , or what their private opinions were , or how they expounded scripture and the like : that i call it squabling about the sense of fathers , if the expression be undecent , it is owing to himself and some such late scriblers , whose disputes have been nothing else but squables . but i cannot blame him , that he is so angry , that i direct the protestant to inquire , whether such books were written by that father , whose name it bears , for he knows such an inquiry has very lately cost him dear , i was going to say a blush , but that is impossible . if such questions as i ask cannot be answered to the satisfaction of learned men , they are of no more use to them , than they are to the unlearned , who cannot answer them themselves , and want the learning which is necessary to make them capable of a satisfactory answer , and this is all the answer i shall return to this charge . his next charge is a dreadful one : such principles as make void all use of civil charity and moral iustice to our neighbours . he lays it in the very last section of the preservative , concerning protestant mis-representations of popery . wherein i shewed , how vain and silly this charge was , and he has not one word to say in defence of it . among other things i observed , that these men , who complain so much of mis-representing , endeavour to make the doctrines of the church of rome look as like protestant doctrines , as ever they can , as if there were little or no difference between them . — the truth is , the chief mystery in this late trade of representing and mis-representing is no more but this , to joyn a protestant faith with popish practices , to believe as protestants do , and to do as papists do . this i gave some few instances of out of the representer , and shewed that their faith , as he represented it , came very near and in some cases was the very same with the protestant faith , but their practice was popish . how is this contrary to civil charity and moral honesty ? he says it is this , when a man 's exterior actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning , and he ever and clearly declares , that it is his , yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning . but how does this concern me , who fasten no meaning at all upon their actions , but only barely relate , what they profess to believe , and what they practice . he instances in two , and let all the world judge , who makes void civil charity and moral honesty , he , or i. to insinuate , says he , that a catholick thinks the virgin mary more powerful in heaven than christ , he tells you , that he says ten ave-maries for one pater noster ; whereas all that i say is , he ( the papist represented ) believes it damnable , to think the virgin mary more powerful in heaven than christ , which is protestant doctrine . but yet he prays to her oftner than either to god or christ ; says ten ave-maries for one pater noster ; which is a popish devotion . is here any breach of moral honesty in this ? is not all this true ? do i put any sense or interpretation upon this action ? i believe all men will think , that this does more than insinuate , what a belief they have of the power of the virgin ; and this the jesuite was sensible of , and therefore says , that i insinuate it , but i will leave it as i did at first , to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it . in the next place , he says , i charge the catholicks with worshipping the visible species in the eucharist : hear my words again ; he believes it unlawful to commit idolatry , and most damnable to worship any breaden god ; which is spoke like a protestant : but yet he pays divine adoration to the sacrament , which is done like a papist . here is nothing about worshipping the visible species in the eucharist : but whatever is the sacrament , they worship , and must do so by the doctrine of their church ; if they can make a sacrament of the body and blood of christ , without the visible species , then according to their doctrine , they need not worship the visible species , if they can't , they must , for they must adore the sacrament ; and if the sacrament should prove to be bread and wine , not the natural body and blood of christ , and it is strange , if it should not , then i need not tell them what they worship . but those matters have been debated often enough of late . he concludes with an advice to protestants , urging the argument against scriptures , which i had before done against fathers . amongst christians , there is not one in an hundred thousand , who understand all scripture , and it is morally impossible they should ; and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand christian religion than this , or else the generality of mankind , even of profest christians , are out of possibility of salvation . i grant every word of it to be true , if understanding all scripture , as he puts it , were necessary to salvation ; but the only easier and shorter way is to understand so much of the scripture as is necessary to salvation , and let him when he pleases , if he dare venture the blasphemy of it , prove that this is morally impossible to the generality of mankind , even of profest christians . a vindication of the second part of the preservative against popery . here our jesuite gives me a great many hard words , but nothing of argument ; he talks tragically of calumnies and misrepresentations , how much he proves of it , unless a bold accusation must pass for a proof , i dare leave to every ordinary reader , who will compare my book with his . he is much off of his byass here , for i did not dispute directly against any popish doctrines , but used such collateral arguments , as are very evident and convincing to ordinary readers , but so much out of the road , that the jesuite could find nothing in his common-place book about it , and therefore does not pretend to answer any one section of my book ; but yet out of every section he picks some single sayings , and if he meets with an argument , that he cannot answer , he takes some few words of it , and calls it calumny and misrepresentation ; the only way i have to write such an answer to him , as may be fit to be read , is to give a short abstract of each section of my book , and to take notice , where those passages come in , which he calls calumnies and misrepresentations . sect . i. concerning idolatry . i shewed the great design of our saviour was more perfectly to extirpate all idolatry . to this purpose he has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of god. to this end he confines all religious worship to god alone . thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . it is his answer to the devil , when he tempted him to fall down and worship him ; but he gives such an answer , as excludes all creatures , not only good , but bad spirits from any share in religious worship . for he does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the devil , but because we must worship none but god. which is as good a reason against the worship of the most glorious angels , as of the devil himself . this he calls a misrepresentation , and to make it so , first very sillily misrepresents my words , and says , that i charge the church of rome , that she doth not pay to god alone , that degree of worship , which the tempting devil demanded of christ. but i say not one word there about the church of rome , tho' the application was obvious and he made it for me : but then i do not blame them , that they do not pay that degree of worship to god , which the devil demanded of christ ; which was but an inferior degree of worship , and therefore not proper for the supreme deity ; but that they pay any degree , how inferior soever , of religious worship to saints and angels , or any other being besides god , for that is the import of our saviour's answer to the devil , and answers the pretence of the church of rome , that she does not give latria , or that soveraign worship , which is due to the supreme god , but only dulia , or an inferior worship to saints and angels ; whereas our saviour's argument proves , that no degree of worship is to be given to any but god. he says farther , p. 64. that christ , by refusing himself all worship to god's enemy the devil , teaches us to pay none at all to god's saints and angels , is an inference that no one but dr. sherlock was ever able to make . then it seems , i have the honour of inventing a good argument , which this jesuite dares not attempt to answer : let him shew me if he can , that to worship none but god , excludes only the worship of the devil , not of saints and angels . as a farther proof of this , i add , our saviour denies to worship him , though the devil made no terms with him about the kind or degrees of worship . he does not require him to offer sacrifice to him , ( which is the only act of worship the church of rome appropriates to the supreme god ) but only to bow down before him , as an expression of devotion . this he calls a misrepresentation , that sacrifice is the only act of worship , which the church of rome appropriates to the supreme god ; which is the first time this was called a misrepresentation ; and yet he himself owns , p. 64. that sacrifice is indeed the only exterior worship inseparable from latria , and therefore never to be offered to any but god. and is not this what i said ? did i deny , that the church of rome paid any other worship to god , but sacrifice ? but i say , and so says our jesuite , that there is no other external act of worship so peculiar to god , that it can be given to no other being , but only sacrifice ; and therefore since the devil did not demand of christ to sacrifice to him , he did not demand of him that degree of worship , which alone the church of rome thinks peculiar and appropriate to god , and yet christ tells us of all other acts of worship , which the church of rome thinks may be separated from latria , and therefore given to creatures , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . i added , that to prevent the worship of inferior daemons , who were worshipped as mediators to the supreme god , god advances his own son to be the universal mediator , and the supreme and soveraign lord of the world , that all mankind should make their addresses and supplications to him , and offer up their prayers only in his name , that in him they should find acceptance , and in no other name . hence he concludes , that i charge the church of rome , ( though i did not mention her ) that they offer not their prayers only in the name of christ , that in him they may find acceptance . and this he calls a misrepresentation ; and i will venture to be a misrepresenter for once , and charge them with it : for if they pray to god in the name and merits of saints and the blessed virgin ; if they pray to them to intercede for them with god , as appears in all their offices , then they do not pray only in the name of christ , nor expect to be accepted only for his sake . i summed up this argument thus : now this being so apparently one end of christ's coming into the world to suppress the idolatry of creature-worship , and to confine all religious worship to one supreme being , in opposition to the many gods of the heathens , and to teach us to make our applications to this one god , by one mediator , ( this , he says , is another misrepresentation , that they make not their applications to one god by one mediator , which is true , if by one he means only one , for they have many ) in opposition to the worship of inferior deities ; can any man imagine , that the worship of saints and angels and the virgin mary , can be any part of the christian religion ? which is not a direct proof against the worship of saints and angels , but an argument from what is likely , fit and congruous , and consistent with our saviour's design , to root out all remains and all appearances of idolatry ; which makes it improbable and incongruous to the utmost degree , that christ should permit the worship of saints and the virgin mary , as it is practised in the church of rome ; with temples and altars and images , with solemn prayers and vows , and solemn processions , which has so much the external appearance of that idolatrous worship , which the heathens paid to their gods , that there is no visible distinction between them . and if christ intended to root out idolatry , it is highly improbable , that he would allow , so much of the external pomp and shew of it , if it were no more : those who think this may be , may believe the worship of saints and angels to be a gospel-doctrine , notwithstanding this argument ; but such arguments as these are thought by most men to have some weight in them ; as for instance , that a man , who is very curious to preserve his wives chastity , will not suffer her to receive all amorous addresses and courtships from strangers , no not from his dearest friends ; that a prince , who is so jealous of any rivals and partners , as to make it treason to usurp the meanest of the insignia majestatis , will not suffer the greatest favourite to wear the imperial crown , nor to sit on his throne , and receive the addresses and homage of his subjects upon the knee . as i observed before , that how dear soever the saints are to god , they are but his creatures , and if soveraign princes will not receive their greatest favourites into their throne , much less will god. this is another of his misrepresentations , that i say , the papists , by their worshipping saints , angels , and the virgin mary , put them in the throne of god ; but this i do not say , but only that god will not take any of his creatures into his throne . but yet if giving religious worship placed the heathen deities in god's throne , i would gladly be satisfied , why the worship of saints and angels should not be thought to do the same : i am sure to worship saints in the same temple and at the same altar , and with the same humble prostrations , and in the very same prayers , that we worship god , looks very like placing a favourite on the same throne with his prince ; but yet this is not the dispute , whether they do so or not , but whether it be not so like it , that it is unreasonable to think , that christ , who came to root out all idolatry , will allow or command it . another kind of idolatry the heathens were fond of , was , the worship of images and pictures , whereby they represented their gods as visibly present with them . for they wanted some material representations of their gods , in which they might , as it were , see them present , and offer up their petitions to them , and court them with some visible and sensible honours . to cure this kind of idolatry under the law , though god forbad the worship of images , yet he appoints them to erect a tabernacle or temple , where he would dwell among them , and place the symbols of his presence , the mercy-seat , and the cherubims covering the mercy-seat ; which was a symbolical representation of god's throne in heaven , where he is surrounded with angels , as the holy of holies itself was the figure of heaven . thus under the law to give them assurance of his presence with them , though they could not see him , he had a peculiar place for worship , and peculiar symbols of his presence , but no images to represent his person , or to be the objects of worship . and here i took notice of that pretence of the church of rome for image-worship , that the cherubims were worshipped by the iews , and particularly answered the arguments of the late bishop of oxford to prove it , and it had been worthy of the jesuite to have made some reply to this , but he was wiser than to meddle with it : among other things , the bishop had urged david's exhortation to the people to honour the ark , bow down to or worship his foot-stool , for it ; or he is holy , 99 psalm , to prove , that the iews worshipped the cherubims ; this i said , was very strange , when he himself , four pages before had told us , that the ark was god's foot-stool , and the cherubims his throne ; now suppose david had exhorted the people to worship the ark , which , as he says , is god's foot-stool , how does this prove , that they must worship the cherubims , which are god's throne : this he calls a misrepresentation , and so it is indeed , and a very gross one too , but it is his own ; for he represents this as my argument against the worship of the cherubims , that they were commanded indeed to worship the ark , which was god's foot-stool , but not the cherubims , which were his throne : whereas i never granted , that by the foot-stool of god was meant the ark , but all that i said was , that if the ark , as the bishop affirmed , was meant by god's foot-stool , and the cherubims were his throne , then though there had been such a command to 〈…〉 god 's foot-stool , this could not prove the worship of the ●●erubims , which in his divinity were not the foot-stool , but the throne of god. this he could not be ignorant of , because i expresly proved , that by the foot-stool of god could not be meant the ark , for the ark was in the holy of holies , which was a figure of heaven ; and neither the heaven , nor any thing in it , but the earth is in scripture called god's foot-stool ; as the psalmist expresly applies it to zion and the holy hill. and this i observed , is a sufficient confutation of his exposition of the words , to bow down to , or worship his foot-stool ; for mount zion or the holy hill was not the object of worship , nor symbol of god's presence ; but there god was present , and that was reason enough to worship him at his foot-stool , and at his holy hill , as our english translation reads it . i added , suppose the jews were to direct their worship towards the mercy-seat , which was covered by the cherubims , where god had promised to be present , how are the cherubims concerned in this worship ? the worship was paid only to god , though directed to god , as peculiarly present in that place , which is no more than to lift up our eyes and hands to heaven , where the throne of god is , when we pray to him : but , he adds , the very image ( for example ) of christ crucified , is the object of the worship of papists , which is certainly true ; but he should have given my own words . the bishop had said , that bowing to or towards any thing , was the same thing ; this i granted , if they bowed to or towards any thing as the object of worship ; and therefore had the iews either bowed to or towards the cherubims as the objects of their worship , as the papists bow to or towards their images , they had been equally guilty of idolatry , and the breach of the second commandment ; but when bowing to signifies bowing to an object of worship , and bowing towards signifies bowing to this object of worship , only towards such a place , where he is peculiarly present , this makes a vast difference . and this he calls a misrepresentation , that i say , papists bow to their images as objects of worship ; but this has been so often proved upon them in the several answers to the representer and m. de meaux and his vindicator , that it would be as foolish in me to prove it again , as it is impudent in him to deny it . but i observed farther , that in the gospel god has provided a more effectual remedy against image-worship in the incarnation of his son. mankind have been always fond of some visible deity , and because god cannot be seen they have gratified their superstition by making some visible images and representations of an invisible god : now to take them off from mean corporeal images and representations , which are both a dishonour to the divine nature and debase the minds of men , god has given us a visible image of himself ; has clothed his own eternal son with humane nature , who is the brightness of his father's glory , and the express image of his person . — now when god has given us a visible image of himself , his eternal and incarnate son , whom we may worship and adore , can we think he will allow us to worship material and sensible images of wood and stone ? and here the jesuite finds another misrepresentation , that by the incarnation god is visibly represented to us in our nature , but the papists not contented with this contrary to the design of god , made man , make and adore other images of god. here he has concealed what my argument was , but the thing is true : that though god gave us a visible image of himself to cure the idolatry of image-worship , yet this is still retained and practised in the church of rome . in summing up this argument , i said , since it was one main design of christ's appearance to root out idolatry , is it credible , that the worship of saints and angels and the virgin mary , the worship of images and reliques , as it is practised in the church of rome , should be any part of the christian worship , or allowed by the gospel of our saviour ? if creature-worship and image-worship were so offensive to god , here is the worship of creatures and images still , and therefore all the visible idolatry , that ever was practised in the world before . this is another of his misrepresentations , but very true . no understanding papist , that has any modesty , can deny , that they worship creatures and images , for that they should be worshipped is determined by their own councils ; now if there be any salvo to deliver the church of rome from the guilt of idolatry in worshipping creatures and images , when the heathens were idolaters for doing it , yet here is the visible worship of creatures and images , that is , all that was visible in the idolatry of the heathens . this was my argument to shew how improbable it was , that christ , who came to extirpate all idolatry , should still allow the external and visible worship of creatures , which if it be not idolatry , yet is all that was visible in the idolatry of the heathens : and it had better become him to have answered this argument , than to have called it a misrepresentation . i observed farther . that the great difference the papists can pretend between their worship of saints and images , and what the heathens did , whereby to excuse themselves from idolatry , notwithstanding they worship creatures and images as the heathens did , is that they have better notions of the worship of saints and angels and images than the heathens had ; but i said , whether they had or no , would be hard to prove : the pagan philosophers made the same apologies for their worship of angels and daemons , and images , which the learned papists now make , and whether unlearned papists have not as gross notions , about the worship of their saints and images , as the unlearned heathens had is very doubtful , and has been very much suspected by learned romanists themselves . this he puts down for another misrepresentation , though all learned men know it to be true . had he ever read origen against celsus , he would have known , that that philosopher had taught the roman doctors , how to defend the worship of saints and images , and that the father had confuted them long since ; and had he looked into vives upon st. aust. de civitate dei , he would have found that learned man make n● great difference between unlearned christians and heathens as to th●se m●tters , to name no more at present . i added , can we think , that christ , who came to make a more perfect reformation , should only change their country-gods into saints and angels and the virgin mary , and give new names to their statues and images ? this he calls a misrepresentation too , tho' it neither represents nor misrepresents any body , that i know of , but only argues , what christ was likely to do . for had christ only forbad the worship of pagan gods , and set up the worship of saints , it had not been to extirpate creature-worship , but only to change those particular creatures , who were to be objects of worship , and instead of the images of iupiter and bacchus to set up images to saints . thus i have considered the misrepresentations charged upon the first section of the preservative ; as for his own representation of the faith and practice of the catholicks , as to their worship , i am not concerned with it . there are a great many late treatises , wherein those matters are fully debated . such as , the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented . the object of religious worship . the answer to papists protesting against protestant popery . the late answers to m. de meaux and his vindicator ; and a book , which this jesuite has some reason to know , the primitive fathers no papists . and to these i refer my reader , who needs any farther satisfaction . sect . ii. concerning the great love of god to mankind , &c. he has found but six misrepresentations and calumnies in this section , which is pretty moderate ; and some few arguments against purgatory , and our recourse to saints for their prayers ; which he says he has collected , ( not one omitted ) but when i read them over , i could not find any one of them : i confess , it is a very dull and troublesom task to answer him ; for he transcribes several passages out of my book , without representing their connexion with what goes before or what follows , or without telling , what their fault is , or offering one word to confute them : that whoever will but take the pains to put every sentence into its proper place , will need no other answer . and this i shall do , as briefly as i can . having shewn , what great assurance the gospel of our saviour gives us of the love of god to sinners , i came to shew , how irreconcilable the doctrine of purgatory , and the invocation of saints and angels , as our mediators with god , is with the gospel-notion of god's love , and that security it gives us of pardon , through the merits and intercession of christ. 1. the doctrine of purgatory , where the punishments are as severe as in hell itself , only of a less continuance , and yet they may last some thousand years , unless their friends or the priests be more merciful to them . this i said was a barbarous doctrine , and so inconsistent with the gospel-account of god's love , that it is not reconcilable with any notion of love and goodness ; you may call it iustice , you may call it vengeance , if you please , but love it is not . these words he cites as an argument against purgatory , without representing on what it is founded , viz. that glorious discovery of god's love to sinners in the gospel of christ : now if to damn men , whose sins are pardoned , for a thousand or two thousand years , ( for so long sure a man may lie in purgatory , or else the pope is a great cheat for selling pardons for ten and twenty thousand years , if no man be in danger of lying one thousand years in purgatory ) i say , if this be not reconcilable with the gospel-notion of god's love , then purgatory can be no gospel-doctrine . this argument he never mentions , and never pretends to answer in his catholick doctrine of purgatory . he says the doctrine of purgatory is god's iustice , tempered with infinite mercy : but i desire him to shew me , where this infinite mercy is , to torment a humble , penitent , pardoned sinner for some thousand years in purgatory ? i believe i spoke the sense of mankind , when i said , i should rather chuse to fall into nothing , when i die , than to endure a thousand years torments to be happy for ever ; for humane nature cannot bear the thoughts of that : this he severely censures , and says , that man is unworthy ever to see the face of god , who declares with dr. sherlock , that did god offer him the eternal possession of himself on this condition , that he should first suffer a thousand years , he would absolutely refuse it . i wish he had kept to my own words , for i never would suppose so much blaspemy , as that god should offer the enjoyment of himself upon such terms , but i am of the same mind still ; though i prefer the enjoyment of god before all the world , and would suffer all the miseries and calamities of this life to obtain it , yet a thousand years torment in purgatory , which is as intolerable as hell , is a temptation to big for humane nature ; and if most men think as i do , i believe most men will be at a loss to find out the infinite mercy of purgatory . i observed , that there are two extravagant notions whereon the doctrine of purgatory is founded . 1. that god may forgive sins , and yet punish us for them , for no man can go into purgatory according to the doctrine of the church of rome , whose sins are not already forgiven , and i appealed to all mankind , how irreconcileable these two are , to forgive and to punish . for what is it men are afraid of when they have sinned ? is it not that they shall be punished for it ? what is it , men desire , when they desire pardon ? is it not , that they may not be punished ? which shews , that no man thinks , he is forgiven , when he is punished . here he represents me to say , that men desire nothing when they ask pardon , but meerly not to be punished ; which declares , that they value not god's love and favour as children , but meerly fear the lash like slaves . but i never said any such thing . does it follow , that because all men , who desire pardon , desire not to be punished , that therefore they desire no more ? and yet pardon in its strict notion signifies only the remission of punishments ; that pardoned sinners shall be rewarded too , is the abundance of grace through jesus christ : but yet i say , the first act of god's love is not to punish , and he who values god's love and favour , in the first place desires not to be punished : for this was the argument i insisted on , that such a notion as this , that god pardons sinners , and yet punishes them some thousand years in purgatory , is inconsistent with god's goodness declared by his son jesus christ ; for no man thinks such a pardon an expression of love , which does not remit the debt nor the punishment . that it is in our power , as he says , to attain salvation without suffering in purgatory , makes purgatory no more an act of goodness , than hell is , which it is in our power by the grace of god to escape too : but the best account he gives of god's goodness with respect to purgatory is this : that god restores his favour to us , before our hearts be as perfectly converted to him , as his justice might well require : that is , he takes us into his favour , before we have thoroughly repented of our sins and reformed them , but then purgatory-fire must expiate the defects of our repentance and reformation : now this is a great deal more and a great deal less than the gospel teaches us of god's love to sinners . for the gospel promises no mercy to any , but to true penitent and reformed sinners , and therefore to receive men into favour before their hearts are thus perfectly converted , ( which i suppose he means of an evangelical not of a legal perfection of conversion , that is , true and sincere repentance ) is more mercy than the gospel promises ; and to torment such men in purgatory , who are received to favour , is a great deal less ; and it is somewhat hard to understand the favour of a thousand years punishment , though it may be thought favour to receive sinners , before they are perfectly converted . and yet he has told the plain truth of the case ; for this is the only thing , that can reconcile men to the thoughts of purgatory , or make them think it an act of grace , that it is in exchange for the pleasures of sin , which they are so very fond of ; and those who will venture hell to enjoy their lusts , may well think it an act of grace to turn hell into purgatory : but this is not the gospel representation of god's love to sinners ; which is to pardon none but true penitents , and not to punish those in the next world , who are actually pardoned . i granted , it is something , to exchange the eternal punishment of hell , which is due to sin , into the temporal punishment of purgatory , but askt , whether it would not have been a more perfect expression of love and goodness to have remitted the temporal punishment also of , it may be , some thousand years torment in purgatory ? whether this might not have been expected under a dispensation of the most perfect love ? and from that god , who sent his only begotten son into the world to save sinners ? this is the force of the argument , which the jesuite conceals , that though purgatory be more mercy than hell , yet it does not answer that representation the gospel makes of god's infinite love and compassion for penitent sinners through jesus christ. 2. i observed , that in purgatory , god does not only punish those whom he has pardoned , but he punishes for no other reason but punishments sake . for thus the roman doctors tell us , that the souls in purgatory are in a state of pardon , and in a state of perfect grace , that they suffer the pains of purgatory not to purge away any remains of sin , or to purifie and refine them , and make them more fit for heaven , but only to bear the punishment due to sin , for which they had made no satisfaction while they lived : now i dare boldly affirm , this is irreconcileable with any degree of love and goodness : a just punishment respects the guilt of sin , but there is no guilt when the sin is pardoned ; to make it an act of goodness , it must respect the reformation of the sinner , which cannot be , when he is in a perfect state of grace and needs no amendment ; and such punishments as neither respect the guilt of sin , nor the reformation of the sinner , are neither just nor good , which is the exact notion of purgatory . this he sets down as a mis-representation ( p. 68. ) but does not tell us why : this doctrine is taught by roman divines , as i suppose he knows , or if he don't , let him consult bellarmin or such good catholick writers . i summed up this argument thus : our protestant need not dispute much about purgatory ; let him only ask a popish priest , how the doctrine of purgatory can be reconciled with that stupendious love of god declared to penitent sinners in his son jesus christ ? for it is a contradiction to the notion of goodness among men , to inflict such terrible punishments in meer grace and love , even when the sin is pardoned and the sinner reconciled , and no longer in a state of discipline and trial . this is the force of the argument , and here the jesuite , if he likes it , may try his skill . secondly , another argument i urged against purgatory was this , that it destroys or weakens that security the gospel hath given sinners of their redemption from the wrath of god , and the just punishment of their sins . and that upon two accounts . 1. as it destroys mens hopes in the merits of christ , and the atonement and expiation of his blood. for if the blood of christ does not deliver us from the punishment of sin , what security is this to a sinner ? yes , you 'll say , christ has redeemed us from eternal , though not from temporal punishments , and therefore penitent sinners shall not be eternally damned . this he puts down as a mis-representation , p. 67. and says , p. 73. that christ truly obtained remission from all temporal as well as eternal pain , and that whoever is regenerated by baptism , he not only is not adjudged to eternal torments , but neither doth he suffer after death any purgatory pains , if he die in that state of recovered innocency . this i grant they own , that unless men sin after baptism , they are neither in danger of hell nor purgatory ; and yet it is evident they deny that christ has expiated the temporal punishments due to sin either in this world , or in purgatory ; for if he had , there were an end both of the popish sacrament of penance and purgatory : and if christ by his death had expiated the temporal punishments of sin , i would desire to know , why the temporal punishment of sin is not as well remitted by the sacrament of penance , as by baptism ; since the expiation of christ's blood , as they pretend , is applied to us in both : and therefore this is a meer fallacy ; for though a sinner in baptism is delivered from all punishment due to sin , yet he is not in a proper sence delivered from what they call the temporal punishment of sin , for there was no such punishment due to sin before baptism . hell , not purgatory , is the punishment of all sin before baptism , and therefore a baptized person is delivered by christ from hell , which is the only punishment due to sins before baptism ; and if he die before he commits any actual sin after baptism , he escapes purgatory and goes immediately to heaven , not because christ's death has delivered him from the temporal pains of purgatory , but because he had done nothing to deserve it . for what they call the temporal punishment of sin is only the pains of penance , and no man is capable of the sacrament of penance , who is not a baptized christian ; and yet purgatory is of the same nature with the pains of penance , for there men compleat the expiation of their sins by enduring the pains of purgatory , which was wanting to perfect their penance in this world. and therefore baptism does not remit the temporal punishment of sin , because there is none due till men sin after baptism : it can no more remit the temporal pains of purgatory , than the temporal pains of penance , which none but a baptized sinner is obnoxious to : and therefore it is false ( according to their doctrine ) to say , that christ obtained remission from all temporal , as well as eternal pain , unless they will say , that christ obtained remission of the pains of penance , and then farewel penance and purgatory together . and this very bottom our jesuite sets it on , p. 75. where he tells us , those who say , that it were a greater mercy in god to remit all the punishment due to sin , blame christ for preaching penance , and account him on that score less merciful : which justifies what i said , that the pains of purgatory answer the pains of penance , and therefore this temporal punishment of sin , was not expiated by the death of christ no more then penance is : and when he can prove , that christ preached such penance as this , we will acknowledge purgatory . but to return ; i desired to know , how any man can be satisfied from scripture , that christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punishments , if he have not delivered us from the temporal punishments of sin in the next world. for if those texts which prove our redemption by the death of christ , do not prove , that christ has redeemed us from the whole punishment d●e to sin in the next world , they prove nothing , and then there is not one place of scripture to prove , that christ has redeemed us from eternal punishments . for if christ's dying for our sins , making atonement for sin , being a propitiation through faith in his blood ; if remission and forgiveness of sins , being justified , having peace with god , being reconciled to god , and saved from wrath , do not signifie taking away the punishment of sin , i desire one text to prove , that a sinner who is pardoned and justified shall not be eternally punished for sin : and if they do signifie taking away the punishment of sin , how can a sinner , who is pardoned and justified be punished for his sins , so that these scriptures either prove , that there is no purgatory , or they cannot prove , that we shall be delivered from hell. this argument he slightly mentions , p. 69 , but has so much wit as to say nothing to it . i asked farther , whether there are two kinds of punishments due to sin , temporal and eternal , of such a distinct nature that the promise of forgiveness does not include both , nay that god cannot forgive both , that god can only forgive eternal punishment , but the sinner himself must endure the temporal . if this were the case , i would grant , the promises of forgiveness could extend only to eternal punishments ; but if the curse of the law be eternal death , and all other punishments are only parts of the curse and a partial execution of it , then to forgive eternal punishments must include the forgiveness of temporal punishments as parts or branches of it : and this i shewed was the case here , that there is no other threatning in all the gospel against sin , but eternal death , and therefore all other punishments are inflicted by vertue of this law , as included in it ; and consequently he who is delivered from this curse of the law , from eternal punishments , is delivered from the whole punishment due to sin , though not from correction and discipline , which is not properly the curse of the law , nor the wrath of god. a little piece of this he cites , p. 69 , but without an answer . in his following harangue indeed for purgatory , he endeavours to prove by some examples of god's punishing those , whose sins were forgiven , and by some sayings of the fathers , that after the guilt of sin is forgiven , there remains an obligation to undergo punishment ; but these have been answered often enough , and are no answer to the argument of the preservative , and therefore i am not concerned about them . i asked farther , why they call purgatory , which is a place of punishment in the other world , a temporal punishment ? which is an abuse of the language of scripture , which makes this world temporal , and the next world eternal . the things which are seen are temporal , but the things which are not seen are eternal : and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments of this world , but the unseen punishments , as well as the unseen rewards , of the next world are eternal ; which is a demonstration , that there is no purgatory , unless it be eternal . this he thus repeats , p. 69. the things which are seen ( that is , of this world ) are temporal ; but the things , which are not seen ( that is , of the next world ) are eternal . this is a demonstration , that there is no purgatory : which is both to conceal the force of the argument , and to pervert it ; for he should at least have added , there is no purgatory , unless it be eternal . but his answer to this is extremely pleasant , p. 76. st. paul never taught that all things , that are not seen , or of another world , are eternal , or else god would be eternally judging , and so never rewarding his servants , or punishing his enemies . but it is plain the apostle by things that are seen , or not seen , signifies things which are to be enjoyed or suffered by us , not any transient acts of god or creatures ; and thus if there be any such thing as purgatory in the other world , it must be eternal . to this i added ; the state of the next world is called either life or death , eternal life , or eternal death . those who believe in christ shall never die . now i desire to know the difference between living and dying and perishing in the next world. for bad men do not cease to be , nor lose all sense in the next world , no more than good men ; and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness , and death a state of misery . now if good men must not perish , must not die in the next world , they must not go to purgatory , which is as much perishing , as much dying , as hell , though not so long . this he thus recites , p. 69. who believes in christ , shall never die ; therefore good men must not go to purgatory , which is as much perishing and dying as hell , but not so long . which you see , is still to conceal the force of the argument , but the comfort is , he says nothing against it , unless his repeating it must pass for a confutation . but he immediately adds , as if it were in the same period ; otherwise purgatory may be everlasting life for all i know , and so the pains of it eternal . but this is several periods off . in summing up this argument i inquired , how a papist , who believes a purgatory-fire , wherein he shall be tormented ( god knows how long ) for his sins , can prove , that a penitent sinner shall not be damned for his sins ▪ after other proofs , which , i thought , it was reasonable for them to urge , ( and i am sure they can urge no better ) i alledged this in their behalf ; that christ has promised , that those who believe in him , shall not perish , but have everlasting life : and that proves , that the pains of purgatory cannot be for ever , for then christ could not perform his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them : to this i answer , so i confess one would think , and so i should have thought also , that when christ promised , that such believers should not perish , and should never die , that he meant , that such men should not go to purgatory : but if falling into purgatory , he not perishing and not dying , it may 〈◊〉 ●verlasting life too , for ought i know , and then the pains of purgatory may be eternal . i hope the reader is by this time sensible , how easie it is to render any discourse ridiculous by taking half sentences , and joyning those passages together , which have no connexion and dependance . i observed farther , that the doctrine of purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation of christ , as it represents him less merciful and compassionate or less powerful than the necessities of sinners require him to be . 1. as for his compassion . it is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his members in purgatory-fire , which burns as hot as hell. could i believe this of our saviour , i should have very mean thoughts of his kindness , and not much rely on him for any thing — it is a wonderful thing to me , that when a merciful man cannot see a beast in torment without relieving it , it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our saviour , to see us burn in purgatory for years and ages . part of this he repeats , and i suppose thought all the world would take it for an ill saying , and therefore leaves it , as he found it ; but i shall stand to it , till he confutes it . 2. if it be not want of compassion , it must be want of power in our saviour to help us : — and if he want power to deliver from purgatory , i should more question his power to deliver from hell ; for that is the harder of the two : if his blood could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin , which the merits of some superer●gating saints , or the pope's indulgencies , or the priests masses can rede●m us from , how c●uld it make expiation for eternal punishment ? i● h●s int●r●st in the court of heaven cannot do the less , how can 〈◊〉 do the greater ? this he calls a misrepresentation , and truly as he has recited it , it is a very great one . p. 68. that the blood of christ could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin , which the merits of some supererogating saints , or the priest's masses , or pope's indulgencies can redeem us from ; how then can that blood make expiation for eternal punishment ? i say , if it cannot do one , which is the greater , mu●h less can it do the other , which is the less ; he makes me say , that it cannot do one , which is the less , and therefore cannot do the greater : this is popish liberty of conscience with a witness . from the doctrine of purgatory , i proceeded to the invocation of saints and angels , 〈◊〉 our mediators ; whether this does not also disparage the gra●● of the gospel , the love of god , and of our mediator and advocate jesus christ , to penitent sinners . now i observed 1. with respect to god ; that no man can believe , that god is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of christ , who seeks to so many advocates and mediators to intercede for him with god. to imagine , that we want any mediator with god , but only our high-priest , who mediates in vertue of his sacrifice , is a reproach to the divine goodness . this the jesuite recites , but what he has to say to it , he does not tell us . i there shewed at large , that god does not want entreaties to do good , though his wisdom and justice may require a sacrifice and a high-priest to make atonement for sin . to prevent that obvious objection , that god commands us to pray for one another on earth ; i observed , that this is not by way of interest and merit , as the church of rome pretends the saints in heaven pray for us , but by humble supplications , which i shewed was very reconcilable with the wisdom and goodness of god ; from those excellent ends it serves in this world ; this he calls a misrepresentation , p. 68. but i pray why ? do not they pray to god in the name and merits of the saints ? are not all their offices full of such prayers ? do they think the saints in heaven pray only as humble supplicants , when the very reason the council of trent gives , why they should fly to their aid and succors , is , that they reign with christ ? do they not , as he adds , take the virgin mary , angels and saints for mediators to incline god to be good to peculiar persons ? which he calls another misrepresentation ; why then do they pray so frequently and devoutly to them ? why do they tell of so many miraculous deliverances wrought by the virgin mary in favour of her clients , and of other saints in favour of their devotoes ? english protestants know these things too well , to be imposed on at this time of day by the bawling and confidence of an ignorant jesuite . 2. i observed , that it is not less injurious to the love of our saviour to fly to the prayers and aids of saints and the virgin mary ; as if christ either wants interest with god , or wants kindness to us , and either will not intercede for us at all , or will not do it unless he be prevailed with by the intercession of saints , or the entreaties or commands of his mother . and having shewed what assurance we have of the love and compassion of our saviour , i added , this one would have thought should have given the greatest security to sinners of his readiness to help them . but it seems christ is not merciful and pitiful enough : his virgin mother has softer and tenderer passions , and such an interest in him , or authority over him in the right of a mother , ( as some of them have not without blasphemy represented it ) that she can have any thing of him ; and thus they suppose the other saints to be much more pitiful than christ is , and to have interest enough to protect their supplicants , or else it is not imaginable , why they should need or desire any other advocates . this he calls another misrepresentation , and makes me ●ay , that the church of rome professes to believe all this ; but i say no such thing , but only this is the natural interpretation of their seeking other advocates and mediators besides christ : when he can give a better account of this practice , i will acknowledge , i was mistaken in my argument , but am no misrepresenter ; for to argue ill , and to misrepresent , are two things , as the representer himself , i suppose , has learnt by this time . sect . iii. an answer to the thirty misrepresentations and calumnies , and some fanatical principles said to be offered in the third and fourth sections . here our jesuite foams and rages ; and i will make him rage a little more , before i have done with him . for bad spirits are apt to rage most , the more they feel the power of exorcism , and then there is no way to make them quiet , but to cast them out . the third section of the preservative concerned the nature of christian worship , what christ has reformed in the worship of god , and what worship he has prescribed . 1. as for the first , i said , that christ has taken away every thing that was meerly external in religion ; not external acts , nor the necessary external circumstances of worship , but such exernal rites , as either by the institution of god , or superstition of men , were made acts of religion , to render us more acceptable to god. this i shewed was agreeable to the nature of christian religion , which has none of those ends to serve , for which these external rites were instituted by god under the jewish law , or invented by men. for 1. there is no expiation or satisfaction for sins under the gospel , but only the blood of christ , and therefore there is no place now for any expiatory rites and ceremonies . 2. the gospel makes no difference between legal cleanness and uncleanness , and therefore distinctions of meats and external washings and purifications are now out of date . 3. nor is there any symbolical presence of god under the gospel , which puts an end to the legal holiness of places and things . 4. nor are material and inanimate things made the receptacles of divine graces and vertues , to convey them to us meerly by contact and external applications , like some amulets or charms to wear in our pockets , or hang about our necks . 5. the christian religion admits of no external or ceremonial righteousness — now this cuts off every thing , which is external in religion at a blow , because it cuts off all hopes and relyances on an external righteousness . 6. hence it appears , that the christian religion can admit nothing , that is external , but only some faederal rites ; such as the two sacraments of baptism and the lord's supper are . — and such rites as these are necessary in all instituted religions , which depend upon free and volunta●●●●venants . for since mankind has by sin forfeited their natural rig●t to god's favour , they can challenge nothing from him now , but by promise and covenant , and since such covenants require a mutual stipulation on both sides , they must be transacted by some visible and sensible rites , whereby god obliges himself to us and we to him . this he calls a fanatical principle , but why i know not . and says , that this is destroyed by my former principle of taking away all rites that are acts of religion . this is a severe man , who will not allow me to make one ex●eption from a general rule , which no man yet was ever denied ; especially when i give such a peculiar reason for the exception , as is applicable to nothing else : that an instituted religion is and must be founded on a covenant , that a covenant must be transacted by visible and sensible rites ; for there cannot be a visible covenant , nor a visible church founded on this covenant without visible and sensible rites . and this i suppose he will think a sufficient answer to what he says . that on this principle i ought to teach , that the mutual stipulation betwixt god and us must be made by his interior graces , and our interior worship , because god must be worshipped as a meer spirit . that god must be worshipped as a meer spirit , and therefore without any external acts of worship i never said , much less did i assign it as my reason here against a meer external worship , that god must be worshipped as a meer spirit , but that the nature of the christian religion will not admit of such an external worship . and yet if he can tell me , how this stipulation or covenant can be made betwixt god and us by interior graces without some visible covenanting rite , how the christian church , which is a visible society distinguished from the rest of the world by a visible covenant , can be thus visibly incorporated by interior invisible graces , i will confess then , that there had been no need , had christ so pleased , of any visible sacraments . he adds , upon whatever account that interior covenant ( but we speak of an external visible covenant , which requires visible pledges and seals ) requires a visible sensible mark , and our actual communion with christ another , all the communications of god's graces to us , all our return of worship and adoration will equally admit of sensible signs and rites . let us apply this then to those instances i gave of this external worship , and see whether there be the same reason for that , as there is for some visible signs of a visible covenant . the same reason and necessity , for instance , of some external rites to expiate sin ; now the gospel declares , there is no expiation of sin , but the blood of christ , that there is of gospel-sacraments to apply the expiation of christ's death to us . the same necessity of external washings and purifications , distinction of meats , &c. now the gospel has put an end to all legal uncleanness , as there is of baptism to wash away our sins , or of the lord's supper to strengthen and refresh our souls by a spiritual feeding on the body and blood of christ : the same external holiness of places to sanctifie our worship , now god has declared , that he has no symbolical presence on earth , the same necessity of material and inanimate receptacles and conveyances of divine graces and vertues , the same necessity of an external and ceremonial righteousness , which is such a contradiction to the whole design of the gospel , as there is of the gospel-sacraments to receive us into covenant , and to convey the blessings of the covenant to us . as for external acts and circumstances of worship and adoration , i allowed the necessity of them under the gospel , but these are very different things from external religious rites , and if he knows no reason , why the conveyances of grace should rather be confined to the two gospel-sacraments , then to holy water , or agnus dei's , or the reliques of saints , or such other popish inventions , i will tell him one : because the spirit of grace is the spirit of christ and derives his influences only to the mystical body of christ , all our graces are the immediate influxes of the divine spirit , and nothing can intitle us to the graces of the spirit , but being members of christ's body , and there are no visible sacraments of union to christ , but baptism and the lord's supper , and therefore no visible rites of conveying the graces of the divine spirit to us but these . again , as our spiritual life consists in our union to christ , so this union makes us new creatures , for he that is in christ is a new creature : now there are but two things necessary to a new creature , a new birth , and a constant supply of nourishment for its increase and growth . baptism is our regeneration or new birth , whereby we are incorporated into christ's mystical body , and receive the first communications of a divine life from the holy spirit ; the lord's supper is the constant food and nourishment of our souls , wherein we receive fresh supplies of grace , as our natural bodies do new spirits from the meat we eat . now let any man tell me , what more is necessary to a new creature , than to be born and to be nourished by fresh supplies of grace , till it grow up to a perfect man in christ jesus : all this is done for us by baptism and the lord's supper , and if all divine grace must be derived to us from our union to christ as the members of his body , nothing can be more congruous than that the sacraments of our union to christ , should be the only visible and external rites of conveying all supernatural grace to us : so that unless holy water and relicks , &c. be new sacraments of our union to christ , they can be no gospel conveyances of grace ; and by the way , whoever well considers this , will think it little less than a demonstration , that there can be but two gospel sacraments , because there are no other visible rites of uniting us to christ , and consequently of conveying supernatural grace to us , which is the notion of a sacrament . but to proceed , i came to apply this discourse to popish worship to see , how consistent it is with that reformation christ had made of the worship of god under the gospel . and i observed in general , that whoever only considers the vast number ▪ of rites and ceremonies in the church of rome , must conclude it as ritual and ceremonial a religion as judaism itself : the ceremonies are as many , more obscure , unintelligible and useless , more severe and intolerable than the iewish yoke itself , which st. peter tells the iews neither they nor their fathers were able to bear . the first part he has nothing to say to , and by his silence confesses , it to be true , and that is proof enough , that it is no christian worship . but he will by no means allow , that they are as severe and as intolerable as the iewish yoke : this he calls a mis-representation , and looks about to see , what it should be , that is so intolerable ; he suspects i mean their fasts in lent , or on fridays and saturdays , but he is much mistaken ; i know all these are very easie and gentle things in the church of rome ; or that prayer and almsdeeds may be these terrible things . and here he comes pretty near the matter , for i look upon it very intolerable to say over so many prayers and masses every day without understanding one word they say , which is the daily task of many thousand priests , who understand no more what they say , than the people do . to part with their real estates , many times to the great damage of their families , out of a blind devotion to deliver their souls from the imaginary flames of purgatory , which they call almsdeeds : to whip and macerate their bodies ( if they be so blindly devout ) with severe fasts ( for men may fast severely in the church of rome if they please ) with long watchings , hard lodging , tedious and expensive pilgrimages , not to cure , but to expiate their sins . he says , if the ceremonies used in the liturgy , he should have said in their mass-book and rituals , and breviaries , be a burden , surely the clergy or religious must feel the weight of it , yet i am sure not one ever owned it . is he sure of this ? has he confessed all the nuns and monks ? but if they have not owned it , have they never felt it neither ? will he himself say this ? but suppose they neither felt nor owned it , may it not be as intolerable as the jewish law ? did the scribes and pharisees , who were so fond of the rites of moses , own it to be a heavy yoke ? and yet does not st. peter say it was so ? superstition will bear very heavy yokes of external rites and ceremonies without complaining , to be delivered from what they think a more terrible yoke of mortifying and subduing sin , but yet they are very unsupportable yokes still to ingenuous and vertuous minds . hence i proceeded to a more particular consideration of their worship . 1. that most of their external rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for sin . this he durst not deny , and therefore all their expiatory rites are no part of christian worship , which allows no expiation for sin , but the blood of christ. secondly , those distinctions between meats , which the church of rome calls fasting ( for a canonical fast is not to abstain from food , but from such meats as are forbid on fasting days ) can be no part of christian worship , because the gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things , and therefore of no distinction of meats neither ; for meat commendeth us not to god , 1 cor. 8.8 . here is another mis-representation ; that a canonical fast is not to abstain from food . does he deny this ? yes he says , this is most false , but one meal being allowed of on fasting days . a terrible penance this ! which most of our merchants , and citizens endure all the year round , and eat later too generally than they do on fasting days : but is there no repast of wine and sweetmeats to be had at night for those who can purchase them ? i added , there is no imaginable reason , why it should be an act of religion , meerly to abstain from flesh , if flesh have no legal uncleanness ; and if it had , we must all have been carthusians , and never eat flesh more : for how it should be clean one day , and unclean anoth●r , is not easie to understand . this is another of his mis-representations ; for that is the word , right or wrong . he says , i would insinuate that they iudaize . whereas i expresly said , that they did not judaize , but did something more absurd : for they do not make such a distinction between clean and unclean beasts , as the law of moses did , and therefore are the more absurd , in forbidding to eat flesh , or any thing that comes of flesh. but , he says , when god by ieremy praises the rechabites for abstaining from wine , was it because wine was held by them to have a legal uncleanness ? no , nor is wine flesh. but , is taming of the flesh , the curbing of sensuality , no reason at all for abstinence ? and does abstinence consist meerly in abstaining from flesh ? will not good fish and good wine pamper the flesh too ? to place abstinence in delectu ciborum , as in abstaining from flesh , is a senseless piece of superstition : if it serve the ends of mortification , it is well ; if it be made essential to a religious fast , it 's absurd , and no part of christian worship . thus i shewed , 3ly , that the church of rome has infinitely out-done the jewish law , in the religion of holy places , altars , vestments , utensils , &c. which he passes over silently . 4ly . that they attribute divine vertues and powers to senseless and inanimate things , as is evident from that great veneration they pay to relicks , and those great vertues they ascribe to them : from their consecrations of their agnus dei's , their wax-candles , oyl , bells , crosses , images , ashes , holy water , for the health of soul and body , to drive away evil spirits , to allay storms , to heal diseases , to pardon venial and sometimes mortal sins , meerly by kissing or touching them , carrying them in their hands , wearing them about their necks , &c. — these things look more like charms than christian worship . — indeed they argue , that such men do not understand what grace and sanctification means , who think that little images of wax , that candles , that oyl , that water and salt , that bells , that crosses , can be sanctified by the spirit of god , and convey grace and sanctification , by the sight , or sound , or touch , or such external applications . — he who thinks that inanimate things are capable of the sanctification of the spirit , or can convey this sanctification to us by some divine and invisible effluviums of grace ; may as well lodge reason , and understanding , and will , and passions , in senseless matter , and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch . here are three of his thirty mis-representations all together ; and yet the jesuit is more tame , than the devil is usually represented to be , when he is frighted with holy water . but let us hear him : all these are mis-representations of our faith , which teaches us nothing of all this . well , however this is pretty moderate ; here is no hectoring yet ; no minister oates , and minister sherlock . what we believe , is , that nothing can free us from the guilt of any sin , which is external , and doth not affect and change the heart . but this is not the question , sir , but whether agnus dei's , holy water , &c. can deliver from the guilt of sin , and drive away the devil , and work a great many deliverances for us ; whether with or without the change of heart : if they can affect and change the heart , that is the better way ; and then they effectually convey grace , which is the thing i said , and which he dares not deny : if they cannot forgive sin , i desire him to tell his people so , who like that better than changing the heart ; and then they will purchase no more agnus dei's , nor trade in such roman merchandize . but they believe , that all creatures of god are good , and that they are sanctified by the word of god and prayer . what! to forgive sins , to give grace , to allay storms , to drive away devils ? was this the apostle's meaning in those words ? is there any word of promise in the gospel for this ? which is the meaning of being sanctified by the word . neither doth faith teach us , that any material thing hath any other than moral connexion with grace , either obtained for us by the prayers of the church , offered for us at the blessing of those things , or of those blessed saints whom we honour , and call upon by that veneration , or by the sacraments , according to the institution and covenant of christ ; but we do not believe , that god's grace is inherent , but in the souls of the faithful , or that any sin is remitted , without a due disposition in a repentant sinner . as for the sacraments , i have already given an account of their vertue and efficacy , that they are instituted signs and means of our union to christ , and that intitles us to the influences of the divine grace : whether it be a natural or moral connexion between grace and such inanimate things , is not the question , but it seems grace is annexed to them ; which is all i affirm : but however grace is annexed to them , the conveyance of grace from them to the soul , by meer external applications , as by lighting up , or carrying a consecrated taper , by sprinkling ashes on our heads , by sprinkling our selves with holy water , by wearing an agnus dei , or some relicks about us , &c. look as if it was done , not by a moral but a natural efficacy ; for what moral efficacy can such things have upon our minds ? but let it be done how it will , it seems such divine vertues and powers are naturally or morally annexed to inanimate and senseless things , and naturally or morally conveyed from them to the soul , by external applications , and i desire him to shew me the difference between such observances and pagan charms . he has confessed enough , and as much as we could desire of him , when he adds , or any vertue to be now-a-days communicated otherwise by insensible things , than it was to the woman that touched the hem of christ's garments , ( for christ felt vertue to pass from him , and therefore it was a very real communication ) or by the handkerchiefs of st. paul , or shadow of st. peter : and here were real and sensible effects , without any moral , but only natural or rather supernatural efficacy upon the patient . and if holy water , and agnus dei's convey grace at this rate , i assure you , they are very notable things . his undertaking at last to prove , whenever required , that they use no other blessings ( or consecrations of such inanimate things to such spiritual purposes ) but what they find in the records of the primitive church to have been ordered by the apostles , is bold and brave , and i here challenge him to make it good ; but i hope he will produce better records for it , than his homily of st. austin of the assumption of the blessed virgin. 5 ly . i observed farther , that all this encouraged men to trust in an external righteousness . for , 1. such external rites are very apt to degenerate into superstition . especially , 2. when they are recommended as very acceptable to god , as satisfactions for our sins , and meritorious of great rewards . and this is that use they serve in the church of rome : they assert the necessity of humane satisfactions ; and what are these satisfactory works ? fastings , whippings , pilgrimages , &c. all which men may do , without the least sorrow for sin , without any true devotion to god , without mortifying any one lust. to make this a mis-representation , he repeats it thus : they account satisfactory works , fastings , acts of penance , prayers , alms , though done without the least sorrow for sin , &c. whereas i say , they account these satisfactory works , and they may be done without the least sorrow for sin . now are not these satisfactory works ? that he dares not deny . may not all these be done , without sorrow for sin ? that he dares not deny neither . and this is all i said ; but then he will not allow , that they are satisfactory works , without sorrow for sin : i would to god he could perswade all the members of his church of the truth of this . but let me ask him one question : are these acts of penance in the church of rome intended as expressions of sorrow for sin , or as satisfactions for the punishment due to it ? are they necessary , before absolution , to qualifie men to receive the pardon of their sins , as the signs and demonstrations of a sincere repentance ? or to be performed after the sin is forgiven , not to express our sorrow for sin , but to undergo the punishment of it ? are they always the voluntary choice of the sinner , as the expressions of a hearty sorrow are , or the sentence of a judge , imposed by the priest upon absolution , or by the fears of purgatory ? now if such acts of penance are only intended to satisfie for the punishment , i think to undergo punishment , whether with or without sorrow for sin , does satisfie for the punishment of sin : sorrow may be necessary to absolution ; but when the guilt of sin is pardoned , if men can undergo their penance without sorrow , the satisfaction is never the less : and should he promote this doctrine , that the works of penance avail nothing , unless they be done with a hearty sorrow for sin , men would not be so easily perswaded to undergo their penances , especially if the priest be fevere . i observed farther , that the true reason why any thinking men are so fond of an external righteousness , is to excuse them from true and real holiness of life — all men know , that in the offices of piety and vertue they can never do more than is their duty ; and therefore as nothing can be matter of merit , which is our duty , so the true intention of all merits and works of supererogation , are to supply the place of duty , and to satisfie for their sins , or to purchase a reward , which they have no title to by doing their duty : that is , because they do not their duty . but then the jesuit represents it , as if i said , they could have no reward for doing their duty , and therefore they add works of supererogation ; which is jesuit like : they may be rewarded for their duty , if they would do it , though they cannot merit by doing their duty . 3ly . i observed , that to make these meritorious and satisfactory superstitions more easie , one man may satisfie for another , and communicate his merits to him : this the jesuit confidently says , is a sham ; for each man is bound to satisfie for himself , fulfilling the penances imposed on him . now suppose that men are bound personally to perform those penances which are imposed on them by their priests in confession , what i said was not confined to penances imposed in confession ; and i presume he will grant there are other satisfactions and penances necessary besides these . did he never hear of men , who have been hired to whip themselves for some rich and great sinners ? to say such a number of ave-maries for them ? if one man cannot satisfie for another , what becomes of their indulgences , which are the application of the merits of supererogating saints to those who need them ? another mis-representation is , that i say , they pay for indulgences with money , and buy satisfactions and merits . but though indulgences are not to be had without money , it is a sad mis-representation to call this buying , which should only be called alms-deeds : but the thing is the same , let them call it what they will ; alms-deeds , if they will call them alms-deeds , and that at a set rate and down-right bargain , are the price of indulgences and satisfactions ; and if this were the reason of giving alms , were there such an express bargain and sale in the case , i am of his mind , that every alms-giver might with as much justice be accused to have bought of god his grace and pardon for a sum of money . from hence i proceeded to shew , what kind of worship christ has prescribed to his disciples , and the general account we have of it . 4 john 23 , 24. but the hour cometh and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth , for the father seeketh such to worship him : god is a spirit , and they that worship him , must worship him in spirit and in truth . in which description of gospel-worship , there are three things included . 1. that we must worship god under the notion of a pure and infinite spirit : 2. under the character of a father . 3. with the mind and spirit . but he has found little here to except against , only two or three fanatical principles , which shall be briefly considered . the first . god being a spirit , must not be sought for in houses of wood and stone : because he must be worshipped in spirit ( as a spirit it should be , which differ greatly ) he must not be worshipped by any material or sensible representations ( by material images and pictures ) those words except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of scribes and pharisees , you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven , cuts off every thing , that is external in religion . here he has jumbled things together of a different nature . i shall begin with the last first , because it concerns what i have already accounted for . that the christian religion admits of no external nor ceremonial righteousness : the great design of the gospel being to make us truly good , that we may be partakers of the divine nature . there is nothing our lord does more severely condemn than an external and pharasaical righteousness — except your righteousness exceed the righteousness , &c. now this ( not these words meerly , but this rejecting an external righteousness ) cuts off every thing that is external in religion at a blow , because it cuts off all hopes and reliances on an external righteousness , and i believe men will not be fond of such superstitions , when they know , they will do them no good . now what is the fault of this ? do not these principles remit all christians to the silent meetings of quakers ? exclude singing of psalms ? that is , because it excludes an external righteousness , it excludes all external acts of worship . well rhymed father , brains and stairs . since god will be worshipped as a spirit , he will now confine his peculiar presence to no place , as he formerly did to the temple at ierusalem , — for though for typical reasons he had a typical and symbolical presence under the iewish dispensation , yet this was not so agreeable to his nature , who is a spirit , and will now be worshipped as a spirit , and therefore must not now be sought for in houses of wood and stone : this , says he , excludes the use of churches rather than barns . that is , because god does not confine his presence to one place , because he has no symbolical presence , therefore there must be no places set apart from common uses for religious worship . thus god will be worshipped as a spirit , and therefore not by images , or material representations , which are so unlike a spirit ; that is , says he not by such material representations as singing of psalms . well guess't for a jesuite ! the second fanatical principle is this . god and christ are not present in the assemblies of christians by a figurative and symbolical presence : there is no symbolical presence of god under the gospel . though god fills all places , it is a great absurdity to talk of more symbolical presences than one : for a symbolical presence confines the unlimited presence of god to a certain place , in order to certain ends , as to receive the worship , that is paid to him , and to answer the prayers , that are made to him ; now to have more than one such presence as this , is like having more gods than one . to which he answers , to say nothing of the absurdity of this discourse , which makes that christian an adorer of two gods , who by faith adoring god in heaven and in his own soul , worships him in both places . truly he had better have said nothing , than nothing to the purpose ; for is god symbolically present in heaven , or in the souls of men ? in heaven he is really present , in the souls of men he is present by his grace and spirit , but in neither by symbols and figures of his presence , as he was present in the temple . but he has a terrible argument to come . doth not this destroy the very essence of your sacrament , the bread and wine in the lord's supper , which you own to be a symbolical presence of christ ? but no place nor object of worship . and yet though we grant the eucharist is a symbol and figure of christ's body and blood , it is no symbol of christ's bodily and personal presence , unless it be a symbol of christ's bodily presence on the cross , for it is a symbol only of christ's broken body and of his blood shed for us ; and the intention of it is not to represent christ bodily present with us , but to be a memorial of him in his bodily absence , and therefore it is no symbolical presence of christ ; for the figures and symbols of his body and blood , if they be a symbolical presence , must be the symbols of his bodily presence . his third fanatical principle is this . if god be better worshipped before an image than without one , then the worship of god is more confined to that place , where the image is . i cannot see , how to avoid this , whereas there is no appropriate place of worship under the gospel : and 't is the same case , tho' the image be not appropriated to any place , but carried about with us ; for still the image makes the place of worship . most of these are my words , but he has transplaced them so , as to lose the argument . the force of the argument is this . if the worship of god must not be confined to any place or symbolical presence , then he must not be worshipped by an image , for an image is a representative presence of god , or of the saints , and men go to images as to divine presences to worship ; so that where-ever the image is , which is a symbolical presence , whether fixt in a church , or carried from one place to another , it makes it a peculiar place of worship , as having a symbolical presence . so that the whole force of the argument , lies upon an image being a symbolical presence . and this he tells us is an argument for all dissenters against a liturgy , or set-form of prayer , ( i suppose he means the book of the liturgy , or forms of prayer ) for if god be better worshipped by a set-form of prayer , than without it , then the worship of god is more confined to that place , where that set-form of prayer , that set-liturgy is used ; and 't is the same tho' no set place be appointed for that set-form of prayer . the parallel is exact . it is so indeed , if he can prove the common-prayer-book to be a symbolical presence of god , as an image is , but till then it is ridiculous . at the conclusion of this section i observed , that to worship god in spirit , is to worship him with our mind and spirit . and from hence i shewed the absurdity of praying to god in an unknown tongue , when neither our understandings , nor affections can joyn in our prayers . for i suppose no man will say , that to pray to god or praise him in words which we do not understand , is to worship god in spirit , unless he thinks , that a parrot may be taught to pray in the spirit . this he calls a calumny . he would insinuate , that catholicks when they assist to ( present he should have said at ) prayers , which they do not understand , are not commanded to pray in spirit by devout thoughts and pious affections . now i insinuate no such thing : when they are present at prayers which they do not understand , they may have other devout thoughts for ought i know , but i say they cannot offer those prayers to god with their understanding , which they do not understand , and in such prayers they do not pray with the mind and spirit , and therefore all such prayers are absurd , and contrary to the nature of christian worship , which is to worship god in spirit . but my work is not at an end yet ; there are some other misrepresentations and calumnies , which he has picked out of the fourth section of the preservative , which must be considered . the fourth section concerns the reformation and improvement of humane nature , which i shewed to be the great design of the gospel , and that particularly with respect to knowledge and holiness ; and i examined how far the principles and practices of the church of rome did comply with this great gospel design . 1. as for knowledge , i supposed , neither the church of rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great friend to knowledge , which is so apt to make men hereticks . that knowing papists are not beholden to their church for their knowledge , which deprives them of all the means of knowledge ; will not allow them to believe their senses , but commands them to believe transubstantiation , which is contrary to the evidence of sense ; forbids men the use of reason in matters of religion ; suffers them not to judge for themselves , nor examine the reasons of their faith ; and denies them the use of the bible , which is the only means to know the revealed will of god : and when men must neither believe their senses , nor use their reason , nor read the scripture , it is easie to guess , what knowing and understanding christians they must needs be . against this it may be objected , that the church of rome does instruct her children in the true christian faith , though she will not allow them to read the scriptures nor judge for themselves , which is the safer way to teach them the pure catholick faith without danger of error or heresie . to this i answered , this were something , did the church of rome take care to instruct them in all necessary doctrines , and to teach nothing but what is true ; and could such men , who thus tamely receive the dictates of the church , be said to know and to understand their religion : so that here were two inquiries , 1. whether the church of rome instructs her children in all necessary truth , and nothing but the truth . 2. whether she so instructs them , that they may be said to know and understand . how far the church of rome is from doing the first , i said , all christians in the world are sensible but themselves , but that is not our present dispute . but our jesuite it seems will make it the disp●te , or it shall pass for a perfect slander , for thus he repeats it , they take no care to instruct m●n in all nec●ssary doctrines . which i did not positively affirm , b●t since he will have it so , i do now affirm , that they do not instruct men in all necessary doctrines , and that th●y teach them a great many false doctrines . but then he must remember , what i mean by instructing , it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the articles of their creed , but to give them the true sense and meaning of them ; and i do affirm , and am ready to prove it , and possibly may do so , when leisure permits , that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary doctrine of forgiveness of sins in the name of christ , nor in the nature of christ's mediation and intercession for us , nor in the nature of justification , or of gospel and obedience , but teach such errors as overthrow the true gospel notion of these great and necessary doctrines . then as for their manner of teaching , to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the authority of the church , without suffering them to examine , whether such doctrines are taught in scripture , or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it , can make no man a knowing and understanding christian. for no man understands his religion , who does not in some measure know the reasons of his faith , and judge whether they be sufficient or not ; who knows not how to distinguish between truth and error , who has no rule to go by , but must take all upon trust , and the credit of his teachers , who believes whatever he is told , and learns his creed as school-boys do their grammar , without understanding it : this is not an active , but a kind of passive knowledge : such men receive the impression that is made on them , as wax does , and understand no more of the matter . these sayings that are marked out , are more of his misrepresentations , which need no other vindication , but to be shewn in their own light , and proper places . and yet i did not deny , but some men might be so dull and stupid , as to be capable of little more than to be taught their religion as children , but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge , that any christian must aim at : which he thus represents , with them this is the utmost perfection of knowledge , that any christian must aim at . this i did not say , but this i say , that it is the utmost perfection of knowledge , which any man can attain to , who will be contented with the methods of the church of rome , not to examine his religion , but to take all upon the credit of the church . well , how does our jesuite confute this heavy charge and perfect slander ? does he shew , that they teach all necessary truths , and nothing but truth ? does he prove that men may be very knowing christians without understanding the reasons of their faith ? not one word of this , which alone was to his purpose ; but he says , hundreds of thousands of religious men are employed in instructing the ignorant , and teaching children ; and whoever denied this , that they do teach men and children after their fashion ? but does this prove , that they teach them all necessary truths , and nothing but truth ? or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching ? as for those ignorant protestants he has had to deal with , if he made converts of them , i believe they were very ignorant ; otherwise if there were ignorance between them , it was as likely to lie on the jesuite's side . having laid down this as a principle , that one great design of the gospel is to improve the knowledge of mankind , i hence inferred , 1. that to forbid people to read and meditate on the word of god , can be no gospel doctrine , unless not to read the bible be a better way to improve knowledge than to read it . 2. this is a mighty presumption also against transubstantiation , that it is no gospel doctrine , because it overthrows the very fundamental principles of knowledge , as i shewed at large , and wonder he has not one word to say for transubstantiation . 3. the authority of an infallible judge , whom we must believe in every thing , without examining the reasons of what he affirms , nay though he teaches such doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to sense and reason and scripture , is no gospel-doctrine , because it is not the way to make men wise an● understanding christians , for to suspend the exercise of reason and judgment , is not the way to improve mens knowledge ; and here i distinguish between an infallible teacher and an infallible judge . the first teaches infallibly , but yet he that learns , must use his own reason and judgment , unless a man can learn without it . but the second usurps the office of every man 's private reason and judgment , and will needs judge for all mankind , as if he were an universal soul , an universal reason and understanding , which is to unsoul all mankind in matters of religion . and therefore though there have been infallible teachers , as moses and the prophets , christ and his apostles , yet none ever pretended to be infallible judges but the church of rome . — though there may be an infallible teacher , there never can be an infallible iudge , to whom i must submit my own reason and judgment without examination , because i cannot know , that he teaches infallibly , unless i am sure , that he teaches nothing , that is contrary to any natural or revealed law , and that i cannot know , unless i may judge of his doctrine by the light of nature and revelation : for he is not infallible , if he contradicts any natural or revealed laws . i gave an instance of this in moses and the prophets , and in christ himself : for when christ appeared , there was a written law , and all the miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true prophet , had he contradicted the scriptures of the old testament . and therefore he appeals to moses and the prophets to bear testimony to his person and doctrine : and then miracles gave authority to any new revelation he made of god's will , when it appeared , that he had not contradicted the old. the law of nature and the law of moses were the laws of god , and god cannot contradict himself ; and therefore the doctrine of all new prophets , even of christ himself was to be examined , and is to be examined to this day by the law and the prophets ; and therefore though he was certainly an infallible teacher , yet men were to judge of his doctrine , before they believed ; and he did not require them to lay aside their reason and iudgement , and submit to his infallible authority without examination . this our jesuite makes a horrible outcry about , which has made me transcribe the whole of this argument . he will hardly allow either the author , or the licenser to be christians , and reserved this for the concluding blow to end his pamphlet with : what iesus our god blessed for evermore , even when owned the son of god , even from us christians , cannot exact a submission to his infallible authority , without examining the truth of what he says , by comparing it with the principles of humane reason : this is the sum of all his answer , the rest is raving and senseless harangue . but the fallacy of all this lies in a few words , iesus the son of god blessed for evermore , even when owned the son of son , even by us christians . for those who own him the son of god , no doubt will submit to his infallible authority , and therefore all profest christians must do so ; but that which i said is this , that no man could , nor to this day can own him , upon wise consideration , to be a true prophet , and the son of god , till he is satisfied that he neither contradicts the plain light of nature nor the l●w of moses ; and therefore thus far we are to examine his doctrine ; but when it is evident he contradicts no former revelations , and confirms his authority by miracles , then we are to believe any new revelations he makes upon his own authority . and therefore in my own name , and the name of the licenser , i here profess , that when by examining the doctrine of christ by the light of nature and the law of moses , i find he has contradicted neither , and by the great miracles he wrought , i am satisfied he is an infallible teacher , then i own him for such an infallible teacher ( or judge if he pleases ) that i must not judge of his doctrine ( excepting the case of the light of nature and the law of moses ) but believe it , and submit to him ; and in these cases , i submit to his infallible authority without examination ; i receive all his dictates as divine oracles . i do not wonder the jesuite is so much disturbed at this , for if it appears , that christ himself did not pretend to be such an infallible judge , as he would have us believe the pope or church of rome to be , they must for shame give up this kind of infallibility : and therefore if he has a mind to confute this principle thoroughly , that he may understand my mind plainly , i will reduce all to some few propositions , which he may try his skill upon , when he pleases . 1. that no prophet is to be believed in contradiction to such plain and evident principles of nature , as all mankind agree in . 2. that the first prophet , who appears in the world , before any revealed law , and confirms his authority by plain and evident miracles , is to be believed in every thing he says , while he does not contradict the plain and evident principles of natural knowledge . and for that reason moses was to be believed in every thing , which did not contradict the light of nature , because he was the first prophet , who made a publick revelation of god's will to the world. 3. that succeeding prophets , who confirm their authority with miracles , are to be believed in all new revelations they make , which neither contradict the light of nature , nor any former revelations ; and therefore christ is absolutely to be believed , when it appears , that he neither contradicted the light of nature , nor the law of moses . 4. when the revelation is compleat and perfect , and has no new additions to be made to it , ( as the gospel-revelation is ) how infallible soever any teachers may be , we must believe them in nothing , which either contradicts the light of nature , or the standing revelation , or is not contained in the revelation . and this shews us , how far we are to submit our own reason and judgment to an infallible teacher ; that is , when we are convinced of his infallibility , we must then believe him upon his own word , but not till then . and therefore we must of necessity judge of all prophets , till we can prove them true prophets , and then we must believe them without judging . the miracles moses wrought were a sufficient reason to believe him to be a true prophet , while he did not contradict the laws of nature , and thus far all men were to judge of him , and not to rely upon his authority ; but when by his miracles and the agreement of his doctrine with natural principles , they were satisfied , he was a true prophet , they were to judge no farther , but to receive every thing else upon his authority . when christ appeared in the world , men were to judge of him , before they believed , and that not only by miracles , and the conformity of his doctrine to the light of nature , but by his agreement with the law of moses , which was a standing revelation : and when by these marks he was known to be the true messias , they were to believe every thing else he said upon his own authority . but christ having now given us a perfect revelation of god'● will , to which no additions must be made ; we are to believe no men , how infallible soever , any further than they agree with the gospel-revelation , and therefore must judge for our selves both of the sense of scripture , and the doctrine they teach ; which is a plain demonstration , that as there never was such an infallible teacher , whom we must in all cases believe without examination , ( which is what the church of rome means by an infallible judge ) for moses his doctrine was to be examined by the light of nature , and christ's by the light of nature and the law of moses ; so now especially can there be no such infallible judge , because the gospel is the entire and perfect rule of faith , and we must believe no man , against or beyond the gospel-revelation ; and therefore must judge for our selves , and compare his doctrine with the rule ; which confounds the infallibility of the church of rome . this is the scheme of my principles ; and now he knows , what he has to answer , when he has a mind to it . 4 ly . i observed farther , to pretend the scripture to be an obscure or imperfect rule , is a direct contradiction to the design of the gospel , to improve and perfect knowledge . he says nothing about the obscurity of the rule , as for the imperfections of it , i observed , they pretended to supply the defects of scripture by unwritten traditions . the first answer i gave to this , which alone he pretends to say something to , was this . if the sriptures be an imperfect rule , then all christians have not a perfect rule , because they have not the keeping of unwritten traditions , and know not what they are , till the church is pleased to tell them ; and it seems it was a very great while before the church thought fit to do it : for suppose all the new articles of the council of trent , were unwritten traditions , fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the rule of faith concealed from the world. which the jesuite thus repeats ; the catholicks by unwritten traditions , that make up a part of their rule of faith , mean such things as may be concealed from the world for 1500 years , never heard of before in the church of god , kept very privately and secretly for several ages , and totally unwritten . whereas i said nothing at all of this , but that if the twelve new articles of pope pius his creed in the council of trent , be pretended ( as they do pretend ) to be the tradition of the church , then de facto this tradition was concealed for near 1500 years , for there was no such tradition known before , nor at the time of the council of trent , as has been proved as to several articles , by the learned dean of st. pauls ; and , when our jesuite pleases , he may try to confute him . 5 ly . i observed , that an implicit faith , or believing as the church believes , without knowing what it is we believe , can be no gospel doctrine , because it is not for the improvement of knowledge . and here i observed , that some roman doctors think it sufficient , that a man believes as the church believes , without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe ; but the general opinion is , that a man must have an explicite belief of the apos●les creed , but as for every thing else it suffices , if he believes as the church believes . that is , as i inferred , it is not necessary men should so much as know , what the new articles of the trent faith are , if they believe the apostles creed , and in other things resign up their faith implicitely to the church . from whence i concluded , that by their own confession all the doctrines in dispute between us and the church of rome are of no use , much less necessary to salvation , for if they were they would be as necessary to be known , and explicitely believed , as the apostles creed ; and therefore protestants who believe the apostles creed , may be saved without believing the trent creed , for what we need not know , we need not believe . what does our jesuite say to this ? is an implicite faith no doctrine of their church ? have i misrepresented their doctrine ? he says nothing of this . but this calumniator ( he says , meaning poor calumniated me ) confounds what is to be known necessitate medii , so that he who through no fault of his hath not learned it , is however uncapable of salvation ( which is all contained in the creed ) with what must be known necessitate praecepti , because god hath commanded all those who are in the occasion and in the capacity of being instructed in it , to learn it . whatever i confounded , i am sure , this is a distinction would confound any man to reconcile it with an implicite faith. some things are so neces●ary to be known , that a man shall be damned meerly for not knowing them , though he had no opportunity to know them ( which some will say is very hard ) other things are necessa●y to be known to those who have opportunity to know them , for that i suppose he means , by occasion and capacity , or he means nothing but a trick ; and what place is here for an implicite faith ? when they must know all that is a necessary means of salvation , at the peril of their salvation , and must know every thing , as far as they have opportunity of learning it ; and therefore must never take up with an implicite faith. he says , each man is not bound to know all that christ hath taught , but yet all that christ has taught as necessary to him in his station : so that if all christians are not bound to have an explicite belief and knowledge of any thing but the apostles creed , then the knowledge of all the peculiar doctrines of popery , it seems , are not necessary for them in their station ; and if they be not necessary for all lay-christians suppose in their station , they are necessary for no body but the pope and his clergy ; and that is the truth of the story : for they are the only people that get any thing by them , and it concerns them only to know these matters . secondly , i proceeded to holiness and vertue , the promoting of which is another great gospel-design ; and shewed how many ways this is hindred in the church of rome . i observed , that great value the church of rome sets upon an external righteousness , is very apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good , to perswade them that such external observances are much more pleasing to god , and therefore certainly much better in themselves , than true gospel-obedience , than moral and evangelical vertues : for that which will merit of god the pardon of the greatest immoralities , and a great reward , that which supplies the want of true vertue , which compensates for sin , and makes men great saints , must needs be more pleasing to god , than vertueit self . this he cites as a great mis-representation , and so it is , as he puts it ; for he makes me say , that they teach all this : whereas all that i say is , that these are natural inferences which men draw from that great value the church of rome puts upon an external righteousness , and that such conceits as these are very apt to make men careless of a holy life . thus he makes me say , the roman church teaches , that men need take no care of venial sins , and that they may keep clear of mortal sins , without any great attainment in vertue . but i never said , the roman church taught this . i say , the doctrine of venial sins , which cannot deserve eternal punishments , how many soever they are , is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great evils : that wdile this distinction lasts , men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins , which they need take no care of . what! because the church teaches , that they need not avoid venial sins ? by no means ! but because they shall not be damned for them , which is encouragement enough to most men to be careless about them : if they keep clear of mortal sins , they are safe , that is , as to eternal damnation ; and that men may do without any great attainments in vertue : which is certainly true , whoever teaches it , according to the roman distinction between venial and mortal sins . i shewed farther , that the church of rome makes void most of the gospel motives to a holy life . the second was the holiness , and purity , and inflexible justice of the divine nature , which enforces the necessity of holiness , because a holy god cannot be reconciled to wicked men , nor forgive our sins , unless we repent and reform . but the force of this argument is lost in the church of rome by the iudicial absolution of the priest. for they see daily the priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins , and god must confirm the sentence of his ministers ; and therefore they are absolved , and need not fear that god will not absolve them : which must either destroy all sense of god's essential holiness and purity , and perswade them , that god can be reconciled to sinners , while they continue in their sins ; or else they must believe that god hath given power to his priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself . this he thus repeats : they teach ( for this must always come in to make me a mis-representer ) that when a priest absolves men that forsake not their sins , god must confirm the sentence of his minister , and therefore they are absolved , and need not fear ; whence they believe that god can be reconciled to sinners , whilst they remain in their sins ; and therefore they must believe that god hath given power to his priests to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself . how unlike this is to what i said , i need not tell any man ; but he has not only mis-represented my words and sense , but has made non-sense of it too , which is a little too much at once : for if they believe that god can be reconciled to sinners , while they continue in their sins , they need not believe that god had given power to the priest to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself , that is , unreformed sinners ; for if god can be reconciled to such men , who continue in their sins , he may absolve them too , as well as the priest. but i must not part with this point thus . i said , that de facto men saw that they are every day , or as oft as they please to go to confession , absolved by the priest without forsaking their sins ; is not this true ? that they are taught that god confirms the sentence of his ministers , and when they are forgiven by the priest , they are forgiven by god : that the priest is a judge and absolves as a judge , by a true judicial , not a meer declarative power : is not this true ? and is not this reason enough for them to believe that when they are absolved by the priest , without forsaking their sins , they are absolved by god ? and does not this destroy that argument from the holiness and justice of god , that he will not forgive our sins , unless we forsake them ? but he says , they teach , that to receive absolution without a real forsaking of our sins , in lieu of forgiveness of them , adds a hainous sacriledge . but how do they teach this , by words or actions ? their actions teach quite otherwise , for they absolve men over and over , who do not forsake their sins , though they know that they do not ; and if such absolutions do not avail to the forgiveness of sins , what greater security is there in the popish judicial , than in the protestant declarative absolution ? nay , why do they cheat people out of their souls , and lull them into security by such void absolutions ? nor do their words teach any necessity of mens forsaking sin , to make their absolution valid : contrition is the most that is required to absolution . now suppose contrition signifie a sorrow for sin , and a resolution to forsake it , yet contrition is not forsaking sin , is not holiness of life ; and if absolution upon contrition puts men into a state of salvation , then men may be saved by the sacrament of penance , without an actual forsaking of sin ; for if they sin again , it is only repeating the same remedy , the sacrament of penance , with the absolution of the priest , will restore them to the favour of god , and a state of salvation again . which shews that the church of rome does not teach what he pretends ; i wish she did , or that he would teach it for her , that the absolution of the priest will avail no man who does not actually forsake his sins , and reform his life , and then we should see what value men would have for their judicial absolution . a third gospel-motive to holiness , is the death and sacrifice of christ , because his bloud is the bloud of the covenant , and the efficacy of his sacrifice , extends no farther than the gospel-covenant ; that is , no man can be saved by the bloud of christ , but those who obey the gospel . this i observed the church of rome seems very sensible of , that the sacrifice of the cross will avail none but penitent and reformed sinners . but then the sacrifice of the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead , to expiate those sins , which are not expiated by the sacrifice of christ upon the cross , and that by the bare opus operatum , by the offering this sacrifice of the mass it self , without any good motion in the person for whom it is offered . these are some more of his mis-representations , to which he adds , that when christ was sacrificed upon the cross , he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin ; when sacrificed in the mass only , for the temporal . what has he to say to this , only three loud calumnies . we teach , that christ on the cross gave himself a full redemption for all the guilt and debt of sinners , who apply to themselves that precious bloud by the means appointed by christ. very tender this ! but did christ expiate the sins only of true penitent and reformed sinners ? is that the only means of applying his precious bloud to us ? that by the sacrifice of the mass , as also by any good christian prayers for obdurate sinners , such graces may be obtained as shall work in them their salvation ; but that no sin is remitted to an impenitent sinner . very artificial and trickish still ! does the sacrifice of the mass expiate sins , or not ? do other good christian prayers expiate sin ? why then does he joyn the sacrifice of the mass , and other good christian prayers , as if they attribute no more expiation to the mass , than to christian prayers ? is the sacrifice of the mass to obtain grace for sinners , or to expiate sin ? pray what grace is obtained by the sacrifice of the mass for those who are dead ? or is the sacrifice of the mass available for obdurate sinners , or for those only who are in a state of grace ? but pray , why not one word to ●he main case , that the mass expiates those sins , for which the sacrifice of the cross made no expiation ? what he adds , that no sin is remitted to an impenitent sinner , is nothing to the purpose ; the question is , whether no man shall be pardoned , who does not reform his sin , and live a holy life ? these are two things in the church of rome , where men receive absolution upon their contrition , as is pretended , who never reform their lives . but as for the opus operatum he tells us , it hath no reference to him , who receives the sacraments , — but to those who administer the sacraments , from whose piety they take not their force . this i know cassander and some other moderate romanists would have to be the sense , but in contradiction to the doctrine of their church : i shall not enter into that dispute now : our present case is very plain . for the mass is offered for the living and the dead , for those who are absent and know nothing of it , and therefore cannot joyn in the oblation of this sacrifice ; that if it have any vertue it must be its own , the bare opus operatum , without any good motion of him , for whom it is offered . a fourth gospel motive to holiness is the intercession of christ for us at the right hand of god. because he mediates and interceeds only for true penitent sinners ; which obliges us , as we hope for any benefit from the intercession of christ , heartily to repent of our sins , and live a new life : but the church of rome has found out a great many other advocates and mediators , who by their great interest in christ , or favour with god , may obtain that pardon , which otherwise they could not hope for : and that this must be the meaning of their addresses to saints and the virgin mary , i proved , because there is no other account to be given of it ; for will they say , that christ wants will or power to undertake our cause , if we be such , as according to the terms of the gospel it is his office to interceed for : i confess'd , it was hard to think , that they should imagine , that the intercession of the virgin mary , or the most powerful saints can prevail with our saviour to do that , which according to the laws of his own mediation , they know he cannot and will not do . but yet so it is , that is , thus they do , and there is no other account to be given of it but this . this he says is a bare-faced calumny ! but what is the calumny ? that they do pray to saints and the virgin ? or that such vile wretches hope to be hea●d by them , who could not reasonably expect , that christ would hear them upon their own account ? let him have a care of calling this a calumny ; there are many fine stories , how gracious the blessed virgin has been to the most profligate villains , which i suppose are related for this purpose to make such wretches great devotoes of the virgin. what he says , that the blessed saints only joyn their prayers to ours to obtain mercy of christ , is nothing to our present purpose : the question is , why those who have so mercifuland compassionate an high-priest , should make such frequent addresses to other advocates , if they did not hope to find them more pitiful and compassionate , to obtain that for them of their saviour by their interest and intercession , which good men know , they may have of christ for asking , without applying to other advocates . a fifth gospel motive to a holy life is the hope of heaven and the fear of hell ; but then the terror of hell is mightily abated by the doctrine of purgatory , for though purgatory be a terrible place , yet it is not eternal ; — especially considering how many easie ways there are for men to get out of purgatory : those who can buy indulgencies , while they live , or masses for their souls , when they die , need not lie long there , if the priests are not out in their reckoning . here he finds three calumnies . the first , that catholicks exempt sinners from hell , who in the protestant doctrine would be condemned to it . no unrepented mortal sin is lodged in purgatory , or escapes hell. now i confess , though i did not say so , yet i think they do ; and i grant it is a true consequence of my argument : that all impenitent sinners shall go to hell , we both agree ; but then we make the reformation of our lives essential to repentance , and how sorrowful soever men are for their sins , if they live after such sorrow and do not reform their lives , they shall go to hell. in the church of rome , at most contrition or sorrow for sin is all that is necessary to absolution , and that keeps them out of hell , and such men must expiate their sins by penance in this world , or in purgatory in the next , but though they do not reform their sins , if they be cont●ite and absolved again , they are restored to a state of grace again , and so toties quoties . now such penitents as are sorry for their sins , but do not reform them , are condemned to hell 〈◊〉 the protestant church , and only to purgatory in the church of rome : and therefore the first is no calumny . the second is , that indulgencies may be bought for money , this is no calumny as i have already shewn , or avail a soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them , through want of contrition , the guilt of sin not being before remitted . this i never said , and therefore is no calumny of mine . the third , that masses said for any soul in purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy . this i take to be nonsense according to the doctrines of their own church . for certainly those souls who have merited to get into purgatory , have merit enough to receive the benefit of masses . another gospel-motive to holiness are the examples of good men , but in the church of rome the extraordinary vertues of great and meritorious saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of merits . the more saints they have , the less need is there for other men to be saints , unless they have a mind to it , because there is a greater treasure of merits to relieve those who have none of their own — and if one man can merit for twenty , there is no need there should be above one in twenty good . here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of merit , as it relates to a reward , or as it expiates the punishment of sin . in the first sense he says merit is personal , not communicative ; but if it be communicative in the second sense , that one man may be delivered from punishments by the merits of another , ( and if it be not , there is an end of the gainful trade of indulgencies ) that is sufficient to my argument , and will satisfie most sinners , who are not concerned about degrees of glory , if they can escape punishment . lastly i shewed , that the gospel-means and instruments of holiness , do not escape much better in the church of rome : among others i instanced in the sacrament of the lord's supper , which besides those supernatural conveyances of grace , which are annexed to it by our saviour's institution , is a great moral instrument of holiness — but in the church of rome this admirable sacrament is turned into a dumb shew , which no body can be edified with , or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead , which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life . here he says , there are three crying calumnies . 1. that the sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice , whereas they very often receive it ; and did i say the sacrament was never received in the church of rome ? 2. that they require the practice of no vertue to the receiving the sacrament , whereas they require the sacrament of penance to prepare for the eucharist . but i spoke of those vertues which were to be exercised in receiving , which there are not such advantages for in the church of rome , where the office is not understood , and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant ceremonies . 3. that our exposing the blessed sacrament , is a dumb shew , and so we assist at holy mass. and whether it be or no , let those judge , who have seen the ceremony . how much the sacrifice of the mass encourages vertue , we have already seen . i doubt not but our jesuite can give as good an answer to this vindication , as he did to the preservative , and i as little doubt but he will ; unless mr. needham's name to the license may be my security , for he has threatned , it shall be to him a sufficient note and character of a book , not worth the reading , much less the censuring , where-ever he sees , that reverend person has opened it the press : and i commend him for it , for he has had very ill success with such books of late : but though i never grudge my pains in answering an adversary , who gives occasion for any useful and material discourse , ( for i desire whatever i say , should be sifted to the very bottom , and am as ready to own any error , i am convinced of , as to vindicate the truth ) ▪ yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse comment , which has been my present task : thus any book may be answered , by a man , who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it : and such answers may be easily answered again by men , who have nothing else to do ; but if this trade grow too common , they must be very idle people indeed , who will find time to read them . and therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future , before i take leave of my adversary , i will venture to give him a little good advice , which may stand him in stead against the next time . 1. that he would be more modest and sparing in his title-page ; not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous : it is a little too much to talk of principles which destroy all right use of reason , scripture , fathers , councils , undermine divine faith , and abuse moral honesty . or forty malicious culumnies and forged untruths , besides several fanatical principles , which destroy all church discipline , and oppose christ's divine authority . if such things be proved against any book , i assure you it is very terrible , though there be nothing of it in the title , but the world has been so long deceived with titles , that commonly the more the title promises , the less they expect in the book . some cry it is a mountebank's bill , othe●s , the man raves , and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther , the disappointment they meet with , provokes their scorn , or indignation . the bare name of an answer to a book , which is commonly known and approved , is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it , but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the readers by a frightful title . 2. that he would not think , he has confuted a book by picking out some sayings , which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious , but in which the main argu●ent of the book is not concerned : this is the case in many passages he has objected against the preservative , for though there is never a one , but what is very defensible , and what i have defended , yet there are many , that if they could not be defended , the main argument of the book is never the worse : this is as vain , as to think to kill a man by laun●hing a sore , while all his vitals are sound and untoucht . 3. that he would not boast of confuting a book , without bearing up fairly to any one argument in it . i know in his postscript , he says , that he omitted nothing in answer to the first part of the preservative , that even pretended to the appearance of an argument ; that all the rest , which he did not answer in his single sheet , was only swelled up with words , but void of sense and reason . a strange tympany this poor preservative was sick of , that when the wordy swelling was taken down , that and the answer too could be reduced to a single sheet . but the prefacer he says , should have pointed at some pretended proofs , which he slighted to expose , or have praised him for not wearying his readers with a dull prolixity . but the prefacer pointed him to the book , and that was enough , unless he would have had him transcribe the book again , and concluded every entire argument , with this is not answered by the iesuite . for i know not any one paragraph , that he has pretended to answer , though some single sayings he has nibled at , and little pieces of argument , as appears from this vindication , and that so dully too , that there was no need of more prolixity to tire his readers . our author little thinks , how he exposes his reputation among our people by such vain brags as these : they can find a great many arguments , which he has not medled with , and therefore conclude the jesuite to be very blind , or very impudent in pretending to have answered all he could find , or ( which it may be is the truth of the case ) that he was not trusted to read the preservative , but had some sayings picked out for him to answer , and he mistook them for the whole . 4 ly , that when he talks big of calumnies and misrepresentation , he woul● not only say but prove them to be so : that is , that i attribute any doctrines to them , which are not taught by their own councils and doctors , or impute such practices to them , as they are not guilty of : for this cry of misrepresenting is grown so familiar now , and that charge has been so often bafled of late , that our people will not take his word for it , nor allow every argument he cannot answer , to pass for a misrepresentation . 5 ly , i would advise him to have a care , that he do not confute his own church , while he is zealous to confute his adversary ; this often happens , and has done so to him in this very dispute : especially in his talk of moral infallibility , which has effectually given up the roman pretences to infallibility , as i have shewn above . 6 ly , if he resolves to write again ; i desire him to take but any one chapter or section in the preservative , and try his skill on it ; not to pick out a single saying or two , but to answer the whole series of argument● , as they lie there ; and if he can make any work of it , i promise him a very grave and modest reply . but if he skips about from one page to another , and only hunts for calumnies and misrepresentations as he calls them , which he first artificially makes , by changing words and periods , and joyning sentences , which have no relation to each other , and then triumphs over his own creatures , i shall leave him to be answered and chastized by any footman , who pleases to undertake him , and i wish the next may not be so much his over-match , as the first was . i have taken no notice of his postscript in answer to the preface to the protestant footman's defence of the preservative . that author is able to answer for himself , if he thinks fit ; but i presume he looks upon that dispute as at an end , if disputes must ever have an end : for when all is said , that a cause 〈◊〉 bear , and the same arguments and the same answers come to be repeated over again , it is time then for a modest man to have done , and to leave the world to judge ; unless disputing be only an art of scolding , where the last word is thought the victory . the end . books printed for , and are to be sold by w. rogers . bp wilkins his fifteen sermons . octavo . dr. wallis of the necessity of regeneration : in two sermons to the university of oxford . quarto . — his defence of the royal society and the philosophical transactions ; particularly those of iuly , 1670. in answer to the cavils of dr. william holder . quarto . the necessity , dignity and duty of gospel-ministers , discoursed of before the university of cambridge . by tho. hodges , b.d. quarto . the peaceable christian. a sermon . quarto . price , 3 d. a treatise of marriage , with a defence of the 32 d article of the church of england , viz. bishops , priests and deacons are not commanded by god's law , either to vow the state of single life , or to abstain from marriage , &c. by tho hodges , b. d. octavo . history of the affairs of europe in this present age , but more particularly of the republick of venice . by battista nani cavalier , of st. mark. fol. sterry's freedom of the will. folio . light in the wa● to paradise , with other occasionals . by dudley the 2 d , late lord north. octavo . molins of the muscles , with sir charles scarborough's syllabus musculorum . octavo . a collection of letters of gallantry . twelves . leonard's reports , in four parts . the second edition . folio . bulstrode's reports in three parts , the second edition corrected ; with the addition of thousands of references . 1688. fol. the compleat clark ; containing the best forms of all sorts of presidents , for conveyances and assurances ; and other instruments now in . use and practice . quarto . sir simon degges parsons counsellor , with the law of tithes and tithing . in two books . the fourth edition . octavo . an answer to the bishop of condom ( now of meaux ) his exposition of the catholick faith , &c. wherein the doctrine of the church of rome is detected , and that of the church of england expressed , from the publick acts of both churches . to which are added reflections on his pastoral letter . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , ●ruly represen●ed ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . second edition . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the 〈◊〉 ●ontroversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an 〈◊〉 to the representer's last reply ; in which are ●id open some of the methods , by which protestants are misreprensented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to script●●●●eason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the 〈◊〉 part : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testiu● &c. quarto . the doctrine ●f the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part : wherein the d●●●rine of the trinity is shewed to b●●greeable , to scripture and reason , ●nd transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part , in the first dialogue , between him and his lay-friend . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english ref●●mation ; in a bo●k that came lately from oxford . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury ▪ 8 o. a manual for a christian souldier , written by erasmus , and translated into english. twelves . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book , whereby one ( who hath a good voice and ear ) may without other help , learn to sing true by notes . design'd chiefly for , and applied to , the promoting of psalmody ; and furnished with variety of psalm-tunes in parts , with directions for that kind of singing . octavo . a book of cyphers , or letters reverst : being a work very pleasant and useful , as well for gentlemen 〈◊〉 all sorts of artificers , engravers , 〈…〉 price 〈…〉 〈…〉 communion in the 〈…〉 of c●●terbury . in octavo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 ag●●nst transubstantiation . in octavo . price 3 ● . the state of the church of rome when the reformation began , as it appears by the advices given to paul iii. and iulius iii. by creatures of their own. with a preface leading to the matter of the book . 4 o. a letter to a friend , reflecting on some 〈◊〉 in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of 〈…〉 to mr. g. the reflecter's defence of his letter to a fri●nd , against the 〈◊〉 assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholic letter . in 〈◊〉 dialogue 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature of idolat●● : in which 〈◊〉 bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolat●● considered 〈◊〉 confuted . 4 o. the protestant resolv'd : or , a discourse , ●hewing the ●●●easonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . second 〈◊〉 8 o. the absolute imp●●●●●ility of transubstantiation demonstrated . 4 o. the practical believer : or , the articles of the apostles creed . drawn out to form a true christian's heart and practice . in two parts . 4 o. a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy , d.d. and late minister of st. lawrence-iury , lond , ian. 7th , 1685 / 6. 4 o. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late p●●●phlet , intituled , an agreement 〈…〉 church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the 〈…〉 of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . 2d edition . a 〈…〉 against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearne● 〈…〉 to dispute with romish priests . the first 〈◊〉 the fourth 〈…〉 . t●● second part of the preservativ●●gainst popery : shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of unlearn●● protestants . the second editio● . a discourse concerning the nature ▪ unity and communi●●●● 〈…〉 catholick church : wherein 〈…〉 controversies 〈…〉 the church are briefly and plai●●y 〈…〉 the first part. these five last by 〈…〉 d. d. master 〈…〉 notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59899-e490 answer to preservative p. 4. ibid. answer p. 4. answer , p. 4. answer , p. 4. preserv . p. 9. answer to pres. p. 4. preservative considered , p. 11. preservative , part ● p. 11. answer to preser . p. 5. defence of pr●s . p. 7. preservat . consider . p. 13. a discourse conc●rning the nature and vnity of the catholick church . answ. to preserv . p. 6. preserv . part 1. p. 44 , 45. answer to prese●v . p. 6. preservat . p. 79. preserv . p. 80. answer , p. 7. preservat . considered , p. 40. preserv . considered , p. 42. pres. p. 72. answer p. 2. notes for div a59899-e6100 4 matth. 10. preserv . consid . p. 61. preserv . consid . p. 68. ibid. p. 70. ibid. p. 70. 2 cor. 4.18 . 11 john 25 , 26. preserv . consid . p. 86. p. 80. p. 80. ibid. pag. 19. pag. 79. pag. 81. pag. 79. pag. 85. ibid. pag. 81. p. 87. pag. 87. pag. 77. pag. 82. pag. 78. pag. 79. pag. 78. pag. 82. pag. 83. the case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved according to the doctrine of the holy scriptures by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1684 approx. 271 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 116 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59793 wing s3267 estc r5621 13489372 ocm 13489372 99742 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59793) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 99742) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 476:2) the case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved according to the doctrine of the holy scriptures by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [6], 221 p. printed for fincham gardiner ..., london : 1684. reproduction of original in the university of illinois (urbana-champaign campus). library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng government, resistance to. divine right of kings. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved , according to the doctrine of the holy scriptures . by will. sherlock , d. d. rector of st. george buttolph-lane , london . london : printed for fincham gardiner , at the white-horse in ludgate-street . 1684. to the right honourable francis lord guilford , lord keeper of the great seal of england , and one of his majesties most honourable privy council . my lord , i humbly beg leave to present to your lordships hands , a very plain discourse , but very necessary in such an age as this , wherein the principles of rebellion are openly profest and taught , and the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience , not confuted , but laught out of countenance . there ▪ have been indeed a great many excellent books writ upon this argument by learned men ; but i fear most of them are too learned for ordinary readers , who most need instruction , and are most easily poisoned with seditious ▪ doctrines ; and therefore there is still occasion enough ▪ for such a small treatise as this , which i hope is fitted to the understanding of the meanest men , who will be so honest , as impartially to consider it : and those who will not read nor consider , what is offered for their conviction , are out of the reach of all instruction , and must be governed by other methods . my lord , your lordships known loyalty and zeal for the service of the crown , which by the favour of a wise and discerning prince has deservedly advanced you to so high as station , made me presume , that such a present as this , though in ▪ it self very mean , might not be unacceptable to you , especially when it is intended as a publick acknowledgment ( the best which my mean circumstances in the world enable me to make ) of those great favours i have received from your lordship . that god would bless your lordship with a long life , and vigorous age , and encrease of honour , for the service of the king , and of the church , is the prayer of , my lord , your lordships most humble and most obedient servant ▪ w. sherlock . the case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved , according to the doctrine of the holy scriptures . the introduction . i presume , i need make no apologie for the seasonableness of this discourse at this time : for if e-ever it be fit to put people in mind of that subjection which they owe to the higher powers , no time can be more proper for it , than when we see the peace and security of publick government disturbed and endangered by popish and fanatick conspiracies , who like sampson's foxes , though they look very different ways , yet are tyed together by the tail with a firebrand between them ; and had not the good providence of god wonderfully appeared for the preservation of his anointed , i am sure it had been a very unseasonable time now to have treated on this subject ▪ and therefore , setting aside all apologies , i shall onely give a brief account of the designe of this following treatise . there are three ways of proving and confirming the doctrine of non-resistance , or subjection to soveraign princes . 1. by the testimonies of the holy scriptures . 2. by the doctrine and practice of the primitive christians . 3. by the fundamental constitutions of that particular government under which we live . i have considered the last , as much as was necessary to my purpose . the second i have not meddled with : for whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it , may consult that admirable discourse of archbishop usher , about the power of the prince , and the obedience of the subject ; which will not cost much money , nor take up much time to read it . but the designe i proposed to my self , was carefully to consider the testimonies of scripture , which are beyond all other authorities , and to vindicate them from the cavils and exceptions of the several patrons of resistance . and the whole discourse is divided into these following chapters . 1. the first contains the authorities of the old testament ; wherein i have plainly shewn , that god himself set up a soveraign and irresistible power in the iewish nation ; and that during all that time , it was unlawful for subjects , upon any pretence whatsoever , to resist their princes . 2. the second contains the doctrine of our saviour , concerning subjection to soveraign princes . 3. the third contains an account of our saviour's example in this matter . 4. the fourth considers what saint paul's doctrine was about subjection . 5. the fifth , the doctrine of saint peter . 6. the sixth contains an answer to the most popular objections against non-resistance . in examining the authorities of scripture , i have carefully considered whatever has been plausibly urged in defence of the doctrine of resistance , and reduced it under those particular texts which have been thought most to favour it : and i do not know of any thing material , which has been pleaded in this cause , which i have wholly omitted . possibly some may complain , that i have not observed the exact rules of art and method in this , to propose the question , to explain the terms of it , to produce my proofs , and then to answer the objections which are made against it . now this i must acknowledge in part to be true ; and i think this discourse never the less perfect for that . the proposition i undertake to prove , is this : that soveraign princes , or the supreme power in any nation , in whomsoever it is plac'd , is in all cases irresistible . this is a plain proposition , which needs no explanation : and the way i take to prove it , is as plain ; by producing the testimonies of scripture both of the old and new testament , as they lie in order , and shewing what power they grant to princes , and what obedience they require of subjects . this is the fairest way i could think on , to give my readers a full view of the doctrine of the scriptures in this matter ; and this was all i intended to do : for i am verily perswaded , that were men once convinced that resistance of princes is expresly contrary to the doctrine both of the old and new testament , it would be no easie matter , by any other arts or pretences , to draw the most fanatical and factious persons amongst us ( who retain any reverence for god ) into a rebellion . chap. i. wherein the unlawfulness of resisting the supreme powers is proved , from the authority of the old testament . to prove the unlawfulness of resistance , i shall begin with the old testament . now there is nothing more evident , than that god set up such a supreme and soveraign power in the iewish nation , as could not , and ought not to be resisted by the fundamental laws of their government . for this is all i am concerned at present to prove , that it is never lawful to resist the higher powers ; not that the supreme and soveraign power is always to be in a single person , but that wherever it is , it is irresistible , and that whenever this supreme power by the laws of the nation , is invested in a single person , such a prince must not upon any pretence whatsoever be resisted . the first governour god set over the children of israel , when he brought them out of the land of egypt , was moses ; and i think i need not prove how sacred and irresistible his authority was . this is sufficiently evident in the rebellion of korah , dathan , and abiram , against moses and aaron , when god caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow them up , 16 numbers . and lest this should be thought an extraordinary case , moses and aaron being extraordinary persons , immediately appointed by god , and governed by his immediate direction ; the apostle st. iude alleadges this example against those in his days , who were turbulent and factious , who despised dominions , and spake evil of dignities , that they should perish in the gainsaying of core , iud. v. 11. which he could not have done , had not this example extended to all ordinary , as well as extraordinary cases ; had it not been a lasting testimony of gods displeasure against all those , who oppose themselves against the soveraign powers . but moses was not always to rule over them , and therefore god expresly provides for a succession of soveraign power , to which they must all submit . the ordinary sovereign power of the iewish nation after moses his death , was devolved either on the high priest , or those extraordinary persons whom god was pleased to raise up , such as ioshua and the several iudges , till in samuels days it setled in their kings . for as for the iewish sanhedrim , whose power is so much extolled by the iewish writers , who are all of a late date , many years since the destruction of ierusalem , and therefore no competent witnesses of what was done so many ages before , it does not appear from any testimony of scripture , that there was any such court of iudicature , till after their return from the babylonish captivity . but yet god took care to secure the peace and good government of the nation , by appointing such a power as should receive the last appeals , and whose sentence in all controversies should be final , and uncontroulable , as you may see in the 17 deut. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 v. there were inferiour magistrates and iudges appointed in their several tribes and cities , which moses did by the advice of iethro his father-in-law , and by the approbation of god , exod. 18. but as the supreme power was still reserved in the hands of moses , while he lived , so it is here secured to the high priest , or iudges , after his death ; for it is expresly appointed , that if those inferiour iudges could not determine the controversie , they should come unto the priests , the levites , that is , the priests of the tribe of levi , ( who by the 12 ver . appears only to be the high priest ) and to the iudge that shall be in those days , that is , if it shall be at such a time , when there is an extraordinary judge raised by god , ( for there were not always such iudges in israel , as is evident to any one who reads the book of iudges ) and of them they should inquire , and they shall shew the sentence of iudgment ; and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place , ( which the lord shall choose ) shall shew thee , and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee . where the place which god shall choose , signifies the place which he should appoint for the ark of the covenant , and for the levitical worship ; which was the place where the high priest , and the chief iudge or ruler of israel , when there was any such person , had their ordinary residence ; which was at first at shilo , and afterwards at ierusalem . and what the authority of the chief priest , or of the iudge when there was one , was in those days , appears from v. 12. and the man that will do presumptuously , and will not hearken to the priest , ( that standeth to minister there before the lord thy god ) or unto the iudge , even that man shall die , and thou shalt put away the evil from israel . this is as absolute authority , as the most absolute monarch in the world can challenge , that disobedience to their last and final determination , what ever the cause be , shall be punisht with death : and what place can there be for resistance in such a constitution of government as this ? it is said indeed in v. 11. according to the sentence of the law , which they shall teach thee , and according to the judgment that they shall tell thee , thou shalt do . and hence some conclude , that they were not bound to abide by their sentence , nor were punishable , if they did not , but onely in such cases , when they gave sentence according to the law of god. but these men do not consider that the matter in controversie is supposed to be doubtful , and such as could not be determined by the inferiour courts , and therefore is submitted to the decision of the supreme iudge ; and as he determined , so they must do ; and no man , under the penalty of death , must presume to do otherwise : which takes away all liberty of judging from private persons , though this supreme iudge might possibly mistake in his judgment , as all humane iudicatures are liable to mistakes ; but it seems god ▪ almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final judgment , from whence there should be no appeal , notwithstanding the possibility of a mistake in it . so that there was a supreme and soveraign , that is , unaccountable and irresistible power in the iewish nation appointed by god himself : for indeed it is not possible that the publick peace and security of any nation should be preserved without it . and i think it is as plain , that when the iews would have a king , their kings were invested with this supreme and irresistible power : for when they desired a king , they did not desire a meer nominal and titular king , but a king to judge them , and to go out before them , and fight their battels ; that is , a king who had the supreme and soveraign authority , 1 sam. 8. 6. 19. 20. a king who should have all that power of government , excepting the peculiar acts of the priestly office , which either their high-priest or their iudges had before . and therefore when samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their king , 11 ver . though what he says does necessarily suppose the translation of the soveraign and irresistible power to the person of their king , yet it does not suppose that the king had any new power given him more than what was exercised formerly by their priests and iudges . he does not deter them from chusing a king , because a king should have greater power , and be more uncontroulable and irresistible than their other rulers were : for samuel himself had had as soveraign and irresistible a power as any king , being the supreme judge in israel , whose sentence no man could disobey or contradict , but he incurred the penalty of death , according to the mosaical law. but the reason why he disswades them from chusing a king , was because the external pomp and magnificence of kings was like to be very chargeable and oppressive to them . he will take your sons and appoint them for himself , for his chariots , and to be his horsemen , and some shall run before his chariots . and he will appoint him captains over thousands , and captains over fifties , and will set them to ear his ground , and to reap his harvest . and thus in several particulars he acquaints them what burdens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a king , which they were then free from : and if any prince should be excessive in such exactions , yet they had no way to help themselves ; they must not resist nor rebel against him , nor expect , that what inconvenience they might find in kingly government , god would relieve and deliver them from it , when once they had chose a king : ye shall cry out in that day , because of your king which ye have chosen you , and the lord will not hear you in that day , v. 18. that is , god will not alter the government for you again , how much soever you may complain of it . this , i say , is a plain proof that their kings were invested with that soveraign power which must not be resisted , though they oppress their subjects to maintain their own state , and the grandeur and magnificence of their kingdom . but i cannot think , that these words contain the original grant and charter of regal power , but only the translation of that power which was formerly in their high-priests or iudges to kings . kings had no more power than their other governours had : for there can be no power greater than that which is irresistible ; but this power in the hands of kings was likely to be more burdensome and oppressive to them , than it was in the hands of their priests and iudges ▪ by reason of their different way of living ; which is the onely argument samuel uses to dissuade them from transferring the supreme and soveraign power to princes . and therefore i rather choose to translate mishpat , as our translators do , by the manner of the king , than as other learned men do , by the right of the king , thereby understanding the original charter of kingly power : for it is not the regal power which samuel here blames , which is no other but the very same power which he himself had , while he was supreme iudge of israel , but their pompous way of living , which would prove very oppressive and burdensome to them , and be apt to make them complain , who had not been used to such exactions . and here before i proceed , give me leave to make a short digression in vindication of kingly government , which some men think is greatly disparaged by this story . for 1. it is evident that god was angry with the iews for desiring a king ; and declared his anger against them , by sending a violent tempest of thunder and rain in wheat-harvest ; which made them confess , that they had added to all their sins this evil , to ask a king , 1 sam. 12. 16 , 17. &c. from whence some conclude , that kingly power and authority is so far from being the original appointment and constitution of god , that it is displeasing to him . and 2. that samuel in describing the manner of the king , represents it as oppressive and uneasie to subjects , and much more burdensome , and less desirable than other forms of government . 1. as for the first , it must be acknowledged , that god was angry with the children of israel for asking a king : but then these men mistake the reason , which was not because god is an enemy to kingly government , but because he himself was the king of israel ; and by asking a king to go in and out before them , they exprest a dislike of gods government of them . thus god tells samuel , they have not rejected thee , but they have rejected me , that i should not reign over them , 1 sam. 8. 7. and thus samuel aggravates their sin , that they said , nay but a king shall reign over us ; when the lord your god was your king , 12 chap. 12. v. now the crime had been the same , had they set up an aristocratical or democratical government , as well as regal power , in derogation of gods government of them . their fault was not in choosing to be governed by a single person ; for so they had been governed all along , by moses and ioshua , by their high priests , or those other extraordinary iudges whom god had raised up , and at this very time by samuel himself ; for it is a great mistake to think that the jews , before they chose a king , were governed by a synedrial power , like an aristocracy or democracy , which there is not the least appearance of in all the sacred history ; for as for those persons whom moses by the advice of iethro set over the people , they were not a supreme or soveraign tribunal , but such subordinate magistrates as every prince makes use of for administring justice to the people . they were rulers of thousands , rulers of hundreds , rulers of fifties , rulers of tens , 18 exod. 21. and were so far from being one standing judicature , that they were divided among their several tribes and families : and were so far from being supreme , that moses still reserved all difficult cases , and last appeals , that is , the true soveraign power to himself , as it was afterwards by an express law reserved to the high priests , and iudges extraordinarily appointed : and there is so little appearance of this soveraign tribunal in samuels days , that he himself went in circuit every year , as our judges now do , to bethel and gilgal , and mizpeh , and judged israel , 1 sam. 7. 16. but the fault of israel in asking a king was this , that they preferred the government of a king , before the immediate government of god. for the understanding of which , it will be necessary to consider briefly , how gods government of israel differ'd from their government by kings . for when they had chose a king , did god cease to be the king of israel ? was not their king gods minister and vicegerent , as their rulers and judges were before ? was not the king god 's anointed ? and did he not receive the laws and rules of government from him ? yes , this is in some measure true , and yet the difference is very great . while god was the king of israel , though he appointed a supreme visible authority in the nation , yet the exercise of this authority was under the immediate direction and government of god. moses and ioshua did not stir a step , nor attempt any thing without gods order , no more than a menial servant does without the direction of his master . in times of peace , they were under the ordinary government of the high priest , who was god's immediate servant , who declared the law to them , and in difficult cases , referred the cause to god , who gave forth his answers by him : when they were opprest by their enemies , which god never permitted , but for their sins , when they repented and begged gods pardon and deliverance , god raised up some extraordinary persons endued with an extraordinary spirit , to fight their battels for them , and subdue their enemies , and to judge israel ; and these men did every thing by a divine impulse and inspiration , as moses and ioshua did . so that they were as immediately governed by god , as any man governs his own house and family . but when the government was put into the hands of kings , god in a great measure left the administration of it to the will and pleasure of princes , and to the methods of humane governments and policy . though god did immediately appoint saul , and afterwards david to be king , yet ordinarily the government descended not by god's immediate choice , but by the right of succession : and though some kings were prophets too , yet it was not often so ; they were not so immediately directed by god as the iudges of old were , but had their councels of state for advice in peace and war , and their standing armies and guards for the defence of their persons and government . they were indeed commanded to govern by the laws of moses , to consult the oracles of god in difficult cases , and god raised up extraordinary prophets to direct them , but still it was in their own power , whether they would obey the laws of god , or hearken to his prophets ; good kings did , and bad kings did not ; and therefore the government of israel by kings , was like other humane governments , lyable to all the defects and miscarriages which other governments are ; whereas while the government was immediately in god's hands , they did not only receive their laws , and external polity from him , but the very executive power was in god : for though it was administred by men , yet it was administred by god's immediate direction , with the most exact wisdom , justice and goodness . this was the sin of the iews , that they preferred the government of an earthly king , before having god for their king ; and this must be acknowledged to be a great fault , but it is such a fault , as no other nation was ever capable of , but only the iews , because god never vouchsafed to be king of any other nation in such a manner ; and therefore we must not compare kingly government , for there is no competition between them , with the government of god , but we must compare kingly government with any other form of humane government ; and then we have reason to believe , that notwithstanding god was angry with the iews , and this was a case peculiar to the iews for desiring a king , that yet he prefers kingly government before any other , because when he foresaw that the iews would in time grow weary of his government , he makes provision in their law , for setting up a king , not for setting up an aristocratical or democratical power , which their law makes no allowance for , as you may see , 17 deuter. 14. 2. another objection against kingly power and government , is , that samuel in this place represents it as very oppressive and burdensome to the subject . for what some men answer , that samuel speaks here only of the abuse of regal power , i think is not true ; for the meer abuse of power is no argument against it , because all kind and forms of power are lyable to be abused , and by this reason we should have no government at all . and it is evident , that samuel does not mention any one thing here , that can be called an abuse of power , nothing but what is absolutely necessary to maintain the state and magnificence of an imperial crown . for how can a prince subsist without officers and servants of all sorts , both men and women , both for the uses of his family , and the service of his government both in peace and war ? and how can this be maintained , but by a revenue proportionable to the expence ? and since none of them had such an estate , as to defray this charge themselves , whoever was to be chosen king , must have it from others , by publick grants and publick taxes , which he here expresses by taking their fields and their vineyards , and their olive-yards , the tenth of their fields , and their vineyards , and the tenth of their sheep , for himself and his servants , the tenth ●●●ng the usual tribute ▪ paid to the eastern kings . this is not an abuse of power , though some princes might be excessive in all this , but it is the manner of the king , that which is necessary to his royal state. there is nothing of all this forbid in 17 deuter. where god gives laws to the king ; and indeed to forbid this , would be to forbid kingly power , which cannot subsist without it . indeed i find some learned men mistaken in this matter ; for they take it for granted , that what samuel here calls the manner of the king , is such an abuse of power , as god had expresly forbid to kings in the 17 of deuter. 16 , 17. but why the abuse of regal power should be called the manner or the right of the king , is past my understanding . mishpat , however you translate it , must signifie something which is essential to kingly government , otherwise samuels argument against chusing a king had been sophistical and fallacious . for there is no form of government but is lyable to great abuses , when it falls into ill hands : and this they had experience of at this very time ; for the miscarriages of samuel's sons , was the great reason , why the people at this time desired a king ▪ 1 sam. 8. 3 , 4 , 5. and if we compare these two places together , what god forbids the king , with what samuel calls the manner of the king , we shall find nothing alike . in the 17 of deut. 16 , 17. v. god tells them , that their king shall not multiply horses to himself , nor cause the people to return into egypt , to the end that he should multiply horses , for as much as the lord hath said unto you , ye shall henceforth return no more that way . god would not allow them to have any commerce or intercourse with egypt , and therefore forbid their kings to multiply horses , with which egypt did abound , that there might be no new familiarity contracted with that idolatrous nation . neither shall he multiply wives to himself , that his heart turn not away . where multiplying wives seems plainly to refer to his taking wives of other nations and other religions , as appears from what is added , that his heart turn not away : that is , lest they should seduce him to idolatry , as we know solomon's wives did him , who are therefore said to turn away his heart , 1 kings 11. 3 , 4. neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold . for such a covetous humour would mightily tempt him to oppress his subjects . this is all that god expresly forbids their kings , when they should have any . but now samuel in describing the manner of the king , takes no notice of any thing of all this , but only tells them , that their king would appoint out fit persons for his service of their sons and daughters , that they should pay tribute to him , and should themselves be his servants ; not as servants signifies flaves and vassals , but subjects , who owe all duty and service to their prince as far as he needs them . but what is it then that samuel finds fault with in kingly power , & which he uses as an argument to dissuade the children of israel from desiring a king ? why it is no more , than the necessary expences and services of kingly power , which would be thought very grievous to them , who were a free people , and at that time subject to no publick services and exactions . the government they then lived under was no charge at all to them they were governed , as i observed before , either by their high priest , or by iudges extraordinarily raised by god. as for their high priests , god himself had allotted their maintenance sutable to the quality and dignity of their office ; and therefore they were no more charge to the people when they were their supreme governors , than they were , when the power was in other hands , either in the hands of iudges or kings . as for their iudges whom god raised up , they affected nothing of royal greatness , they had no servants or retinue , standing guards or armies to maintain their authority , which was secured by that divine power with which they acted , not by the external pomp and splendour of a court. thus we find moses appealing to god in the rebellion of korah , i have not taken one ass from them , neither have i hurt any of them , 16 numbers 15. and thus samuel appeals to the children of israel themselves , behold , here i am , witness against me before the lord , and before his anointed ; whose oxe have i taken ? or whose ass have i taken ? or whom have i defrauded ? whom have i oppressed ? or of whose hands have i received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith ? and i will restore it , 1 sam. 12. 3. now a people , who lived so free from all tributes , exactions , and other services due to princes , must needs be thought sick of ease and liberty , to exchange so cheap , so free a state , for the necessary burdens and expences of royal power , though it were no more than what is necessary ; which is the whole of samuels argument , not that kingly government is more expensive and burdensome than any other form of humane government , but that it was to bring a new burden upon themselves , when they had none before . no humane governments , whether democracies or aristocracies , can subsist , but upon the publick charge ; and the necessary expences of kingly power are not greater than of a commonwealth . i am sure this kingdom did not find their burdens eased by pulling down their king ; and i believe , whoever acquaints himself with the several forms of government , will find kingly power to be as easie upon this score , as commonwealths . so that what samuel discourses here , and which some men think so great a reflection upon kingly government , does not at all concern us , but was peculiar to the state and condition of the iews at that time . let us then proceed to consider how sacred and irresistible the persons and authority of kings were under the iewish government ; and there cannot be a plainer example of this , than in the case of david . he was himself anointed to be king after saul's death , but in the mean time was grievously persecuted by saul , pursued from one place to another , with a designe to take away his life . how now does david behave himself in this extremity ? what course does he take to secure himself from saul ? why he takes the onely course that is left a subject ; he flies for it , and hides himself from saul in the mountains and caves of the wilderness ; and when he found he was discovered in one place , he removes to another : he kept spies upon saul to observe his motions , not that he might meet him to give him battel , or to take him at an advantage ; but that he might keep out of his way , and not fall unawares into his hands . well , but this was no thanks to david , because he could do no otherwise . he was too weak for saul , and not able to stand against him ; and therefore had no other remedy but flight . but yet we must consider , that david was a man of war , he slew goliah , and fought the battels of israel with great success ; he was an admired and beloved captain , which made saul so jealous of him ; the eyes of israel were upon him for their next king , and how easily might he have raised a potent and formidable rebellion against saul ! but he was so far from this , that he invites no man to his assistance ; and when some came uninvited , he made no use of them in an offensive or defensive war against saul . nay , when god delivered saul two several times into david's hands , that he could as easily have killed him , as have cut off the skirts of his garment at engedi , 1 sam. 24. or as have taken that spear away which stuck in the ground at his bolster , as he did in the hill of hachilah , 1 sam. 26. yet he would neither touch saul himself , nor suffer any of the people that were with him to do it , though they were very importunate with him for liberty to kill saul ; nay , though they urged him with an argument from providence , that it was a plain evidence that it was the will of god that he should kill saul , because god had now delivered his enemy into his hands , according to the promise he had made to david , 1 sam. 24. 4. 26 ch . ver . 8. we know what use some men have made of this argument of providence , to justifie all the villanies they had a mind to act : but david , it seems , did not think that an opportunity of doing evil , gave him license and authority to do it . opportunity , we say , makes a thief , and it makes a rebel , and it makes a murderer : no man can do any wickedness , which he has no opportunity of doing ; and if the providence of god , which puts such opportunities into mens hands , justifies the wickedness they commit , no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does ; and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin , as rebellion and the murder of princes . we are to learn our duty from the law of god , not from his providence ; at least , this must be a setled principle , that the providence of god will never justifie any action which his law forbids . and therefore , notwithstanding this opportunity which god had put into his hands to destroy his enemy , and to take the crown for his reward , david considers his duty , remembers , that though saul were his enemy , and that very unjustly , yet he was the lords anointed . the lord forbid , says he , that i should do this unto my master the lords anointed . to stretch forth my hand against him , seeing he is the lords anointed . nay , he was so far from taking away his life , that his heart smore him for cutting off the skirt of his garment . and we ought to observe the reason david gives , why he durst not hurt saul , because he was the lords anointed ; which is the very reason the apostle gives in the 13 rom. 1 , 2. because the powers are ordained of god ; and he that resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god. for to be anointed of god , signifies no more than that he was made king by god. thus iosephus expounds being anointed by god , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one who had the kingdom bestowed on him by god ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one who was ordained by god. for it seems by this phrase , he look'd upon the external ceremony of anointing to be like imposition of hands , which in other cases consecrated persons to peculiar offices . for this external unction was onely a visible signe of gods designation of them to such an office ; and when that was plain , they were as much god's anointed without this visible unction as with it . cyrus is called god's anointed , though he never was anointed by any prophet , but onely designed for his kingdom by prophesie , 45 isai. 1. and we never read in scripture , that any kings had this external unction , who succeeded in the kingdom by right of inheritance , unless the title and succession were doubtful ; and yet they were the lord 's anointed too , that is , were plac'd in the throne by him . so that this is an eternal reason against resisting soveraign princes , that they are set up by god , and invested with his authority ; and therefore their persons and their authority are sacred . but yet there are some men , who from the example of david , think they can prove the lawfulness of a defensive , though not of an offensive war. for david , when he fled from saul , made himself captain of four hundred men , 1 sam. 22. 2. which number soon increased to six hundred , 1 sam. 23. 13. and still every day increased by new additions , 1 chron. 12. 1. now why should he entertain these men , but to defend himself against the forces of saul ? that is , to make a defensive war whenever he was assaulted by him . 1. in answer to this , i observe , that david invited none of these men after him , but they came volunteers after a beloved captain and general ; which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself , when such numbers resorted to him of their own accord . 2. when he had them , he never used them for any hostile acts against saul , or any of his forces ; he never stood his ground , when he heard saul was coming , but always fled , and his men with him ; men who were never used to flie , and were very ready to have served him against saul himself , would he have permitted them . and i suppose they will not call this a defensive war , to flie before an enemy , and to hide themselves in caves and mountains : and yet this was the onely defensive war which david made with all his men about him : nay , all that he would make , and all that he could make , according to his professed principles , that it was not lawful to stretch out his hand against the lord 's anointed . and when these men are pursued , as david was , by an enraged and jealous prince , we will not charge them with rebellion , though they flie before him by thousands in a company . 3. yet there was sufficient reason why david should entertain these men , who voluntarily resorted to him , though he never intended to use them against saul : for some of them served for spies to observe saul's motions , that he might not be surprized by him , but have timely notice to make his escape . and the very presence of such a number of men about him , without any hostile act , preserved him from being seized on by some officious persons , who otherwise might have delivered him into saul's hands . and he being anointed by samuel to be king after saul's death , this was the first step to his kingdom , to have such a retinue of valiant men about him ; which made his advancement to the throne more easie , and discouraged any oppositions which might otherwise have been made against him ; as we see it proved in the event , and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by god for that very end . it is certain , that gad the prophet , and abiathar the priest , who was the onely man who escaped the furie of saul when he destroyed the priests of the lord , were in david's retinue ; and that david enterprized nothing , without first asking counsel of god : but he who had anointed him to be king , now draws forces after him , which after saul's death should facilitate his advancement to the kingdom . 2. it is objected further , that david intended to have staied in keilah , and to have fortified it against saul , had not he been informed that the men of the citie would have saved themselves by delivering him up to saul , 1 sam. 23. now to maintain any strong hold against a prince , is an act of war , though it be but a defensive war. and i grant it is so , but deny that there is any appearance that david ever intended any such thing . david and his men , by god's appointment and direction , had fought with the philistins , and smote them with a great slaughter , and saved keilah from them ; and as it is probable , did intend to have staied some time in keilah . but david had heard that saul intended to come against keilah , to destroy the citie , and take him ; and enquires of the lord about it , and received an answer , that saul would come against the citie . he enquires again , whether the men of keilah would deliver him up to saul , and was answered , that they would . and upon this , he and his men leave keilah , and betake themselves to the strong holds in the wilderness . but now is it likely , that if david had had any designe to have fortified keilah against saul , he would have been afraid of the men of the citie ? he had 600 men with him in keilah , a victorious armie , which had lately destroyed the philistins who oppressed them ; and therefore could easily have kept the men of keilah too in awe , if he had pleased , and have put it out of their power to deliver him to saul . but all that david designed was , to have staid there as long as he could , and , when saul had drawn nigh , to have removed to some other place : but when he understood the treacherous inclinations of the men of keilah , and being resolved against all acts of hostilitie , he hastened his remove before saul drew near . so that these men must find some other example than that of david , to countenance their rebellion against their prince : for david never rebelled , never fought against saul ; but when he had a very potent armie with him , he and his men always fled , and hid themselves in the wilderness , and places of difficult access . the sum is this : god from the very beginning , set up such a supreme and soveraign power in the iewish nation , as could not , as ought not to be resisted . this power was at first in the hands of moses ; and when korah and his companie rebelled against him , god vindicated his authoritie by a miraculous destruction of those rebels : for the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up . afterward , when they came into canaan , the ordinary exercise of this power was in their high-priests and iudges , whom god raised up ; whose sentence and judgment was final , and must not be resisted , under penaltie of death ▪ when the children of israel desired a king , this soveraign and irresistible power was transferred to him , and setled in his person . saul was the first king who was chosen by god , and anointed by samuel ; but for his disobedience , was afterwards rejected by god , and david the son of iesse was anointed king to succeed after saul's death : but in the mean time david was persecuted by saul , who sought after his life . and though he himself was anointed by god , and saul was rejected by him , yet he durst not resist nor oppose him , nor defend himself by force against the most unjust violence ; but fled for his life , and hid himself in caves and mountains . nay , when saul was delivered into his hands by god , he durst not stretch out his hand against the lord 's anointed . but to proceed in the story . solomon , david's son , who succeeded him in his kingdom , did all those things which god had expresly forbid the king to do . he sent into egypt for horses , 1 kings 10. 28. he multiplied wives , and loved many strange women , ( together with the daughter of pharoah ) women of the moabites , ammonites , edomites , zidonians , and hittites , 1 kings 11. 1. he multiplied silver and gold , 10 chap. 27. contrary to the command of god. for this god ( who is the onely judge of soveraign princes ) was very angry with him , and threatens to rend the kingdom from him ; which was afterwards accomplished in the days of rehoboam : but yet this did not give authoritie to his subjects to rebel . if to be under the direction and obligation of laws , makes a limited monarchie , it is certain the kingdom of israel was so . there were some things which the king was expresly forbid to do , as you have already heard ; and the law of moses was to be the rule of his government , the standing law of his kingdom . and therefore he was commanded , when he came to the throne , to write a copy of the law with his own hand , and to read in it all his days , that he might learn to fear the lord his god , and to keep all the words of this law , and these statutes to do them , 17 deut. 18 , 19 , 20. and yet he was a soveraign prince : if he broke these laws , god was his judge and avenger ; but he was accountable to no earthly tribunal . baasha killed nadab the son of ieroboam , and reigned in his stead , 1 kings 15. 25 , 26 , 27. and for this and his other sins , god threatens evil against baasha , and against his house , 16 chron. 7. zimri slew elah the son of baasha , and slew all the house of baasha ; but he did not long enjoy the kingdom , which he had usurpt by treason and murder : for he reigned but seven days in tirzah ; which being besieged and taken by omri , he went into the palace of the king's house , and burnt the king's house over him with fire , and died , v. 18. this example iezebel threatned iehu with : had zimri peace , who slew his master ? 2 kings 9. 31. and yet nadab and elah were both of them very wicked princes . and if that would justifie treason and murder , both baasha and zimri had been very innocent . this is a sufficient evidence , how sacred and inviolable the persons and authority of the iewish kings were , during the time of that monarchie . but it will not be amiss , briefly to consider what obligations the iews were under to be subject to the higher powers , when they were carried captive into babylon . now the prophet ieremiah had given an express command to them , seek the peace of the city whither i have caused you to be carried away captives , and pray to the lord for it : for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace , 29 jer. 7. which made it a necessary duty to be subject to those powers , under whose government they lived . and accordingly we find , that mordecai discovered the treason of bigthana and teresh , two of the king's chamberlains , the keepers of the door , who sought to lay hand on the king ahasuerus , 6 esther 2. and how numerous and powerful the iews were at this time , and what great disturbance they could have given to the empire , appears evidently from the book of esther . king ahasuerus ; upon the suggestions of haman , had granted a decree for the destruction of the whole people of the iews ; which was sent into all the provinces , written and sealed with the king's ring . this decree could never be reversed again ; for that was contrary to the laws of the medes and persians . and therefore when esther had found favour with the king , all that could be done for the iews , was to grant another decree for them to defend themselves ; which accordingly was done , and the effect of it was this : that the iews at shusan slew three hundred men , and the iews of the other provinces slew seventy and five thousand , and rested from their enemies , 9 esther 15 , 16 , 17. without this decree , mordecai did not think it lawful to resist , ( which yet was a case of as great extremity and barbarous cruelty , as could ever happen ) which made him put esther upon so hazardous an attempt , as to venture into the king's presence , without being called ; which was death by their law , unless the king should graciously hold out the golden scepter to them , 4 esth. 11. and yet when they had obtained this decree , they were able to defend themselves , and to destroy their enemies ; which is as famous an example of passive obedience , as can be met with in any history . and therefore the prophet daniel acknowledges to belteshazzar , the most high god gave nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom , and majesty , and glory , and honour : and for the majesty that he gave him , all people , nations , and languages trembled and feared before him . whom he would he slew , and whom he would he kept alive ; and whom he would be set up , and whom he would he pulled down , 5 dan. 18 , 19. and if these heathen kings receive their power from god , as the prophet here affirms , st. paul has made the application of it , that he that resisteth , resisteth the ordinance of god. this may serve for the times of the old testament ; and i shall conclude these testimonies with the saying of the wise man , who was both a prophet and a king : i counsel thee to keep the king's commandment , and that in regard of the oath of god : be not hasty to go out of his sight , stand not in an evil thing ; for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him . where the word of a king is , there is power ; and who may say unto him , what dost thou ? 8 eccl. 2 , 3 , 4. chap. ii. the doctrine of christ concerning non-resistance . let us now consider , what christ and his apostles taught and practised about obedience to soveraign princes ; whereby we may learn , how far christians are obliged by these laws of subjection and non-resistance . 1. i shall distinctly consider the doctrine of christ while he lived on earth : and here are several things very fit to be observed . 1. we have no reason to suspect , that christ would alter the rights of soveraign power , and the measures of obedience and subjection , which were fixt and determined by god himself . this was no part of his commission , to change the external forms and polities of civil governments , which is an act of secular power and authority , and does not belong to a spiritual prince . he who would not undertake to decide a petty controversie , or to divide an inheritance between two contending brethren , 12 luke 13 , 14. can we think that he would attempt any thing of that vast consequence , as the changes and alterations of civil power , which would have unsetled the fundamental constitutions of all the governments of the world at that time ? our saviour tells us , that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets , but to fulfil it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to fill it up , to compleat and perfect it , 5 matth. 17. that is , to fulfil the ancient types and prophecies in his own person , to perfect an external and ceremonial , by a real and evangelical righteousness , to perfect the moral laws with new instances and degrees of vertue ; but he abrogated no moral law , and therefore not the laws of obedience and subjection to princes , which has always been reduced to the fifth commandment . nay , he abrogated no laws , but by perfecting and fulfilling them ; and therefore he could make no alteration in the doctrine of non-resistance , which is as perfect subjection as can or ought to be paid to soveraign princes . his kingdom was not of this world , as he told pilate : though he was a king , he neither was an enemy nor rival to caesar ; but had he absolved his disciples from their obedience to princes , had he made it in any case lawful to resist , ( which was so expresly forbid the iews by god himself , and which is such a contradiction to the very notion of soveraign power ) he had been somewhat worse than a rival to all the princes of the earth ; for though he had set up no kingdom of his own , yet he had pulled down theirs . whereas he took great care , that his religion should give no disturbance to the world , nor create any reasonable jealousies and suspicions to princes , who had been very excusable for their aversion to christianity , had it invaded the rights and royalties of their crowns . this makes it very improbable that our saviour should make any alterations in civil powers , or abridge the rights of soveraignty ; which is so foreign to his design of coming into the world , and so incongruous to the person which he sustained : and yet he could not alter the duties of subjects , but he must alter the rights of princes too ; he must take away the soveraign power of princes , at the same time that he makes it lawful for subjects in any case whatsoever to resist . we may safely then conclude , that our saviour has left the government of the world as he found it : he has indeed given such admirable laws , as will teach princes to govern , and subjects to obey better ; which is the most effectual way to secure the publick peace and happiness , to prevent the oppression of subjects , and rebellions against princes : but he has not interposed in new modelling the governments of the world , which is not of such consequence , as some men imagine . it is not the external form of government , but the fatherly care and prudence and justice of governours , and the dutiful obedience of subjects , which can make any people happy . if princes and subjects be good christians , they may be happy under most forms of government ; if they be not , they can be happy under none . had our saviour given subjects liberty to resist , to depose , to murder tyrannical princes , he had done them no kindness at all ; for to give liberty to subjects to resist , is only to proclaim an universal licence to factions and seditions , and civil wars ; and if any man can think this such a mighty blessing to the world , yet me thinks it is not a blessing proper for the prince of peace to give . but he who instructs princes to rule as god's ministers and vicegerents , and to express a fatherly care and concernment for the happiness of their subjects , and that teaches subjects to reverence and obey their prince , as the image of god , and quietly to submit and yield to his authority , and that inforces th●se laws both on princes and subjects in the name and authority of god , and from the consideration of the future judgment , when princes who abuse their power shall give an account of it to their great master , when subjects who resist shall receive to themselves damnation , and those , who patiently and quietly suffer for god's sake , shall have their injuries redrest , and their obedience rewarded : i say , such a person as this , takes a more effectual course to reform the abuses of civil power , and to preserve good government in the world , than all our wise politicians and state-menders , who think to reform the government of the world , by some statespells and charms , without reforming those who govern , and those who are governed . this our saviour has done , and this is the best thing that could be done , nay this was all that he could do in this matter . he never usurpt any civil power and authority , and therefore could not new model the governments of the world : he never offers any external force and compulsion to make men obey his laws , and therefore neither forces princes to rule well , nor subjects to obey ; but he has taken the same care of the government of the world , as he has done of all the other duties of piety and vertue ; that is , he has given very good laws , and threatned those who break them with eternal punishments : and as the laws and religion of our saviour prevail , so will the governments of the world mend , without altering the model and constitution of them . 2. but yet we have some positive evidence , what our saviour taught about obedience to the higher powers . i shall give you two instances of it , which are as plain and express , as can be desired . 1. the first is , that answer our saviour gave to the pharisees and herodians , when they consulted together to intangle him in his talk , 22 matth. 15. &c. they come to him with great ceremony and address , as to an infallible oracle , to consult him in a very weighty case of conscience . they express a great esteem and assurance of his sincerity , and faithfulness , and courage , as well as of his unerring judgment , in declaring the will of god to them . master , we know that thou art true , and teachest the way of god in truth , neither carest thou for any man , for thou regardest not the person of man ; that is , thou wilt not conceal nor pervert the truth for fear nor favour : and then they propose an insnaring question to him . tell us therefore , what thinkest thou ? is it lawful to give tribute to caesar , or not ? they thought it impossible that he should give any answer to this , which would not make him abnoxious , either to the roman governours , if he denied that the iews might lawfully pay tribute to caesar , or to the pharisees and people , if he affirmed that they might : for there was a very potent faction among them , who thought it unlawful for the iews to own the authority or usurpations of any foreign prince , or to pay tribute to him , as to their king. they being expresly forbid by their law , to set a stranger over them for their king , who is not their brother , ( i. e , ) who is not a natural iew , 17 deuter. 15. and it seems they could not distinguish between their own voluntary act in choosing a stranger for their king , [ which was indeed forbid by their law ] and their submitting to a foreign prince , when they were conquered by him . our saviour , who knew their wicked intention in all this , that they did not come with an honest design to be instructed in their duty , but to seek an advantage against him , expresses some indignation at it : why tempt ye me , ye hypocrites ? but yet to return them an answer to that their question , he bids them shew him the tribute-money , that is , the money in which they used to pay tribute , and inquires whose image and superscription it had . for coining of money was as certain a mark of soveraignty , as making laws , or the power of the sword. well , they acknowledge that the image and superscription on the tribute-money was coesars ; upon which he replies , render therefore unto coesar the things that are coesars , and unto god the things that are god's . the plain meaning of which answer is this , that since by the very impression on their money , it is evident , that coesar is their sovereign lord , they must render to him all the rights of soveraignty , among which tribute is one , as st. paul tells us , render therefore unto all their dues , tribute to whom tribute is due , custom to whom custom , fear to whom fear , honour to whom honour . 13 rom. 7. whatever is due to soveraign princes , and does not interfere with their duty to god , that they must give to coesar , who at this time was their soveraign . in which answer there are several things observable . 1. that our saviour does not examine into coesar's right , nor how he came by this soveraign power ; but as he found him in possession of it , so he leaves him , and requires them to render to him all the rights of soveraignty . 2. that he does not particularly determine , what the things of coesar are , that is , what his right is , as a soveraign prince . hence some men conclude , that this text can prove nothing ; that we cannot learn from it , what our saviour's judgment was in this point ; that it is only a subtil answer , which those who askt the question could make nothing of ; which was a proper return to their ensnaring question . this , i think , is as great a reproach to our saviour , as they can well cast upon him , that he , who was the wisdom of god , the great prophet and teacher of mankind , should return as sophistical and doubtful answers , as the heathen oracles , and that in a case , which required , and would admit a very plain answer . it is true , many times our saviour , when he discourst of what concerned his own person , or the mysteries of his kingdom , which were not fit at that time to be publisht in plain terms , used a mystical language ; as when he called his body the temple , or he taught them by parables , which were not obvious at the first hearing , but still what he said , had a certain and determined sense , and what was obscure and difficult , he explained privately to his apostles , that in due time they might explain it to others ; but to assert , as these men must do , that christ gave them such an answer as signifyed nothing , and which he intended they should understand nothing by , shews that they are not so civil to our saviour as these pharisees and herodians were , who at least owned in complement , master , we know that thou art true , and teachest the way of god in truth , neither carest thou for any man , for thou regardest not the person of men . but certainly the pharisees did believe , that there was something in our saviour's answer ; for they marvelled , and left him , and went their way : and yet those who had wit enough to ask such ensnaring questions , could not be so dull as to be put off with a sophistical answer , ( an art below the gravity of our saviours person and office ) but would have urged it a little further , had they not been sensible , that they were sufficiently answered , and had nothing to reply . for indeed , can any thing be plainer than our saviour's answer ? they ask him , whether it were lawful to pay tribute to coesar ; he does not indeed in express words say , that they should pay tribute to coesar , but he gives them such an answer , as withal convinc'd them of the reason and necessity of it . he asks whose image and superscription was on the tribute-money ; they tell him coesar's ; from whence he infers , render therefore unto coesar the things that are coesar's . therefore ? wherefore ? because the tribute-money had coesar's image on it ; therefore they must render to coesar the things that are coesar's ; which certainly signifies , that tribute was one of those things which belonged to coesar , and must be rendred to him , as appeared by it's having coesar's image : not as if every thing that had coesar's mark and stamp on it , did belong to coesar , and must be given to him , ( as some men profanely enough , how wittily soever they imagine , burlesque and ridicule our saviour's answer ) for at this rate all the money of the empire , which bore his image , was coesar's ; but the money which was stampt with coesar's image , and was the currant money of the nation , was a plain sign , as i observed before , that he was their soveraign , and paying tribute was a known right due to soveraign princes ; and therefore the very money which they used , with coesar's image on it , resolved that question , not only of the lawfulness , but the necessity of paying tribute : and this was so plain an answer , that the pharisees were ashamed of their question , and went away without making any reply ; for they no more dared to deny that coesar was their king , than they thought he dared either to own or deny the lawfulness of paying tribute to coesar . and this was all the subtilty of our saviour's answer . but then our saviour not confining his answer meerly to the case of paying tribute , but answering in general , that we must render to coesar the things that are coesar's , extends this to all the rights of soveraign princes , and so becomes a standing rule in all cases , to give to coesar what is coesar's due . and when our saviour commands us to render to coesar the things which are coesar's , without telling us what coesar's things are , this is so far from making his answer doubtful and ambiguous , and of no use in this present controversie , that it suggests to us three plain and natural consequences , which are sufficient to end this whole dispute . 1. that our saviour did not intend to make any alteration in the rights of soveraignty , but what rights he found soveraign princes possest of , he leaves them in the quiet possession of ; for had he intended to make any change in this matter , he would not have given such a general rule , to render to coesar the things which are coesar's , without specifying what these things are . 2. and therefore he leaves them to the known laws of the empire to determine what is coesar's right . whatever is essential to the notion of soveraing power , whatever the laws and customs of nations determine to be coesar's right , that they must render to him ; for he would make no alteration in this matter . so that subjection to princes , and non-resistance , is as plainly determined by our saviour in this law , as paying tribute ; for subjection and non-resistance is as essential a right of soveraign power , and as inseparable from the notion of it , as any thing can be . so it is acknowledged by the laws and customs of nations , and so it is determined by the apostle st. paul , as i shall shew hereafter . 3. i observe farther , that when our saviour joyns our duty to our prince , with our duty to our god , render to coesar the things which are coesars , and to god the things which are god's , he excepts nothing from coesar's right , which by the laws of nations is due to sovereign princes , but what is a violation of , and an encroachment on gods right and soveraignty ; that is , we must pay all that obedience and subjection to princes which is consistent with our duty to god. this is the onely limit our saviour sets to our duty to princes . if they should command us to renounce our religion , and worship false gods ; if they should challenge divine honours to themselves , as some of the roman emperours did ; this we must not do , because it is to renounce obedience and subjection to god , who has a more soveraign power , and a greater right in us , than our prince : but all active and passive obedience , which is consistent with a good conscience towards god , and required of us by the laws of our country , and the essential rights of soveraignty , is what we owe to our prince , and what by our saviour's command we must render to him . this i hope is sufficient for the explication of our saviour's answer to the pharisees and herodians , which evidently contains the doctrine of obedience and subjection to princes , enforced on us by the authority of our saviour himself . 2. our saviour's rebuke to st. peter , when he drew his sword and struck a servant of the high priest and smote off his ear , is as plain a declaration against resistance , as words can make it , 26 mat. 52. then said iesus unto him , put up thy sword into his place : for all they that take the sword , shall perish with the sword . for the understanding of which , we must consider upon what occasion st. peter drew his sword : for we must not think that our saviour does absolutely forbid the use of the sword ; which is to destroy all civil governments , and the power of princes , and to proclaim impunity to all the villanies which were committed in the world . the sword is necessary to punish wickedness , and to protect the innocent . in the hands of princes it is an instrument of justice , as st. paul tells us , that they bear not the sword in vain but are the ministers of god , revengers to execute wrath upon him that doth evil , 13 rom. 4. in the hands of private persons it may be lawfully used in self-defence . thus our saviour , a little before his crucifixion , gave commission to his disciples to furnish themselves with swords , though they parted with their garment for the purchase , 22 luke 36. which we may suppose was not designed as a meer modish and fashionable thing , but to defend themselves from the private assaults of robbers , and such-like common enemies , who , as iosephus tells us , were very numerous at that time . for no man wants authority to defend his life against him who has no authority to take it away . but the case of st. peter was very different : he drew his sword indeed in his master's defence , but against a lawful authority . the officers of the chief priests and pharisees came with iudas to the place where iesus was , to seize on him . this was a lawful authority , though employed upon a very unjust errand ; but authority must not be resisted , though in defence of the greatest innocence . men who draw their swords against lawful powers , shall perish with the sword . which does not signifie what the event shall always be , but what is the desert and merit of the action ▪ rebels may sometimes be prosperous , but they always deserve punishment ; and if they escape the sword in this world ▪ st. paul tells us , they shall receive damnation in the next . what can be said more expresly against resistance than this ? st. peter never could have drawn his sword in a better cause , never in the defence of a more sacred person . if we may defend oppress'd innocence against a lawful authority , if we may oppose unjust and illegal violence , if any obligations of friendship , gratitude , or religion it self could justifie resistance , st. peter had not met with this rebuke . what , should he tamely suffer his lord and master to be betrayed , the most admirable example of universal righteousness and goodness that ever appeared in the world ? shall one who had done no evil , who had neither offended against the laws of god nor men , who had spent his whole time in doing good , be so barbarously used , and treated like the vilest malefactor ? shall he who was so famous for miracles , who gave eyes to the blind , and feet to the lame ? shall he who was the great prophet sent from god to instruct the world , shall their dear master be haled away from them , and they stand by , and see it , & suffer it ? thus might s. peter have argued for himself . but though it was a very unjust action , yet it was done by a just authority : and lawful powers must not be resisted , though it were in defence of the saviour of the world . and if st. peter might not use the sword in defence of christ's person , there is much less pretence to fight for his religion : for though some call this fighting for religion , it is onely fighting for themselves . men may keep their religion , if they please , in despite of earthly powers ; and therefore no powers can hurt religion , though they may persecute the professors of it : and therefore when men take up arms to avoid persecution , it is not in defence of religion , but of themselves , that is , to avoid their suffering for religion . and if st. peter might not fight to preserve christ himself , certainly neither he nor we might take up arms to defend our selves from persecution . christ was the first martyr for his own religion ; his person was infinitely more sacred and inviolable than any of us can pretend to be . and if st. peter must not fight for christ , certainly we must not fight for our selves , though we absurdly enough call it fighting for our religion . and who were these powers st. peter resisted ? they were onely the servants and officers of the high-priest . the high-priest did not appear there himself ; much less pilate , much less caesar : and yet our saviour rebukes st. peter for resisting the inferiour officers , though they offered the most unjust and illegal violence . it seems , he did not understand our modern distinctions between the person and the authority of the prince ; that though his person be sacred , and must not be toucht , yet his ministers , who act by his authority , may be opposed . we may fight his navies , and demolish his garrisons , and kill his subjects , who fight for him , though we must not touch his person . but he is a mock prince , whose authority is confined to his own person , who can do nothing more than what he can do with his two hands ; which cannot answer the ends of government . a prince is not meerly a natural , but a political person , and his personal authority reaches as far as his commission does . his officers and ministers of state , and commanders , and souldiers , are his hands , and eyes , and ears , and legs ; and he who resisteth those who act by his commission , may as properly be said to resist the personal authority of the prince , as if he himself were present in his natural person , as well as by his authority . thus our saviour , it seems , thought , when he rebuked st. peter for striking a servant of the high-priest , and smiting off his ear . and if s. peter were rebuk'd for this , how comes the pope to challenge the sword in s. peter's right , when our saviour would not allow s. peter to use it himself ? and if st. peter might not draw his sword against an inferiour officer , by what authority does the pope pretend to dispose of crowns and scepters , and to trample on the necks of the greatest monarchs ? and i suppose the presbyter can challenge no more authority than the pope . whether they will allow st. peter to have been a bishop or presbyter , this command to put up his sword , equally concerns him in all capacities , and ought to secure soveraign princes from the unjust usurpations and treacherous conspiracies both of geneva and rome . there is but one objection , that i know of , against all this from the doctrine of our saviour , and that is , that he seems to disallow that very authority which is exercised by secular princes ; and therefore cannot be thought such a severe preacher of obedience & subjection : for authority and subjection are correlates , they have a mutual respect to each other ; and therefore they must stand or fall together . there is no authority where there is no subjection due , & there can be no subjection due where there is no authority . and yet this is the doctrine which christ taught his disciples , 20 mat. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 v. ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them , and they that are great , exercise authority upon them . but it shall not be so among you : but whosoever will be great among you , let him be your minister . and whosoever will be chief among you , let him be your servant . even as the son of man came not to be ministred unto , but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many . this text has been press'd to serve as many ill purposes , as most texts in the bible ; and therefore deserves to be carefully considered . some hence infer , that it is unlawful for a christian to be a magistrate , or a king. as if our saviour either intended that humane societies should be deprived of the advantages of government , which is the greatest temporal blessing and security to mankind ; or had made it necessary that some men should continue heathens and infidels , that they might govern christians : which i doubt would be a sore temptation to many to renounce christianity , if they could gain a temporal crown by it . others from hence conclude , that there must be no superiority of degree between the ministers of the gospel , but they must be all equal ; as if because the apostles were to be all equal , without any superiority over each other , therefore they were to have no superiority over inferiour ministers . as if because the apostles might not exercise such a secular power and soveraignty as the kings of the gentiles did , therefore there must be no different degrees of power in the ministers of the church ; that is , that because secular and spiritual power differ in the whole kind , therefore there are no different-degrees of spiritual power . as if christ himself were not superiour to his apostles , because he did not assume to himself the secular authority of earthly princes , but came not to be ministred unto , but to minister , as he commands them to do according to his example . others conclude , that at least christian princes must not usurp such a soveraign , and absolute , and uncontroulable power as the princes of the gentiles did , but must remember that they are but the publick servants and ministers of the commonwealth , and may be resisted , and called to an account by their people for the male-administration of government . but how they infer this , i confess , i cannot tell : for it is evident our saviour does not here speak one word in derogation to that civil power and authority which was exercised by secular princes . he tells us indeed , that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them , and they that are great , exercise authority upon them : but does he blame the exercise of this authority ? does he set any narrower bounds or limits , than what the heathen princes challenged ? by no means ; he says not one word of any such matter . st. matthew indeed expresses this power of princes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which some think intimates the abuse of their authority : but st. luke renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which onely signifies the exercise of soveraign power . and though most of the roman emperours were guilty of very great miscarriages in government , yet our saviour onely refers to that lawful authority wherewith they were invested , not to the abuse of it : and therefore he takes notice of that honourable title which was given to many roman emperours , that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or benefactors ; which certainly does not argue his dislike of civil authoritie . but all that our saviour tells his disciples is , that it should not be so among them , that they should not exercise such a secular power and authoritie as earthly princes do . now is it any disparagement to kingly power , to tell a bishop that he must not exercise such a soveraign authoritie over the church , as the prince does over the state ? which is the whole of what our saviour intended in this place . for the occasion of these words , st. matthew tells us , was to check that vain ambition of zebedee's two sons , who came to christ , and employed their mother to ask of him , that one might sit on his right hand , and the other on his left hand , in his kingdom ; that is , that they might have the greatest places of dignitie and power next himself . st. luke tells us , that it was to compose that strife and contention which was among them , which of them should be accounted the greatest ; which most likely refers to the same story , though it is plain they quarrelled more than once about this matter . and the occasion of all these quarrels , was a mistake of the nature of christ's kingdom . they , as well as the rest of the iews , expected their messias should be a temporal prince ; and they being convinced by the miracles of christ , that he was indeed the messias who was to come , they lived in dayly expectation when he would take the kingdom upon himself ; and then they did not doubt but that they should be the chief ministers of state , and have the greatest places of trust and power in his kingdom : & this made them jealous of each others greatness , and so forward to bespeak preferments for themselves . now to cure these earthly ambitions , he tells them , that his kingdom was no such thing as they dreamt of , and that he had no such preferments for them as they expected . earthly princes lived in great pomp and splendour , and had great places of trust and honour to bestow on their servants ; but they saw no such thing in him : he came not to be ministred unto , but to minister , to live a mean , industrious , and laborious life , and to die as a malefactor , and give his life a ransom for many . and they could not expect by being his servants , to be advanced to secular power and authoritie , which he had not himself ; but when he came into his kingdom , they should indeed share with him in his power and authoritie ; they should sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of israel ; that is , they should have the supreme authoritie in his church , which is his spiritual kingdom . but there was nothing of external state and grandeur in this , as they expected ; but it was a life of humilitie and modestie , and contempt of this world , and earthly greatness . the greatest ministers in his kingdom must be as humble as a child , as he elsewhere tells them , and as diligent and industrious , and condescending , as the meanest servant , and should very often differ nothing from servants in their external fortune and condition of life . this is the sum of what our saviour here teaches his disciples ; and he is a wonderful man , and very quick-sighted , who can discover any reflection on civil power and authoritie in all this . i shall onely observe farther , that when our saviour calls them here , the princes and kings of the gentiles or nations , he does not speak this in disparagement of them , that they were onely heathen and infidel princes , who did this : for there were no other princes at that time in the world . heathen and pagan princes sounds now as a note of infamie , whereby they are distinguished from christian kings and princes ; but the kings of the gentiles or nations in our saviour's time , signified no more than soveraign princes , who were invested with civil authoritie : and our saviour onely distinguishes between that civil power and authoritie which was exercised by secular princes , and that spiritual kingdom which he was now about to erect in the world ; and the distinction had been of the same force , though there had been at that time jewish or christian , as well as heathen princes . still the difference between civil and ecclesiastical authoritie is the same ; and no apostle or bishop , as such , can challenge the power or authoritie of earthly princes , or any share in it . chap. iii. what we may learn from our saviour's practice about non-resistance . having seen what the doctrine of our saviour was , let us now consider his practice . and we need not doubt but our saviour lived , as he preacht . he taught his disciples by his example , as well as by his laws . his life was the best comment upon his sermons , was a visible lecture of universal righteousness and goodness ; and it is impossible to conceive a more perfect and absolute example of subjection and non-resistance , than our saviour has set us . when our saviour appeared in the world , the iews were very weary of the roman yoke , and in earnest expectation of their messias , who , as they thought , would restore the kingdom again unto israel ; and this expectation of their messias , whom they mistook for a temporal prince , made them very apt to joyn with any one , who pretended to be the messias , and to rebel against the roman government . such most likely were theudas and iudas of galilee , of whom we have mention , 5 acts 36 , 37. and it is not impossible but the aegyptian , who led 4000 men into the wilderness , 2 acts 38. either pretended to be the messias , or some fore-runner of him : to be sure , such were those false christs , and false prophets , of whom our saviour warns his disciples , 24 matth. 23. then if any man shall say unto you , lo here is christ , or there , believe it not . this being the temper of the iewish nation at that time , so extreamly inclined to seditions , and rebellion against the roman powers , how easie had it been for our saviour , had he pleased , to have made himself very potent and formidable ! how easie could he have gained even the scribes and pharisees to his party , ( whose great quarrel was at his meanness and poverty ) would he once have declared himself a temporal prince , and invaded the throne ! but he was so far from this , that when he perceived the people had an intention to take him by force and make him a king , he withdrew himself privately from them , and departed into a mountain himself alone , 6 iohn 15. and yet i presume , there might have been as many plausible pretences to have justifyed a rebellion then , as ever there were in any nation since . he had at that time fed five thousand men , besides women and children , with five barley loaves and two small fishes ; and what a formidable enemy would he have been , who could victual an army by miracles , and could , when he pleased , conquer by the same miraculous power also ! this the people , whom he had miraculously fed , were very sensible of and did hence conclude , that he was the prophet that should come into the world , and that it was time to take him ; and set him upon the throne : but though our saviour was indeed the messias , yet he was not such a messias , as they expected ; he was not a temporal prince , and therefore would not countenance their rebellion against coesar , though it were to make himself a king. it is sufficiently known , that christ submitted to the most unjust sentence , to the most ignominious and painful death , rather than resist the higher powers , though he could so easily have called for legions of angels to his rescue . but he went as a lamb to the slaughter , and as the sheep before the shearer is dumb so he opened not his mouth : when he was reviled , he reviled not again ; when he suffered he threatned not , but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously . he rebuked peter , when he drew his sword in his defence , and tells pilate the reason , why he was so easily apprehended , and used at their pleasure , without any resistance and opposition , though he had been formerly attended with such crouds of his disciples ; because he was no temporal prince , and therefore did not require his disciples to fight for him , as other temporal princes used to do . iesus answered , my kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world , then would my servants fight , that i should not be delivered to the iews ; but now is my kingdom not from hence , 18 iohn 36. which plainly shews , that our saviour's subjection was not matter of force and constraint , because he wanted power to resist ; but it was matter of choice , that which was most agreeable to the nature of his kingdom , which was not to be propagated by carnal weapons , but by suffering and death . and when our saviour has set us such an example as this , it is wonderful to me , that any , who call themselves his disciples , can think it lawful to rebel against their prince , and defend themselves from the most unjust violence by a more unjust resistance . but there are few men , who are contented to follow christ to the cross ; they do not like that part of his example , and are willing to perswade themselves , that they are not bound to imitate it . and there are two things , which i find urged by some men to this purpose , which must be briefly considered . 1. that it is no wonder , that christ suffered patiently and quietly without resisting the most unjust violence , because he came into the world to die , and to make his soul an offering for sin . and how could so innocent a person die , but by the hands of unjust and tyrannical powers ? and it was inconsistent with his design of dying for sin , to resist and oppose . this is the account our saviour himself gives of his patient suffering . when st. peter drew his sword in his defence , he tells him , thinkest thou , that i cannot now pray to my father , and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels ? but how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled , that thus it must be ? 26 matth. 43. 54. and the cup which my father has given me , shall i not drink it ? 18 iohn 11. but what is this now to us ? our saviour did not resist the most unjust and tyrannical powers , because god had decreed he should die by their hands , and he came into the world for this very purpose ; but has god as peremptorily decreed , that we must suffer also by unjust violence ? were we born for this very end , to suffer death by herods and pontius pilates ? to be the slaves and vassals , the scorn and the triumph of insolent tyrants ? certainly god had a greater care and regard for mankind than so : and then our case is very different from our saviour's ; and though he died patiently , we may defend our lives , and our liberties , which are as dear as our lives , if we can . 2. and therefore they add , that christ took upon himself the person not only of a private man , but of a servant , that he might make us free , and that not only as to our spiritual , but as to our civil liberties , as the virgin mary sings ▪ he hath shewed strength with his arm , he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart : he hath put down the mighty from their seats , and hath exalted them of low degree , 1 luke 51 , 52. which they think , does not signifie that christ has established tyrants in their thrones , and subjected christians to the vilest slavery . as christ has taught us by his example to bear servitude and sufferings with an equal mind , when we cannot help it ; so he has not forbid us to vindicate and recover our natural rights and liberties , when we can , according to the express direction of st. paul , art thou called being a servant ? care not for it : but if thou mayest be made free , use it rather . ye are bought with a price , be not ye the servants of men , 1 cor. 7. 21 , 23. now in answer to this , we may consider in general , that if all this proves any thing , it proves , that christ did not intend , that his sufferings should be an example to us : and yet st. peter expresly tells us , that he did ; christ also suffered for us , leaving us an example , that we should follow his steps : & wherein we must imitate christ in suffering , he tells us in the same place , viz. in suffering wrongfully , in taking it patiently , when we do well , and suffer for it , 1 pet. 2. 19 , 20 , 21. and i think st. peter's authority in this case is better then all the arguments that can be urged against it ; and therefore whether we could answer these arguments or no , yet it is evident , that they are not good , because they prove that which is manifestly false , that christ is not our example in suffering , when st. peter tells us , that he is : but yet it is a mighty satisfaction , not only to know , that an argument is false , but to discover , wherein the fallacy consists ; and therefore i shall give a more particular answer to these objections . 1. as for their first argument , that christ came into the world on purpose to die as a sacrifice for sin , and therefore it was inconsistent with his design , and the person he undertook , to resist and oppose , had it been never so lawful to resist ; i grant it is very true , but yet this does not prove , that he cannot be our example in suffering . for , 1. this is not the only reason our saviour gives of his non-resistance , and patient suffering . he gives peter another reason , because it is unlawful to draw the sword against a just authority , though our cause be never so just : put up thy sword again into his place , for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword ; which i have already explained to you at large . so that our saviour acknowledges it as unlawful to resist a lawful authority , as it was inconsistent with his design of dying for the sins of men ; and herein certainly he is fit to be our example , in not resisting a lawful authority in his own defence . 2. i grant , it had not been agreeable to the person which our saviour took , to have avoided death by a forcible resistance ; but then our saviour voluntarily took such a person , as was fit to be an example to us . his person and his religion were very well suited to each other ; a meek , humble , suffering person , to be an example of a meek , humble and suffering religion . his person and external circumstances of his appearance were on purpose fitted to his religion ; and it is none of the least wonders of the divine wisdom , that the work of our redemption was accomplisht in such a mysterious way , as at once made our saviour the author of our redemption , and an example of all the graces and vertues of the christian life . might not these men , if they pleased , by the same argument prove , that christ is not to be our example in meekness and poverty , and contempt of this world , and forgiving enemies , &c. because he came into the world on this design , not to be ministred unto , but to minister ? he chose a mean and low fortune ▪ and all the affronts and indignities he suffered , were part of his voluntary humiliation , and therefore it became him to bear them patiently , and to forgive them , as much as it did to die patiently by wicked hands ; but there is not the same reason for us to do so : and thus it will be hard to find any thing , wherein christ is to be our example , because the very reason of his coming into the world , the manner and circumstances of his appearance , all that he did and suffered , may be resolved into the decree and appointment of god , and his voluntary undertaking , and the accomplishment of ancient types and prophecies ; and therefore he is no more to be an example to us , than a man who acts the part of a beggar or of a prince , is to be an example to all that see him . but methinks it is worth considering , why christ chose such a person as this . why he was born of mean and obscure parents , and chose a poor and industrious life , and an accursed and infamous death ? was it impossible for infinite wisdom to have laid a more glorious and triumphant scene of our redemption ? was there no possible way , but the condescension and sufferings of his own son ? let those say that , who dare venture to determine , what infinite wisdom can do . it is enough for me to know , that christ took such a mean and suffering person upon him , because it was most agreeable to the religion , which he preacht , and of which he was to be an example ; and therefore though christ suffered for other reasons , and to other ends and purposes , than we do or can suffer , yet his sufferings are an example to us , because god chose to save and redeem us by the sufferings of his son , not only that he might expiate our sins by his blood , but also that he might be an example to us of meekness , and patience , and submission to the divine will , and subjection to government , even in the most unjust and infamous sufferings . 3. we may consider further , that christ's suffering in obedience to the will and appointment of god , does not make him unfit to be our example . for though god has not so peremptorily decreed , that all christians should suffer , as he did that christ should suffer , yet whenever we are called forth to suffer , ( as we always are , when we cannot avoid suffering without resisting a lawful authority ) our sufferings are as much the effects of god's decree and appointment , as the sufferings of christ were ; and in such cases every christian may , and ought to say , as his lord did , the cup which my father hath given me ▪ shall i not drink it ? thus st. peter expresly tells the christians to whom he wrote , and gives it as a reason , why they should suffer patiently , even for doing well . for even hereunto were you called , because christ also suffered for us , leaving us an example , that we should follow his steps , 1 pet. 2. 21. now calling in the new testament signifies the choice and election of god , and always supposes a divine decree , appointment , and constitution , as the foundation of it . thus st. paul tells us , that the gifts and calling ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of god are without repentance , 11 rom. 29. that is , that decree he made to choose the pesterity of abraham for his people , which still intitled all those of them to the blessings of the gospel , who would believe in christ. thus the state of christianity is our calling , and holy calling , 2 tim. 1. 9. 3 heb. 1. because it is the way and means god hath chosen and appointed for the salvation of mankind : and christians are often stiled the called , because god has now decreed to chuse all the sincere disciples of christ , as he formerly did the posterity of abraham , to be his peculiar people ; and throughout the scriptures of the new testament , god is never said to call , nor any one to be called of god , but with respect to some divine decree and constitution ; and therefore when st. peter tells the christians , that they are called to suffer , it signifies that god has appointed them to it , by his positive will and decree . this st. paul discourses more at large in his epistle to the romans , and comforts them under their sufferings from this very consideration , that the sufferings which they underwent , were not the effects of meer chance and accident , nor of the wickedness and injustice of men , nor barely of gods permission , but of his decree and appointment ; and therefore they might certainly conclude , that what ever their sufferings were , they should turn to their good , 8 rom. 28 , 29 , 30. and we know that all things work together for good to them that love god , to them that are called according to his purpose , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to those who are called , that is , to suffer , which is the argument the apostle is discoursing of , according to his will and pleasure and appointment . sufferings are not for the good of all profest christians , for they may tempt hypocrites to renounce their religion , and great and severe sufferings may be too powerful a temptation for weak though sincere christians ; and therefore when the rage and malice of men boils and swells , god sets bounds to it , and does not suffer these persecutions and afflictions promiscuously to light upon all christians , but exerciseth a very particular providence in chusing out fit persons to suffer , in directing the storm and tempest of persecution to fall where he pleases , upon such persons , who are armed with saith and patience to resist its fury , and to bear and conquer its rage . and such persons , who are thus appointed , who are thus called by god to suffer , shall be sure to conquer , and to receive the reward of conquerours . for thus the apostle adds , for whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son , that he might be the first-born among many brethren . this conformity to the image of christ in this place , does plainly signifie a conformity to him in sufferings , as is evident from the whole scope of the place . some persons it seems there are , whom god does predestinate or fore-appoint to be conformed to the sufferings of christ : for this is not the actual portion of all christians , though it is the condition of our discipleship ; and they are those whom he did foreknow . now the fore-knowledge of god includes his choice and election ; he chuses out of the body of christians , some fit persons to make his martyrs and confessors , to be examples of faith and patience and courage to the world , and whom he did predestinate , them he also called ; and whom he called , them he also justified ; and whom he justified ▪ them he also glorified ; that is , those persons whom god thus chuses , and preordains to suffer as christ did , in time he calls forth to suffer ; and when he does so he justifies them , that is , he brings them off with triumph and victory , and owns and applauds their faith and patience . for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies ; and therefore to be justified , is expounded by to conquer and overcome ▪ 3 rom. 4. that thou mightest be justified ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in thy sayings , and mightest overcome when thou art judged . and indeed this is properly to be justified in any trial or combate , to overcome and conquer ; and that god who gives the victory , gives the reward too ; and whom he justifies , them he also glorifies : which seems to refer not to those rewards which are common to all christians , but to some peculiar degree of glory , which is prepared for such conquerours , as the apostle speaks ; if so be , that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified together , 17 v. so that though god has not made us slaves and vassals to the humour of every tyrant , yet all the afflictions and sufferings of christians , especially those , which befal them on the account of religion , are as particularly ordered and determined by god , as the sufferings of christ himself were : and therefore there is no difference upon this account between the sufferings of christ , and the sufferings of his disciples ; and therefore though christ came into the world on purpose to suffer in obedience to the divine will , this does not make him ever the less fit to be an example to us . nay , his obedience to the will of god in suffering the hardest things from the most unjust and tyrannical powers , is an example to us of the same patient suffering , and submission to the will of god. it is true , none of us in particular can know that god has decreed , that we shall suffer such or such things , and from such or such hands , as our saviour did ; but yet this we know , that it is god's will and pleasure , that we should patiently endure those sufferings , which we cannot avoid without sin ; and since he has forbid us by express laws to resist the higher powers , whatever sufferings cannot be avoided without resistance , it is god's will and pleasure , that we should submit to them . and since none of these sufferings , which are unavoidable to us , befal us without the particular decree and appointment of god , we have reason in imitation of our great master , to submit to them with the same cheerfulness and self-resignation as he did . there is something indeed in the example of our saviour , which in our circumstances we are not bound to imitate . for he punctually knowing , what god's will and pleasure was concerning him , voluntarily chose that condition , which he so well knew , god had allotted for him . he freely chose a mean and servile fortune , he chose suffering and death ; when his time of offering up himself was come , he went up to ierusalem on purpose to die there : but we are not bound to choose poverty and disgrace and suffering , we are not bound voluntarily to deliver up our selves into the hands of tyrants and persecutours , who thirst after our blood. we may and ought to use all just and honest arts to make our condition easie and comfortable in the world , and to avoid the rage and fury of bloody men , because we cannot tell , that it is the will and appointment of god , that we shall suffer , till our sufferings are unavoidable ▪ and then when we must either suffer or sin , when we must either renounce our religion , or resist the powers , we must embrace suffering and death , as that portion , which god has allotted for us . i shall onely observe , by the way , what a mighty security this is to all good christians , how absolute or tyrannical soever the power be under which they live ; that they are safe in god's hands , and all the powers of men and devils cannot touch them , till god by a positive decree appoints and orders their suffering . there could not be greater nor more absolute tyrants than the roman emperours were at this time , and yet they had no power over the meanest christian , but by an express commission from heaven . this is the special priviledge of the christian church above the rest of mankind , that they are god's peculiar care and charge ; that he does not permit any sufferings or persecutions to befal them , but what he himself orders and appoints . it is a great security to the world , that there is no evil happens to men but what god permits , and that he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wise and good ends ; but it is a greater happiness to have our condition immediately allotted by god. god may permit a great many evils to befal us in anger and displeasure ; but when he takes us into his immediate protection , and under his own government , whatever evils he appoints for us , whoever are the instruments of them , are certainly for our good : and therefore there is no such danger in the doctrine of non-resistance , as some men imagine . how absolute soever this may be thought to render princes , sincere christians can suffer nothing by it : for they shall suffer nothing , more nor less , than what god appoints for them to suffer . 2. it is also urged against the obligation of our saviour's example to suffer as he did , that christ by his state of servitude and sufferings , has purchas'd liberty for us ; and that not onely a spiritual and internal , but an external and civil liberty . we are no longer bound to submit to usurping and tyrannical powers , when we have strength and power to deliver our selves from that necessity . there is no help for it , but men who are weak and unable to resist , must obey and suffer ; but this is matter of force , not of duty : we are now bought with a price , and therefore must not chuse a state of subjection and servitude to men . 1. now in answer to this , we may consider first , that this obedience and subjection to soveraign princes , either was a duty before christ's appearing in the world , or it was not . if it were not , then our deliverance from this subjection to princes , is no part of that liberty which christ has purchas'd for us , because it was the natural right of mankind before ; and therefore there was no need of christ's dying to purchase this , which he cannot give us a greater right to than we had before his death . if subjection and non-resistance were our duty before , and ceases to be our duty now , then christ by his death has cancelled the obligations of our duty , and purchas'd a liberty and freedom not to do that now which by the laws of god or nature we were bound to do before ; that is , christ by his death has abrogated not onely the ceremonial , but some moral laws ; which i shew'd you before was contrary to the nature and designe of his undertaking . 2. it is strangely unaccountable , how obedience to any law should abrogate and cancel it . how christ by subjection to the higher powers , should for ever after deliver his disciples from the necessity of subjection , and make them free from the authority and government of princes , whenever they dislike their government . a typical law may be fulfilled and receive its just accomplishment , and then its obligation ceases . thus the death of christ fulfilled the levitical sacrifices , and put an end to them : but the authority of a moral law is confirmed and strengthened , not abrogated and disanulled by great examples . when christ quietly and patiently submitted to the most unjust sentence , in obedience to lawful authoritie , he either did well or ill in it : if he did ill , his example indeed is not to be imitated ; but if he did well , how did his doing well deliver us from the obligation of doing well ? did his doing well , make it ill for us to do as he did ? why did not his perfect and unsinning obedience as well deliver us from the obligation of all the other laws of god , as from obedience and subjection to princes ? the antinomians indeed are so absurd as to say , that christ fulfilled all righteousness in our stead , and that every believer has fulfilled the law in christ ; and therefore is not bound to fulfil it in his own person as a condition of life and salvation . but yet they are not so absurd as to say that christ by the righteousness of his life and death , has altered the nature of good and evil , and cancelled any one law of god. the law is in force still , and the dutie is the same ; but the law cannot take hold of them , nor exact a personal righteousness from them , because they have already fulfilled the law in christ. but now these men must say , that christ has not onely fulfilled the law of subjection and non-resistance , as a condition of salvation , but has cancelled it as a rule of life . 3. the death of christ could not purchase any civil rights or liberties which we had not before , nor make any change in the external fortunes or conditions of men . the death of christ is represented in scripture either as an atonement or expiation of sin , or as the purchase and seal of the new covenant . now how does the death of christ , by expiating our sins , deliver us from subjection to our civil governours ? what connexion is there between the expiation of our sins , and our freedom from the authoritie of princes , that he who does one , must be supposed to do the other ? and as for the new covenant , where does that grant any new franchises and liberties to subjects ? let them produce their new charter to justifie their exemption from subjection to princes ; let them shew any one saying in the gospel of our saviour , if they can , to that purpose . what the doctrine of christ is , you have already heard ; and when christ died to confirm the new covenant in his bloud , it is absurd to say that he has purchased any liberties for us , but what he has expresly granted to us in his gospel . he does indeed promise libertie & freedom to his subjects , but it is a libertie of another nature ; a libertie from the power and dominion of sin . ye shall know the truth , and the truth shall make you free , 8 john 32. that is , the power of the gospel-revelation should deliver them from the empire of their lusts , and give them the true government and masterie of themselves : and therefore he adds , verily , verily , i say unto you , whosoever committeth sin , is the servant of sin . and the servant abideth not in the house for ever : but the son abideth for ever . if the son therefore shall make you free , ye shall be free indeed , 34 , 35 , 36 v. but does not st. paul advise the corinthians to assert even their civil and political freedom when they can , and that from this argument , that they are the freemen of christ ? which seems to intimate , that there is such a connexion between our spiritual and civil liberties , that it does not become christ's freemen to be slaves and servants unto men . 1 cor. 7. 21 , 22 , 23 v. art thou called , being a servant ? care not for it : but if thou mayest be made free , use it rather . for he that is called in the lord , being a servant , is the lord 's free man : likewise also he that is called , being free , is christ's servant . ye are bought with a price , be not the servants of men . but what is it they would prove from these words ? that our subjection to men is inconsistent with our freedom in christ ? that the apostle expresly denies . for he that is a servont , is christ's freeman . or that christ , when he made us free , did deliver us from the subjection of men ? not that neither . for he does not advise christian servants to leave their masters , as he might and ought to have done , if christ had bestowed this civil libertie on them ; but he was so far from this , that when onesimus had run away from his master philemon , and was converted by st. paul , and proved very useful and serviceable in the ministrie , yet he would not detain him from his master , without asking his leave : which occasioned the epistle to philemon , as you may see 10 , 11 , 12 , &c. and in this place he advises the christian servants not to be concerned at their being servants ; which was no injury at all to their christian libertie : but if they could procure their libertie by any fair and just means , they should chuse to do it ; which is upon many accounts more desirable , especially when christians were servants to heathen masters , as it often was in those days . but does not the apostle expresly tell them , ye are bought with a price , be not ye the servants of men ? yes , he does : but sure this cannot signifie that servants should cast off the authoritie of their masters . for that is directly contrary to what he had advised them before , and contrary to his own practice in the case of onesimus , whom he sent back to his master philemon . but all that i understand by it , is this ; that those christian servants who could not obtain their freedom , should yet take care not to be servants to the lusts and passions of their heathen masters . for though a state of civil bondage and slavery is not inconsistent with their christian libertie , yet to be ministers and servants to the vices of men , is : and therefore when they lay under any such temptation ( as christians who served heathen masters could not long escape it ) they must then remember that they are christ's freemen , who were bought with a price ; and therefore must neither be servants to their own lusts , nor to the lusts of other men . and the reason why i chuse this sence of the words , is this ; because the apostle opposes being bought with a price , that is , their being redeemed by christ , or being christ's freemen , to their being the servants of men , as inconsistent with each other . and therefore their being the servants of men , cannot be understood of civil servitude , which he before had told them was not inconsistent with their christian libertie , but of being servants to the vices of men . but what now is all this to subjection to soveraign princes ? does the apostle exhort the christians too to throw off the civil powers ? it was possible for a christian servant to purchase his libertie , or to obtain it some other lawful ways ; but how can subjects deliver themselves from the authoritie of princes ? unless they go into some country where there is no government , or resist and rebel against the higher powers where they are : neither of which is agreeable to our apostles doctrine , who would not allow servants to run away from their masters , much less rebel against them to procure their libertie . nor was the case the same between christian subjects and soveraign princes , and between masters and servants ; and therefore neither is the reason the same , why subjects should desire freedom from the higher powers . servants in those days were slaves and vassals , and were kept in such constant attendance on their masters , that it must needs be very difficult ; besides the other temptations they were exposed to , to gain any time or libertie for attending on christian worship , and the instructions of the church . but christian subjects are more at their own disposal , even under heathen princes ; and have all that libertie , excepting the case of persecution , which is necessary for the purposes of religion ; which yet is the onely reason intimated here , why the apostle advises servants to procure their freedom , if they can . to conclude this argument ; there were a sort of men , even in the apostles days , who boasted mightily of their christian libertie , and thought scorn for a christian either to be a servant or a subject . for this reason st. paul in this place instructs servants , that their christian libertie is not injured by their being servants : for this reason are there such frequent directions to servants to obey their masters . for this reason does st. peter caution the christians against this pretence of christian libertie , which some abused then , as they do still , to the disturbance of civil governments ; as free , but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness , but as the servants of god. chap. iv. what st. paul preached about non-resistance of the higher powers . having thus concluded what the doctrine and example of our saviour was , about subjection to the higher powers ; let us now consider the doctrine and example of his apostles . not as if the authority and example of our saviour were not sufficient of it self to make a law , but stood in need of the confirmation and additional authority of his own apostles ; but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the meaning of our saviour's words , or in the intention and design of his sufferings , had none of his apostles , who were immediately instructed by himself , and acquainted with the most secret mysteries of his kingdom , ever preacht any such doctrine as this , of subjection to princes . and therefore to give you the more abundant assurance of this , i shall plainly shew you , that the apostles taught the same doctrine , and imitated the example of their great master . i shall begin with st. paul , who has as fully declared himself in this matter , as it is possible any man can do by words , 13 rom. 1 , 2. let every soul be subject unto the higher powers ; for there is no power but of god : the powers that be , are ordained of god whosoever therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god ; and they that resist , shall receive to themselves damnation . this is a very express testimony against resistance , and therefore i shall consider it at large ; for there have been various arts used to pervert every word of it , and to make this text speak quite contrary to the design and intention of the apostle in it : and therefore i shall divide the words into three general parts . 1. the doctrine , the apostle instructs them in : let every soul be subject to the higher powers . 2. the reason whereby he proves and inforces this doctrine : for there is no power but of god ; the powers that be , are ordained of god. whosoever therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god. 3. the punishment of such resistance : and they that resist , shall receive to themselves damnation . 1. i shall begin with the doctrine , that every soul must be subject to the higher powers . and here are three things to to be explained . 1. who are contained under this general expression of every soul. 2. who are meant by the higher powers . 3. what is meant by being subject . 1. who are contained under this general expression of every soul , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . which by an ordinary hebraism , signifies every man. for man is a compounded creature of body and soul , and either part of him is very often in scripture put for the whole . sometimes flesh , and sometimes soul signifies the man ; and when every soul is opposed to the higher powers , it must signifie all men , of what rank or condition soever they be , who are not invested with this higher power . popes and bishops and priests , as well spiritual as secular persons ; the whole body of the people , as well as every single individual . for when every soul is commanded to be subject , without any exception or limitation , this must reach them in all capacities and conditions . the design of the apostle , as you shall hear more presently , was to forbid all resistance of soveraign princes ; and had he known of any men , or number of men , who might lawfully resist , he ought not to have exprest it in such general terms , as to forbid all without exception . had st. paul known the prerogative of st. peter , and his successors the bishops of rome , would he have written to the christians of rome to be subject to their emperours , without making any provision for the greater authority of their bishops ? the reason he assigns why every soul must be subject to the higher powers , is , because all powers are of god. so that whoever is bound to be subject to god , must be subject to their prince , who is in god's stead . and this i think will reach the pope of rome , as well as any private christian ; unless he will pretend to more authority on earth , than god himself has : for the prince has god's authority , and therefore cannot be resisted , but by a greater authority than god's . and by the same reason , if the whole body of the people be subject to god , they must be subject to their prince too , because he acts by god's authority and commission . were a soveraign prince the peoples creature , might be a good maxime , rex major singulis , sed minor universis , that the king is greater than any particular subject , but less than all together ; but if he be god's minister , he is upon that account as much greater than all , as god is . and that the whole body of the people , all together , as well as one by one , are equally concerned in this command of being subject to the higher powers , is evident from this consideration , that nothing less than this will secure the peace and tranquillity of humane societies . the resistance of single persons is more dangerous to themselves than to the prince , but a powerful combination of rebels is formidable to the most puissant monarchs . the greater numbers of subjects rebel against their prince , the more do they distress his government , and threaten his crown and dignity : and if his person and authority be sacred , the greater the violence is , which is offered to him , the greater is the crime . had the apostle exhorted the romans after this manner : let no private and single man be so foolish , as to rebel against his prince , who will be too strong for him : but if you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him , if you can all consent to depose or murder him , this is very innocent and justifiable , nay an heroical atchievement , which becomes a free-born people : how would this secure the peace and quiet of the world ? how would this have agreed with what follows , that princes are advanced by god , and that to resist our prince , is to resist the ordinance of god , and that such men shall be severely punisht for it in this world or the next ? for can the apostle be thought absolutely to condemn resistance , if he makes it only unlawful to resist when we want power to conquer ? which yet is all that can be made of it , if by every soul the apostle means only particular men , not the united force and power of subjects . nor can there be any reason assigned , why the apostle should lay so strict a command on particular christians to be subject to the higher powers , which does not equally concern whole nations . for if it can ever be lawful for a whole nation to resist a prince , it may in the same circumstances be equally lawful for a particular man to do it : if a nation may conspire against a prince , who invades their rights , their liberties , or their religion , why may not any man by the same reason resist a prince , when his rights and liberties are invaded ? it is not so safe and prudent indeed for a private man to resist , as for great and powerful numbers ; but this makes resistance only a matter of discretion , not of conscience : if it be lawful for the whole body of a nation to resist in such cases , it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it ; but he does it at his own peril , when he has only his one single force to oppose against his prince . so that our apostle must forbid resistance in all or none . for single persons do not use to resist or rebel , or there is no great danger to the publick if they do ; but the authority of princes , and the security of publick government , is only endangered by a combination of rebels , when the whole nation or any considerable part for numbers , power , and interest , take arms against their prince . if resistance of our prince be a sin , it is not the less , but the greater sin , the greater and the more formidable the resistance is ; and it would very much unbecome the gravity and sacredness of an apostolical precept , to enjoyn subjection to private christians , who dare not , who cannot resist alone ; but to leave a powerful combination of rebels at liberty to resist . so that every soul must signifie all subjects whether single or united : for whatever is unlawful for every single person considered as a subject is unlawful for them all together ; for the whole nation is as much a subject to the higher powers , as any single man. thus i am sure it is in our government , where lords and commons assembled in parliament own themselves the subjects of the king , and have by publick laws disclaimed all power of raising any war either offensive or defensive against the king. 2. let us now consider what is meant by the higher powers , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which signifies the supreme power in any nation , in whomsoever it is placed . whether in the king , as in monarchical governments ; or in the nobles , as in aristocratical ; or in the people , as in democracies . at the time of writing this epistle , the supreme power was in the roman emperours ; and therefore when st. paul commands the roman christians to be subject to the higher powers , the plain meaning is , that they be subject to the roman emperour . and thus st. peter explains it , 1 epist. 2 chap. 13 v. be subject to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake , whether to the king as supreme , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the word used in my text , as to him who hath a supereminent power , and is above all others . it is absolutely necessary in all well-governed societies , that there should be some supreme and soveraign power , from whence there lies no appeal , and which cannot and must not be resisted . for otherwise there can be no end of disputes , and controversies ; men may quarrel eternally about rights and priviledges , and properties , and preheminencies ; and when every man is judge in his own cause , it is great oddes but he will give judgement for himself , and then there can be no way to determine such matters , but by force and power . which turns humane societies into a state of war , and no man is secure any longer , than he happens to be on the prevailing side . whoever considers the nature and the end of government , must acknowledge the necessity of a supreme power , to decide controversies , to administer justice , and to secure the publick peace : and it is a ridiculous thing to talk of a supreme power , which is not unaccountable and irresistible . for whatever power is liable to be called to an account , and to be resisted , has some power above it , and so is not supreme . of late years , whoever has been so hardy , as to assert the doctrine of non-resistance , has been thought an enemy to his country , one who tramples on all laws , who betraies the rights and liberties of the subject , and sets up for tyranny and arbitrary power . now i would desire those men , who think thus , to try their skill in framing any model of government , which shall answer the ends and necessities of humane society , without a supreme power , that is , without such a power , as is absolute and unaccountable . if there be no supreme power in any society , when ever there happens any difference among the members of such a society , nothing can be done ; and such a society is an arbitrary and voluntary , not a governed society ; because there is no body to govern , and no body to be governed : they may govern themselves by mutual consent ; but if they cannot agree , there is an end of their government . where there is any government , there must be some-body to govern , and whoever has the power of government , must not be contradicted or resisted , for then he cannot govern ; for a power to govern men onely when , and in what cases they please to be governed , is no power . now place this power where you will , in a single person , or in the hands of some select persons , or in the people , and the case is the same ; where ever the power rests , there it is absolute and unaccountable : wherever there is any government , there must be a last appeal , and where the last appeal is , whether to a prince , to a parliament , or to the people , there is soveraign and absolute power , which cannot be resisted without a dissolution of government , and returning to a state of war ; which is a direct contradiction to the first institution of humane societies , and therefore that which cannot be allowed by the fundamental constitutions of any society . the result of all in short is this : 1. that in all civil governments , there must be some supreme and soveraign power . 2. that the very notion of supreme power is , that it is unaccountable and irresistible . and therefore , 3. whatever power in any nation according to the fundamental laws of its government , cannot and ought not to be resisted , that is the supreme power of that nation , the higher powers to which the apostle requires us to be subject . and from hence it is evident , that the crown of england is an imperial crown , and has all the rights of soveraignty belonging to it . since according to the fundamental laws of the realm , the person and authority of the king is sacred and irresistible . the oaths of allegiance and supremacy , those laws which declare , and acknowledge the king to be supreme in his dominions under god , to have the sole power of the sword , that it is treason to levy war against the king within the realm , and without ; that both or either houses of parliament cannot , nor lawfully may , raise or levy war offensive or defensive against his majesty , his heirs , or lawful successors ; that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the king , and that we must abhor that traiterous position of taking arms by his authority against his person , or against those who are commissionated by him : these , i say , and such like declarations as these , both formerly and of late , made by both houses of parliament , and enacted into publick laws , are a sufficient proof , that the supreme power of these realms is lodged in the prince . for he who is unaccountable and irresistible is supreme . but to avoid all this , there are some who tell us , that by the higher powers in the text , the apostle means the law. for laws are the highest and most venerable authority in any nation ; and we ought indeed to be subject to princes who themselves are subject to the laws , which they are as much obliged to by virtue of this apostolical command as meaner persons . for the law is as much superior to them , as they are to their own subjects ; and therefore when princes violate publick laws , they are no longer to own them for the higher powers , but may vindicate the laws against them , may defend the legal authority of their prince against his personal usurpations , may fight for the authority of the king against his person . but in answer to this , we may consider , 1. that it is evident from the whole context and manner of speaking , that the apostle does not here speak of laws , but persons ; not of imperial laws , but soveraign princes . laws were never before called the higher powers , neither in sacred nor profane writers ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new testament always signifies the authority of a person , not of a law . and hence it signifies the person invested with this authority . it were easy to prove this by numerous instances ; but it will be sufficient to shew , that thus it must signifie in the text. these are such powers as are of god , appointed and ordained by god ; which i suppose does not signifie the laws of every nation , many of which are far enough from being divine . they are expresly called rulers in the 3 v. and are the object of fear ; which can punish and reward : if thou wilt not be afraid of the power , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , do that which is good , and thou shalt have praise of the same . now i think no law , but the power , which executes laws , can apply punishments or rewards according to mens deserts : and in the 4 v. this very power is called the minister of god , and said to bear the sword , which does not belong to laws but persons ; and in the text the apostle speaks of resisting these powers , opposing force to force . now though laws may be disobeyed , it is onely lawgivers and rulers , who are capable of resistance . 2. but however , these higher powers may signifie princes and rulers , as governing according to known laws . no , this cannot be neither , because the apostle speaks of such powers as were under the government of no laws ; as it is sufficiently known the roman emperours were not ; their will was their law , and they made or repealed laws at their pleasure . this epistle was wrote either under claudius or nero ; and i think i need not tell you , that neither of those emperours had any great reverence for laws , and yet these were the higher powers to whom the apostle commands them to be subject : and indeed , though there be a vast difference between a prince , who by the fundamental constitutions of his kingdom , ought to govern by laws , and a prince whose will is his law ; yet no law can come into the notion and definition of supreme and soveraign powers : such a prince is under the direction , but cannot properly be said to be under the government of the law , because there is no superior power to take cognizance of his breach of it ; and a law has no authoritie to govern , where there is no power to punish . but i shall have occasion to discourse this more largely hereafter . 3. let us now consider , what is meant by being subject , now subjection , according to its full latitude of signification , includes all those duties , which we owe to soveraign princes ; a chearful and willing obedience to all their just and lawful commands ; an humble submission to their reproofs and censures , corrections and punishments ; to honour and reverence their persons and authority ; to pay custom and tribute , and all legal taxes and impositions , as our apostle addes , verse the 7. render therefore unto all their dues , tribute to whom tribute is due , custom to whom custom , fear to whom fear , honour to whom honour . but the principal thing he has regard to in the text , is non-resistance , which is the onely perfect and absolute subjection we owe to princes . we are not always bound to do what they command , because they may command , what we ought not , what we must not do ; but we are always bound to be subject , that is , never to resist . though a prince abuse his power , and oppress his subjects , we must not take upon us to right ourselves , but must leave our cause to god , who is the great protector of opprest innocence : for as the apostle tells us , he that resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god ; and they that resist , &c. this is the doctrine the apostle teaches , that we must be subject to , that is , that we must not resist , nor rebel against soveraign princes . 2. let us then now consider the reason , whereby the apostle proves and inforces this doctrine of subjection or non-resistance . for there is no power but of god ; the powers that be , are ordained of god. whosoever therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god. the plain meaning of which is this : that soveraign princes are advanced to the throne by god , and are his ministers and vicegerents , invested with his authority and power to govern ; and therefore when we resist our prince , we resist the ordinance , constitution , and appointment of god. such men do not resist , rebel , or fight against man , but god. as he who resists any subordinate magistrates , resists his prince , from whom they receive their authority and commission . and this is a very forcible argument to subjection to princes : for whatever our prince be , it is certain , that god has an absolute and uncontroulable right over us , as being the natural lord and governour of the world ; and if earthly princes are plac't in the throne by him , who is at liberty to put the government of the world into what hands he pleases , who will dare to oppose god ? or ask him , why hast thou done so ? whoever has any sense of god's dominion and soveraignty , dares not rebel against him ; and he , who believes that princes are made by god , will no more dare to rebel against his prince , than against god himself . the patrons of resistance have used all manner of arts to evade the force of this text , and to make the apostles argument signifie just nothing ; and therefore it will be necessary to consider briefly what they say . 1. then some of them own the truth of what st. paul asserts , that soveraign princes are of god , are advanc't and set in their thrones by him ; but then they say , princes are from god , no otherwise than every thing else is of god. the divine providence governs all things ; and plague and pestilence and famine , and whatever evil and calamity befals a nation , is from god too ; but does it hence follow , that when god brings any of these judgements upon us , we must not endeavour to remove them ? no more , say they , does it follow , that we must not endeavour to break the yoak of a tyrant , because it was put on by god. that is , in plain english , that when the apostle proves , that we must not resist princes , because they are set up by god , he does not reason truly ; for notwithstanding this , we may resist tyrannical princes , as we would do the plague , though they are both sent by god : and i suppose these men believe that st. paul was no more inspired by god , than princes are made by him . otherwise they might as easily have concluded , that since st. paul founds no doctrine of non-resistance upon god's authority and dominion in advancing princes , ( and his argument must be good , if he were an inspired man ) that therefore there is some little difference between god's making a king though a tyrant , and his sending the plague : and any man of an ordinary understanding might guess , that when god sets up a king with a soveraign power , he sets him up to govern ; and therefore though he may prove a scourge and a plague , yet he is such a plague , as god will allow no man to remove , but himself . for it is a contradiction in the nature of the thing , to give authority to a prince to govern , and to leave subjects at liberty to resist . tyrants are god's mininisters , though they be but executioners of his just vengeance ; but an executioner , though he be as dangerous as the plague , cannot be resisted , without resisting the prince . 2. at other times they tell us , that when st. paul asserts , that there is no power but of god , the powers that be , are ordained of god , he means this onely of the institution of civil power and government , not of every prince that is advanced to this power . the institution of civil government they will allow to be from god , but they think it a reproach to god to own that tyrants and oppressors , wicked and impious kings , are advanced by god. his providence many times , for wise reasons , permits this , as he does all other evils ; but they cannot believe , that such men are advanc't by his council and approbation , and positive will and appointment . but this admits of various answers . for , 1. can there be no wise reason given , why god may advance a bad man to be a prince ? if there may , then it is no reproach to the divine providence . the natural end of humane societies is the preservation of publick peace and order ; and this is in some measure attained even under the government of tyrants . but god has a further end than this , to bless and reward a virtuous nation , or to punish a loose and degenerate age ; and there cannot be a greater blessing than a wise and virtuous prince , nor a greater plague than a merciless tyrant : and therefore the providence of god is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad prince over any people , as in rewarding or punishing them . upon this account , god calls the king of assyria the rod of his anger , whom he raised up for the punishment of an hypocritical nation , 10 isai. 5 , 6. 2. i have already proved , that by the powers in my text , the apostle means the persons of soveraign princes ; and therefore according to his doctrine , those princes who were then in being , that is , the roman emperors , were advanc't by god ; the powers that be , that is , the princes and emperors who now govern the world , are ordained and appointed by god. and that thus it is , god himself tells us , 27 jerem. 5 , 6. i have made the earth , and given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me : and now i have given all these lands into the hands of nebuchadnezzar king of babylon my servant . thus he called cyrus by name , many years before he was born , to be his shepherd , and to perform his pleasure in rebuilding ierusalem , 44 isa. 28. 45. ch . 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. this was the belief of the primitive christians under heathen and persecuting emperors . tertullian who wrote his apologie under severus , asserts that caesar was chosen by god , and therefore that the christians had a peculiar propriety in caesar , as being made emperor by their god. sed quid ego amplius de religione atque pietate christiana in imperatorem , quem necesse est suspiciamus , ut eum quem dominus noster elegit , & merito dixerim , noster est magis caesar , a deo nostro constitutus . tert. apol. cap. 33. and this he assigns as the reason , why they honour and reverence , and pray for him , and are in all things subject to him . 3. if these men will grant , the institution of civil power and authority by god is a necessary reason why we must not resist those who have this power , it shall satisfie me ; and i will dispute no further , whether by powers in the text the apostle means civil government , or the persons of princes , so long as the doctrine of non-resistance is secured : but if they will not grant this , then they must grant , that either the apostle reasons weakly , or that this is not the sense of his words . st. chrysostom indeed by the powers that be ordained of god , understands no more than that civil power and authority is from god , as being afraid to own that all princes , though never so wicked are appointed by god ; but then he owns the doctrine of non-resistance , because the power is from god , whoever have the possession of it , or however he came by it . but i think the argument for non-resistance is much stronger , if we acknowledge , that soveveraign princes themselves are appointed by god , and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and ordering providence . 4. others in plain terms deny , that this is true , that princes receive their power from god , and are ordained and appointed by him , though the words of the apostle are very plain and express in the case . but let us set aside the authority of the apostle a while , and examine why they say so . and this they think is very plain in all nations , that princes are advanc't to the throne by the choice and consent of the people , or by right of inheritance , confirmed and settled by publick laws , which include the consent of the people , and therefore they receive their power from those who chose them ; which is no more than a fiduciary power , which they are lyable to give an account of to those who choose them . now grant this to be true , that princes are advanc't to the throne by the people , which will not very well hold in conquests , nor in hereditary kingdoms ; yet , i say , suppose it to be true , since it was manifestly the case of the roman empire , when the apostle wrote this epistle , their emperors being chosen either by the senate or the army ; yet i would desire to be resolved in some few plain questions . 1. whether god does nothing , but what he does by an immediate power ? whether he cannot appoint and choose an emperor , unless he does it by a voice from heaven , or sends an angel to set the crown upon his head ? whether god cannot by a great many unknown ways , determine the choice of the people , to that person , whom he has before chosen himself ? may we not as well say , that god does nothing but miracles , because every thing else has some visible cause , and may be ascribed either to natural or moral agents ? god may chuse an emperor , and the people chuse him too , and the peoples choice is onely the effect of god's choice ; and therefore notwithstanding all this , princes owe their crowns and secepters to god : the powers that be are ordained of god. 2. how does it follow , that because princes are chose by the people , therefore they derive their power from them , and are accountable to them ? this is not true in humane governments . a city or any corporation may have authority to choose their magistrates , and yet they do not derive their power from their fellow-citizens , who chose them , but from their prince . thus the people may chuse , but god invests with power and authority . for indeed , how can people , who have no power of government themselves , give that power , which they have not ? god is the only governour of the world , and therefore there can be no power of government , but what is derived from him . but these men think , that all civil authority is founded in consent ; as if there were no natural lord of the world , or all mankind came free and independent into the world . this is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant , that the institution of civil power and authority is from god ; and indeed if it be not , i know not how any prince can justifie the taking away the life of any man , whatever crime he has been guilty of . for no man has power of his own life , and therefore cannot give this power to another : which proves that the power of capital punishments cannot result from meer consent , but from a superiour authority , which is lord of life and death . if it be said , that every man has a natural right to defend his own life by taking away the life of any man who injuriously assaults him , and he may part with this power of self-defence to his prince , and that includes the power of life and death : i answer , 1. suppose the laws of self-preservation will justifie the taking away another man's life in preservation of our own , yet this is a personal right , which god and nature has given us ; and unless we can prove , that we have authority to make over this right to another , as well as to use it our selves , our consent cannot give authority to the magistrate to take away any man's life in our cause . 2. this natural right of self-defence cannot be the original of the magistrates power , because no man does give up this right . every man has the right of self-preservation , as intire under civil government , as he had in a state of nature . under what government soever i live , i may still kill another man , when i have no other way to preserve my own life from unjust violence by private hands . and this is all the liberty any man had in a supposed state of nature . so that the magistrates power of the sword is a very different thing from every man's right of self-preservation , and cannot owe its original to it . for , 3. the magistrates power of the sword is not meerly defensive , as the right of self-preservation is , but vindicative , to execute vengeance on evil doers ; which power no man has over his equals in a state of nature . for vengeance is an act of superiority , and supposes the authority of a lord and judge ; and therefore the consent of all mankind cannot give the power and authority of a sword to a prince , because they never had it themselves . a prince , as he bears the sword , is not the peoples officer , but the minister of god , a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil , as our apostle adds , v. 4. and this is the true reason of our subjection . wherefore you must needs be subject , not only for wrath , but also for conscience sake . 4. there is another objection against what the apostle affirms , that there is no power but of god ; the powers that be , are ordained of god. for is the power of victorious rebels and usurpers from god ? did oliver cromwell receive his power from god ? then it seems , it was unlawful to resist him too , or to conspire against him : then all those loyal subjects ▪ who refused to submit to him , when he had got the power in his hands , were rebels and traitors . to this i answer , that the most prosperous rebel is not the higher powers , while our natural prince , to whom we owe obedience and subjection , is in being . and therefore though such men may get the power into their hands by gods permission , yet not by gods ordinance ; and he who resists them , does not resist the ordinance of god , but the usurpations of men . in hereditary kingdoms , the king never dies , but the same minute that the natural person of one king dies , the crown descends upon the next of blood ; and therefore he who rebelleth against the father , and murders him , continues a rebel in the reign of the son , which commences with his fathers death . it is otherwise indeed , where none can pretend a greater right to the crown , than the usurper ; for there possession of power seems to give a right . thus many of the roman emperours came to the crown by very ill means , but when they were possest of it , they were the higher powers ; for the crown did not descend by inheritance , but sometimes by the election of the senate , sometimes of the army , and sometimes by force and power , which always draws a consent after it . and therefore the apostle does not direct the christians to enquire by what title the emperours held their crowns , but commands them to submit to those , who had the power in their hands : for the possession of supream and soveraign power is title enough , when there is no better title to oppose against it . for then we must presume , that god gives him the irresistible authority of a king , to whom he gives an irresistible power ; which is the only means , whereby monarchies and empires are transferred from one nation to another . there are two examples in scripture which manifestly confirm what i have now said . the first in the kingdom of israel : after the ten tribes had divided from the house of iudah , and the family of david , god had not entailed the kingdom upon any certain family ▪ he had indeed by ahijah the prophet promised after solomons death ten tribes to ieroboam the son of nebat , 1 kings 11. 29. &c. but had afterwards by the same prophet threatned ieroboam , to destroy his whole family , chap. 15. 10 , 11. baasha fulfils this prophecy by the traiterous murder of nadab , ( who succeeded his father ieroboam in the kingdom ) and usurpt the government himself , and slew all ieroboam's house , 28 , 29. v. this murder and treason is numbred among the sins of baasha ; for which god afterwards threatned to destroy his house , as he had done the house of ieroboam , 16 chap. v. 7. and yet he having usurpt the throne , and got the power into his hands , and no man having a better title than his , god himself is said to have exalted him out of the dust , and made him prince over his people israel , v. 2. elah succeeded baasha , who had no better title than his father ; and yet zimri , who slew him , is accused of treason for it , v 20. zimri usurpt the kingdom when he had slew his master , but he was only a vain pretender to it , when he wanted power ; for when the people who were encamped against gibbethon , heard that zimri had killed the king , they made omri king , and went immediately and besieged tirzah , where zimri had taken possession of the kings palace ; who finding no way to escape , set fire to it himself , and died in the flames of it . and now israel was divided between omri and tibni ; but those who followed omri prevailed against those who followed tibni ; and tibni died , and omni reigned , v. 21 , 22. all which plainly shews , that where there is no regular succession to the kingdom , there possession of power makes a king , who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of treason : and this was the case of the roman empire , at the writing of this epistle ; and therefore the apostle might well say , that the powers that be , are ordained of god. that whoever had the supream power in his hands , is the higher power , that must not be resisted . but it was otherwise in the kingdom of iudah , which god himself had entailed on davids family , as appears from the example of ioash , who was concealed by his aunt iehosheba , and hid in the house of the lord for six years . during this time athaliah reigned , and had the whole power of government in her hands ; but yet this did not make her a soveraign and irresistible prince ; because ioash the son of ahaziah , the right heir of the crown , was yet alive . and therefore in the seventh year iehoiada the priest set ioash upon the throne , and slew athaliah , and was guilty of no treason or rebellion in doing so , 2 kings 11. which shews , that no usurpations can extinguish the right and title of a natural prince . such usurpers , though they have the possession of the supream power , yet they have no right to it ; and though god for wise reasons may sometimes permit such usurpations , yet while his providence secures the persons of such deposed and banished princes from violence , he secures their title too . as it was in nebuchadnezzar's vision ; the tree is cut down , but the stump of the roots is left in the earth . the kingdom shall be sure to them , after that they shall know , that the heavens do rule , dan. 4. 26. 3. the apostle adds the punishment of those , who resist the higher powers : they that resist , shall receive to themselves damnation . where , by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment and damnation , it is plain the apostle means the punishments of the other world . prosperous rebellions are not always punisht in this world , but they are in the next . and therefore we must be subject not only for wrath , for fear of men ; but out of conscience towards god , and a reverence of his righteous judgments . the sum of all in short is this . that all men , whatever their rank and condition be ; not only secular , but spiritual persons ; not only private men , but subordinate magistrates ; not only single men , but whole bodies and communities , the united force and power of a nation , must be subject to soveraign princes ; that is , must obey all their just and lawful commands , and patiently submit even to their unjust violence , without making any resistance , without opposing force to force , or taking arms , though it be only in their own defence . for soveraign princes are made and advanced by god , who exerciseth a particular providence in the disposal of crowns and scepters , and over-ruleth all external and second causes , to set up such princes as he himself has first chose ; and therefore he that resisteth , resisteth not man , but god ; he opposeth the constitution and appointment of the soverain lord of the world , who alone is our natural lord and governour , and who alone has right to put the government of the world into what hands he pleases ; and how prosperous soever such rebels may be in this world , they shall not escape the divine vengeance and justice , which will follow them into another world : they shall receive to themselves damnation . this was st. paul's doctrine about subjection to the higher powers ; and he did not only preach this doctrie himself , but he charges timothy and titus , two bishops whom he had ordained , the one bishop of ephesus , the other of crete , to preach the same . thus he charges titus , to put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers , to obey magistrates ▪ to be ready to every good work , 3 titus 1. when he commands him to put them in mind to be subject , he supposes , that this is a known duty of the christian religion , and a duty of such great weight and moment , that people ought to be frequently minded of it ; that the bishops and ministers of religion ought frequently to preach of it , and to press and inculcate it upon their hearers . for it is a great scandal to the christian religion , when this duty is not observed : and yet in many cases this duty is so hard to be observed , & requires such a great degree of self-denial and resignation to the will of god , and contempt of present things , that too many men are apt to forget it , and to excuse themselves from it . and therefore st. paul gives this in particular charge to titus , and in him to all the bishops and ministers of the gospel , to take special care to instruct people well in this point , and frequently to renew and repeat their exhortations ; especially when they find a busie , factious , and seditious spirit abroad in the world . thus he instructs timothy the bishop of ephesus , 1 tim. 2. 1. i exhort therefore , that first of all , supplications prayers , intercessions , and giving of thanks , be made for all men ; for kings , and for all that are in authority , that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life , in all godliness and honesty . but you will say , what is this to such an absolute subjection to princes as includes non-resistance in it ? cannot we pray for any man , without making him our absolute and soverain lord ? are we not bound to pray for all our enemies and persecutors ? and does our praying for them , make it unlawful to resist and oppose their unjust violence ? how then can you prove from the duty of praying for kings , that it is in no case lawful to resist them ? if it were lawful to resist tyrannical princes , yet it might be our duty to pray for them . and therefore though it be our duty to pray for princes , it does not hence follow , that we may in no cases lawfully resist them . in answer to this , i grant , that praying for any man , nay praying for kings and princes cannot of it self prove , that it is unlawful to resist them , if it otherwise appear , that resistance is lawful ; but if it be our duty to make supplications , prayers , and intercessions for persecuting princes , as the apostle commands them to pray for the roman emperors , who were profest enemies to christianity ; that is , if they must beg all good things for them , a long and happy and prosperous reign , which is included in intercessions and prayers ; this strongly infers , that they must not resist their power , nor undermine their thrones . for we cannot very well at the same time pray for the prosperity of their government , and endeavour to pull it down . the apostle did not understand those conditional prayers , that god would convert or confound them ; a prayer , which thanks be to god , was never found in any christian liturgie yet ; which possibly is one reason , why some men are no great friends to liturgies . and when the apostle directs them to pray for kings and all that are in authority , that they must live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty , that is , that they might enjoy peace and security in the profession and practice of the true religion ; this seems to imply , that when they are persecuted for their religion , which was the case at that time , they must pray for persecuting princes , that god would incline their hearts to favour his people ; but must not fight against them . this is the only direction the apostle gives them in the case ; and we may reasonably suppose , that had he known any other , he would not have concealed it . if it is always the duty of christians to pray for the prosperous and flourishing state of the empire , as by this apostolical exhortation it appears to be , it could never be lawful for them to resist the powers ▪ for i cannot understand how any man without mocking almighty god , can pray for the prosperity of his prince , and the good success of his government , at the same time , when he fights against him . when st. paul had so freely and openly declared against resisting the higher powers , which timothy , who was his scholar and companion , and fellow-labourer , could not but know ; what other interpretation could he make of the apostles exhortation , to pray for kings , and all that are in authority , that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty , but only this , that prayer is the last and only remedy that we can have against persecuting princes ? had it been lawful for them to resist , it had been a more proper prayer , that god would give them strength and courage and counsel to oppose all his and their enemies : that he would appear as miraculously for their defence , as he formerly did in fighting the battels of israel ; that he would set christ upon his throne , and make all the princes of the earth give place to a more glorious kingdom . time was , when it was all one , whether he saved with many or a few . he knew how to destroy potent and formidable armies , without any humane strength and power , or by such weak & contemptible means , as reserved the glory of the victory intire to himself : and he is the same still that ever he was , and his power is the same . but st. paul very well knew , that it was not lawful for them to pull emperours out of their thrones , to give any disturbance to civil powers , or to attempt any changes or innovations in government ; and therefore since they must submit to such princes as they had , there was no other remedy left them , but to beg of god so to incline the hearts of princes , that they might enjoy a quiet and peaceable possession of their religion , even under pagan princes . for as much as some men of late days profanely scoff at prayers and tears , these have been always thought the onely remedy the church has against persecuting powers ; and it seems st. paul thought so too , for he prescribes no other ; and yet he does not allow them to pray against the king neither , but exhorts them to pray for him , and that they might enjoy peace and security under his government . chap. v. st. peter's doctrine about non-resistance . having heard what st. paul's doctrine was , let us now consider what st. peter taught about this matter : he had as much reason to learn this lesson as any of the apostles , our saviour having severely rebuked him for drawing his sword against the lawful powers , as you have already heard . and indeed , his rash and intemperate zeal in this action cost him very dear ; for we have reason to believe , that this was the chief thing , that tempted him to deny his master . he was afraid to own himself to be his disciple , or that he had been in the garden with him ; because he was conscious to himself , that by drawing his sword , and smiting the servant of the high priest , he had incurred the penalty of the law , and had he been discovered , could expect nothing less , but to be severely punish't for it , it may be to have lost his life for his resistance . and indeed , this has very often been the fate of those men , who have been transported with a boistrous and intemperate zeal to draw their swords for their master and his religion against the lawful powers , that they commonly deny their master , and despise his religion , before they put their swords up again . but st. peter having by our saviour's reproof , and his own dear-bought experience learn't the evil of resistance , never drew his svvord more , and took great care to instruct christians not to do so , 1 peter 2. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16. submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake , whether it be to the king as supreme ; or unto governours , as to them that are sent by him , for the punishment of evil doers , and for the praise of them that do well . for so is the will of god , that with well doing , ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolishmen . as free , and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness , but as the servants of god. this is the very same doctrine , which st. paul taught the romans : let every soul be subject to the higher powers ; for the same word is used in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and therefore to submit and to be subject is the same thing , which , as st. paul tells us , signifies non-resistance . onely as st. paul speaks onely of not resisting the higher powers , that is , emperours and soveraign princes , herein including all those , who act by their authority ; st. peter , to prevent all cavils and exceptions , distinctly mentions both , that we must submit to all humane power and authority , not onely to the king as supreme , that is , in st. paul's phrase , to the higher powers , to all soveraign princes who are invested with the supreme authority ; but also to those , who are sent by him , who receive their authority and commission from the soveraign prince . st. paul tells us at large , that all power is of god , and that the power is the minister of god , and he that resisteth the power , resisteth the ordinance of god ; and therefore we must needs be subject , not onely for wrath , that is , for fear of being punish't by men , but also for conscience sake , out of reverence to god , and fear of his judgement . this st. peter comprises in one word , which includes it all ; submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake : for how is god concerned in our obedience to princes , if they be not his ministers , who are appointed and advanced by him , and act by his authority , and if it be not his will and command , that we should obey them ? and therefore he addes , for this is the will of god , that with well doing , that is , by obedience and subjection to princes , ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men , that is , that you may put to silence those foolish men , who ignorantly accuse you , as fond of changes , and troublesome and dangerous to government . but then st. peter observing , that christian liberty was made a pretence for seditions and treasons , he cautions them against that also , as free , but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness , that is , to cover and excuse such wickedness as rebellion against princes , but as the servants of god : you must remember , whatever freedom christ has purchas 't for you , he has not delivered you from obedience and subjection to god ; you are his servants still , and therefore must be subject to those , who receive their power and authority from god , as all soveraign princes do . this is as plain , one would think , as words can make it ; but nothing can be so plain , but that men who are unwiling to understand it , and who set their wits on work to avoid the force and evidence of it , may be able to find something to say , to deceive themselves , and those who are willing to be deceived : and therefore it will be necessary to consider , what false colours some men have put upon these words , to elude and baffle the plain scope and designe of the apostle in them . as first , they observe , that st. peter calls kings and subordinate governours an ordinance of man , or a humane creature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and from hence they conclude that kings are onely the peoples creatures ; they are made by the people , and receive their power from them , and therefore are accountable to them if they abuse their power . in answer to this , we may consider , 1. that this interpretation of st. peter's words , is a direct contradiction to st. paul , who expresly asserts , that there is no power but of god , the powers that be are ordained of god : but according to this exposition of humane creature , or the ordinance of man , there is no power of god , but all power is derived from the people . kings and princes may be chosen by men , as it is in elective kingdoms , and as it was at that time in the roman empire ; but they receive their power from god , and thus st. paul and st. peter may be reconciled : but to affirm , that st. peter calls kings an ordinance of man , because they receive their power and authority from men , is an irreconcilable contradiction to st. paul , who affirms , that they receive their power from god , that they are god's and not the peoples ministers . now though st. peter and st. paul did once differ upon a matter of prudence , it would be of ill consequence to religion , to make them differ in so material a doctrine as this is : and yet there is no way to reconcile them , but by expounding st. peter's words so as to agree with st. paul's ; for st. paul's words can never be reconciled with that sence , which these men give of st. peter's ; and that is a good argument to me , that is not the true interpretation of st. peter ; for i verily believe , that these two great apostles did not differ in this point . 2. st. peter exhorts them to submit to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake ; which plainly signifies , that whatever hand men may have in modelling civil governments , yet it is the ordinance of god , and princes receive their power from him . for it is no act of disobedience to god to resist our prince , nor of obedience to god to submit to him , if he does not derive his power from god , and act by his authority and commission ; especially in such cases , when he opposes the government of god , and the interest of religion ; and oppresses not onely god's creatures , but his most faithful and obedient people , who are his peculiar care and charge ▪ in such cases as these , if princes do not receive their power from god , they are opposite and rival powers , and we can no more submit to them for god's sake , than we can submit to a rebel for the sake of , that is , out of duty and loyalty to our natural prince . and therefore when the apostle exhorts them , for god's sake to submit to their king , he plainly supposes , what st. paul did particularly express , that kings receive their power from god , and therefore are god's ministers , even when they abuse their power ; and he that resists , resists the ordinance and authority of god. 3. but suppose we should grant , that when st. peter calls kings the ordinance of man , he means , that they receive their power and authority from men ; yet i cannot see , what good this will do them : for he plainly disowns their consequence , that therefore princes are accountable to the people , as to their superiours , and may be resisted , deposed , and brought to condigne punishment , if they abuse this power ; as will appear from these two observations . 1. that he gives the king the title of supreme , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who is above them all , and is invested with the supreme and soveraign power . now the supreme power in the very notion of it , is irresistible and unaccountable ; for otherwise it is not supreme , but subject to some superiour jurisdiction ; which it is evidently known the roman emperours , of whom the apostle here speaks , were not . and 2. that he requires subjection to this humane ordinance , which , as appears from st. paul , signifies non resistance . so that though we should grant that the king derives his power from the people , yet it seems , god confirms and establishes the crown on his head , and will not suffer people to take it off again , when they please . 4. but after all , there is no colour for this objection from the apostles words : for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : humane order or ordination , signifies nothing but humane authority , such power and authority as is exercised by men for the good government of humane societies . and the meaning is only this ; that out of reverence and obedience to god , from whom all power is derived , they should submit to that authority , which is exercised by men , whether to the supream power of soveraign princes , or that subordinate authority which he bestows on inferiour magistrates . 2. it is farther objected , that though st. peter does command christians to submit to kings and governours , yet it is with a limitation , as far as they govern well , while they exercise their authority in pursuance of the great ends of its institution ; for the punishment of evil doers , and for the praise of them that do well . and here st. peter agrees very well with st. paul , who assigns this as the reason , why they may be subject to the powers : for rulers are not a terrour to good works , but to the evil ; wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good , and thou shalt have praise of the same . for he is the minister of god to thee for good . but if thou do that which is evil , be afraid , for he beareth not the sword in vain : for he is the minister of god , an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil , 13 rom ▪ 3 , 4. now we cannot be bound to obey and submit , any farther than the reason of our obedience reaches : and if the reason why we must obey princes , is , because they punish wickedness , and reward and encourage vertue , which is so great a blessing to humane societies , then we are not bound to obey them , when they do quite contrary ▪ when they encourage vice , and oppress the most exemplary innocence . now in answer to this , let us consider , 1. whether these great apostles intended to oblige the christians of that age to yield obedience to those powers ▪ which then governed the world . if they did , ( as i think no man will be so hardy as to say , that they did not ) then it will be proper to enquire , whether what they here affirm , and assign as the reason of their subjection , that rulers are not a terrour to good works , but to the evil , were true of the roman emperours and governours , or not . if it were true , then i believe it will hold true of all kings , in all ages of the world ; for there cannot well be greater tyrants than the roman emperors were at this time : and so this will prove an eternal reason , why we should be subject to princes , notwithstanding the many faults and miscarriages of their government . if it were not true , it is very strange , that two such great apostles , should use such an argument to perswade christians to submit to the powers , as only proved the quite contrary , that they ought not to be subject to the present powers , because they were unjust and tyrannical , and in contradiction to the original design and institution of civil power , were a terror to good works and not to the evil . the christians were at that time persecuted by iews and heathens , by all the powers of the world. the apostle exhorts them not to resist the powers , because they were not a terror to good works , but to the evil . if by this he only means , that they should be subject to them , while they encouraged vertue and vertuous men , but might rebel against them , when they did the contrary ; how could the christians of those days think themselves obliged by this to submit to the higher powers ? for this was not their case . they suffered for righteousness sake ; the powers were a terrour to them , though they were innocent , though they could not charge them , either with breaking the laws of god or men ; and therefore they were not bound to submit to them , whenever they could find it safe to resist . so that either these men put a false comment upon the text , or while the apostle undertakes to deter them from resistance , he urges such an argument as was proper only to perswade them to rebel . 2. we may also consider , that this interpretation of the words makes the apostles argument childish and ludicrous , and wholly useless to perswade any man to be subject , who needs perswasion . for i take it for granted , that there is no need to perswade any man , especially the good and vertuous , not to resist the powers , when he meets with the just rewards and encouragements of vertue . the usual pretence for seditions and treasons , is to redress publick grievances , to deliver themselves from a state of oppression and slavery ; but all mankind agree , that they ought to obey governours , who govern well ; and no man thinks it just or honourable to rebel , who has not , or cannot pretend some cause of complaint . the tryal of our obedience is , when we suffer injuriously for righteousness sake , when our rights and liberties are invaded , when we groan under such oppressions , as are enough to make a wise man mad , and to transport him to irregular and unjustifiable actions . this was the case of the primitive christians to whom the apostles wrote , and therefore we might reasonably expect , that he should urge such arguments to subjection , as should reach their case : but if these men be good expositors , the apostle says nothing to perswade any man to obedience to the powers , who finds the powers uneasie and troublesome to him ; and those who have nothing to complain of ▪ one would think , should need no arguments to perswade them to subjection to so easie and gentle a yoak . 3. nay , according to this interpretation of the doctrine of subjection , that we are bound only to be subject to those princes , who rule well , who punish wickedness and reward vertue ; this doctrine of subjection gives no security at all to the best governments in the world . the most factious and seditious spirits can desire no greater liberty , than this principle grants them . for no humane government can be so exact and perfect , but it may be guilty of great miscarriages . good men may suffer , and bad men may flourish under a vertuous prince , and therefore ill designing men can never want pretences to misrepresent the government , and to foment discontents and jealousies between prince and people . this unhappy nation has been a sad example of this , twice in one age , under two as just and merciful princes , as ever sate upon the english throne . when there were never fewer real grievances to be complained of , and never more loud and tragical complaints : and if subjects are not bound to obey any longer than all things please and gratifie their humors , it is a vain thing to name the doct●●●● of subjection ; which is of no use at all 〈◊〉 peace and security of humane 〈◊〉 4. this is absolutely false , 〈◊〉 are bound to be subject to 〈◊〉 princes no longer than th● 〈…〉 , according to the measures 〈…〉 and righteousness . the apostle i am sure supposes the contrary , when he tells the christians , but and if ye suffer for righteousness sake , happy are ye ; and be not afraid of their terror , neither be troubled , 1 pet. 3. 14. thus he commands servants to be subject to their masters with fear , not only to the good and gentle , but also to the froward . for this is thank-worthy , if a man for conscience towards god endure grief , suffering patiently . for what glory is it , if when ye be buffeted for your faults , ye take it patiently ? but if when ye do well and suffer for it , ye take it patiently , this is acceptable with god , 2 chap. 18 , 19 , 20. and certainly there is as perfect a subjection due to a soverain prince as to a master , for he is more eminently the minister of god , and acts by a more sacred and inviolable authority . and that this does extend to our subjection to princes , appears from the example of christ , which the apostle there recommends to our imitation , who was the most innocent person in the world , and yet suffered the most barbarous usage , not from the hands of a private master , but of the supreme powers . and therefore when he commands in the same chapter to submit to governours , as to those who are for the punishment of evil doers , and the praise of them that do well , it is evident , that he did not intend this as a limitation of our subjection , as if we were not bound to be subject in other cases ; since in the very same chapter , he requires subjection not only to the good and gentle , but also to the froward , in imitation of the example of our lord , who suffered patiently under unjust and tyrannical powers . 5. i observe therefore , that the apostle does not alleadge this as the reason of our subjection , but as a motive or argument to reconcile us to the practice of it . the reason of our subjection to princes is , that they are advanced by god , that they are his ministers , that those who resist , resist the ordinance of god , and therefore we must submit for gods sake , out of reverence to his authority . but it is an encouragement to subjection , to consider the great advantages of government , that rulers are not a terrour to good works , but to the evil . but though this motive should fail in some instances , yet while the reason of subjection lasts , ( and that can never fail , while we own the soverain authority of god ) so long it is our dutie to be subject , whether our prince do his dutie or not . 6. but to examine more particularly the meaning of these words . when the apostle says , that rulers are not a terror to good works , but to the evil ; that they are for the punishment of evil doers , and the praise of them that do well ; i see no necessitie of expounding this of good and evil works in general , that all good and virtuous actions shall be rewarded by them , and all evil actions punish't ; for this is almost impossible in any humane government ; and there never was any government in the world , that appointed rewards for all virtuous actions , and punishments for all wicked ones . but these good and evil works seem to be confined to the matter in hand , to subjection and obedience , as a good and virtuous action . and so the apostle enforces this dutie of subjection , not onely from the authoritie of god , but from the power of princes : be subject to the higher powers ; for rulers are not a terrour to good works , but to the evil . we need not fear the powers , when we obey them , and submit ourselves to them ; but they will punish us if we rebel . the force of which argument is this : the best way to obtain safetie and protection under any government , is by being peaceable , quiet , and obedient ; such men generally escape under the greatest tyrants , for tyrants themselves do not use to insult over the peaceable and obedient : but if men be seditious and troublesome to government , then he beareth not the sword in vain , but is the minister of god , a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil , that is , upon all disobedience and rebellion ; for whatever wickedness escapes unpunish't , princes for their own securitie must not suffer disobedience and rebellion to escape . and that this is the meaning of it , appears from the next verse , where the apostle sums up the whole argument for subjection , which he reduces to conscience towards god , and fear of the secular powers : wherefore ye must needs be subject , not onely for wrath , but also for conscience sake . and that st. peter by well doing means subjection to princes , is very plain . for so is the will of god , that with well doing , ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men ; that is , by obedience and subjection to princes , which is the dutie he there exhorts them to . and therefore it is very probable that he means the same by well doing in the verse before , that governours are for the punishment of evil doers , and the praise of them that do well ; to punish the disobedient and rebellious , and to reward and protect those , who live in all quiet and peaceable subjection . and if this be the meaning of it , i think they can find no limitation here of our subjection to princes . 7. but let us suppose , that when the apostle says , that rulers are not a terror to good works , but to the evil , he understands by it in general , the great advantages of civil government , that is , for the suppression of wickedness , and incouragement of virtue , which is the true end and the best improvement of humane power ; this also is in a great measure true of the worst and most tyrannical princes , and therefore the argument for subjection is good even under a tyrant . publick justice was administred under the government of nero , and good men were rewarded , and bad men punish't : and though justice be not so equally and so universally administred under a bad prince , as under a good one ; though a tyrant may oppress many of his subjects , and be the occasion of great calamities , yet while there is any publick government maintained in the world , it lays great restraints upon the unruly lusts and passions of men , and gives great securitie to the just and innocent . and therefore good men are concerned to promote the peace and securitie of government , though the prince be a tyrant : for there is more justice to be had under a tyrant , than in a civil war. in ordinary cases it is very possible for good men to live easily and tolerably under a very bad prince ; & though it should be their lot to suffer , yet since the peace and quiet of humane societies is in it self so great a blessing , and the publick good is better consulted by the preservation of government , than by resistance , it becomes every good man rather to suffer patiently under a tyrant , than to shake and unsettle humane government , and disturb the natural course of justice by seditions and tumults . 8. nay let us suppose , that the apostle here speaks of such an equal administration of justice , as cannot be expected under the government of a tyrant ; yet so the argument holds good against resistance , though our prince be never so bad . and it lies thus : we must not resist the powers , because rulers are not a terrour to good works , but to the evil . this is the great blessing of humane government , to preserve justice and righteousness among men . for this reason god has intrusted the princes with the power of the sword , for the punishment of evil doers , and the praise of them that do well ; and therefore we must not resist him , because publick justice is so great a blessing to the world . but how does this follow , you will say , that we must not resist a tyrant , who is so far from administring justice , that he oppresses his subjects , because civil government and publick justice is so great a blessing ? what agreement is there between civil government , and publick justice and a tyrant ? why the consequence is very plain . civil government , which is for the administration of publick justice , is a great and inestimable blessing to the world : but now there can be no civil government without a supreme and irresistible power ; publick justice cannot be administred , unless there is some power from whence there is no appeal . it is not necessarie indeed , that the power should always be in the hands of one man ; but if god have placed this power in the hands of a prince , there it must be irresistible too , however he uses it : for if once it be made lawful to resist the supreme power , wherever it is plac't , you dissolve humane societies , or at least expose them to perpetual disorders and convulsions . factious and ambitious men will find pretences to resist good princes as well as the bad , and no government can be any longer secure , than while ill-designing men want power to resist . now then , to pass a true judgement of this matter , we must not onely consider , what present inconveniencies we may suffer from the irresistible power of a tyrant , but what an irreparable mischief it is for ever to unsettle the foundations of government . we must consider whether civil government be the greater blessing to mankind , or a tyrant the greater curse : whether it be more desirable to endure the insolence and injustice of a tyrant , when the power falls into such a hand ; or for ever to be deprived of the securitie of government , and the blessings of peace and order . and therefore there is great reason , why god should so severely forbid the resistance of princes , though tyrants ; and why we should quietly and contentedly submit to this divine appointment , because the resistance of the supreme power , were it once allowed by god , would weaken the authoritie of humane governments , and expose them to the rage and frenzie of ambitious and discontented statesmen , or wild enthusiasts . this i think is a sufficient answer to this pretence , that the apostle limits our subjection to princes to the regular exercise of their authoritie . 3. it is objected also from st. peters words , that the inferiour and subordinate magistrates receive their power from god also , as well as supreme and soveraign princes ; governours are sent by him , that is , say they , by god , for the punishment of evil doers , and the praise of them that do well ; and therefore though private men may not resist a soveraign prince , yet publick magistrates may , though they be not supreme ; for it is their dutie also to see wickedness punish't , and virtue rewarded ; and therefore it is part of their commission to give check to the soveraign power , and to defend subjects from the unjust violence and oppressions of their prince . and this the emperour trajan learn't from the common principles of justice and equitie , who delivered a sword to one of his officers with this charge , to use it for him , while he governed well , but against him if he governed ill . now in answer to this , we may consider , 1. that there is no foundation at all for this in the text , for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him , cannot by any rules of grammar be referred to god , but to the king. submit to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake , whether to the king as supreme , or unto governours , as unto them who are sent by him . by him ? by whom ? by god ? that is not said , but by the king , for that is the next antecedent ; and that is the evident truth of the case . inferiour magistrates do not receive their power from god , but from the king , who having the soveraign power in himself , commits the exercise of some part of it to others , and taketh it away again , when he pleases . and the very phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , those who are sent by him , plainly refers it to those who were sent by the emperour into forreign countries , to govern the roman provinces ; such as pontius pilate and felix were : and so the meaning is , that they were not onely obliged to submit to the roman emperours , but to all those governours , whom they sent to rule the provinces under their jurisdiction ; which is no more than for a preacher to instruct the subjects of ireland , that they must not onely submit to the king , but to all those whom he sent to govern them , with the power and authoritie of deputies , or lord-lieutenants . 2. nay st. peter , as if he had foreseen this objection , takes particular care to prevent it , and therefore makes an apparent difference between that submission we owe to soveraign princes , and that which we owe to governours ; we must submit to the king as supreme , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to him who is above all , whose power is unaccountable and irresistible ; but to governours , as unto them who are sent by him : which both signifies the reason of our submission to governours , and prescribes the bounds and measures of it . the reason why we must submit to governours , is because they are sent by our prince , they act by his authoritie , and therefore we must submit to , and reverence his authoritie in them . it is not for their own sakes , nor for any inherent authoritie in them , but as they receive their power from our prince . and this also determines the bounds and measures of our subjection to governours . as that authoritie , which they receive from the king , is the onely reason why we must submit to them at all : so we must submit no longer , than that authoritie lasts ; when ever the prince recalls them , and transfers this power to another , we must obey them no longer . nay , since we are only bound to reverence and obey the authoritie of our prince in them , we must never submit to them in opposition to our prince . our primarie obligation is to submit to the king , who is our soveraign-lord , and must in no cases be resisted ; our submission to governours and subordinate magistrates is onely a part and branch of our dutie to the king , as they are his officers and ministers : and therefor eit can never be our dutie to obey or comply with subordinate magistrates , but onely when it is an act of dutie and subjection to our prince ; and certainly it is no act of subjection to our prince to obey subordinate magistrates , when they rebel against their prince : for , to resist a prince , or to joyn with those who do resist him , is an odde kind of instance of our subjection to him . this is not to submit to the king as supreme , nor to governours , as unto those who are sent by him , and receive their authoritie from him ; but it is to submit to governours , as the supreme and soveraign iudges of our prince , and the patrons and protectors of the people against their prince ; which is directly contrarie to st. peter's doctrine . it was no new thing for the governours of remote provinces to revolt from the obedience of the roman emperours , and to usurp a soveraign and imperial authoritie to themselves ; and therefore st. peter expresses their dutie to governours with this caution and limitation , that though they must submit to those , whom the emperour sent to govern them , yet it must be in subordination to the imperial authoritie , and with a reserve of that more absolute subjection , which they owe to the emperour himself , who is their soveraign lord. while governours are subject to the emperour , who is their lord and master , we must be subject to them ; but if they rebel , we must be subject to the emperour still , and oppose those , whom we were before bound to obey . when st. peter so expresly commands them both to submit to the king , and to submit to governours , it is impossible he could consider the king and governous , as two distinct and rival authorities ; for then it might so happen , that they could not submit to both , if ever they should oppose each other : and therefore when he commands them to submit to both , he must suppose them to be both one , as the fountain and the stream is one . the authoritie to which they must submit is but one , it is originally in the king , as in its source and fountain , and it is derived and communicated to governours ; but is the same power still , which as necessarily depends upon the king , as light does upon the sun ; and therefore when these powers grow two , when this derivative and dependant power sets up for it self in opposition to that power which gave it its being , we are delivered from our subjection to it , because it ceases to be one with that soveraign power , to which we must be subject ▪ once more . st. peter commands the christians to submit to the king , and to governours , that is , to the king's ministers , who receive their authority from him to govern . but when such persons rebel against their prince who gave them authority , they cease to be the kings ministers and governours , and therefore cease to be such governours to whom the apostle commands submission . we are to obey them while they are the kings ministers and deputies ; but when they assume to themselves an independant power , we must submit to them no longer , but to our prince : we may and ought to obey our prince , and those magistrates whom he sets over us , but we cannot submit to our prince and to rebels ; and certainly when men become rebels , they are no longer the kings ministers , but his rivals . 3. it is a very ridiculous pretence also , which has no foundation in st. peter's words , that governours or subordinate magistrates have power to controul or resist their soverain prince . the apostle tells us , that the king is supreme ; but over whom is he supreme ? certainly over all in his dominions , or else he is not supreme ; and therefore he is supreme with respect to subordinate magistrates , as well as private subjects ; and then they have no more power or authority to resist , than any private subject has . for st. paul tells us , the higher power is irresistible ; which would be a strange paradox , if every little officer had authority to resist him . and yet if men will grant , that it is never lawful for any private man to resist his prince , it is not worth disputing , whether subordinate magistrates may or not ; for if private men must not resist , these inferiour magistrates cannot , or at least they will resist to no purpose . he may make them private men again when he pleases ; or however , he must be an unfortunate prince , whom all his own officers and ministers conspire against ; and he must be a very weak prince , who has not force and power to oppose them . for what does the discontent of the greatest ministers signifie , who can raise no forces to oppose their prince ? and yet there are no forces to be raised , if private men must not resist . when inferiour magistrates must submit , or rebel alone , ( as they must do , if private men must not rebel ) whatever authority they have to controul their prince , they will want force and power to do it . and yet it would be a lewd way of burlesquing this doctrine of non-resistance , to make no more of it than this , that when st. paul so severely threatens damnation against those who resist , his meaning is , that private subjects must not resist their prince , unless they have some discontented and factious magistrates to head them . but how should these subordinate governours come by this power to resist their prince ? they must either have it from god , or from their prince . not from god. for soverain princes receive their authority from god ; and if god have bestowed the supreme and soverain power on the prince , it is a contradiction to say , that he has advanced his own ministers and officers above him , which would be to place a superiour power over the supreme . nor is it reasonable to suppose , that inferiour magistrates receive such a power as this from their prince , though it is evident , they have no power , but what they receive from him . for notwithstanding trajan's complement , which he never intended should be made a law for himself , or other soverain princes ; no prince can give such power as this to a subject , without giving him his crown . he gives away his soverain power , when he gives any subject authority to resist ; he ceases to be a soverain prince , if he makes any man his superior : for he cannot give away soverain power , and yet keep it himself . and it would be a hard case with princes , had they as many judges and masters , as they have officers and ministers of state. indeed , no prince without parting with his crown , can grant such an extravagant power to any subject : for while he continues soverain , god has made it necessary to the greatest subjects to obey and submit . for as for trajan's saying to one of his commanders , when he delivered him the sword , use this for me if i govern well , and against me if i govern ill , it only signified his fixt resolution to govern well , and that he would imploy it in no ill services : but it conveyed no more power to him to rebel , if he should govern ill , than a father's saying to his son , that he should forgive his disobedience , if ever he would prove unkind , would justifie the disobedience of the son , if his father should prove unkind . the duties of these relations are fixt by god , and cannot be altered by men . a prince may divest himself of his kingdom , and royal power ; but while he continues soveraign , he cannot give liberty to any man to resist him . 4. there is another objection not only to invalidate st. peters authoritie , but to answer all the arguments that are produced from the doctrine and practice of christ and his apostles , to inforce this dutie of non-resistance and subjection to princes ; and that is , that these commands were onely temporarie , and obliged christians while they wanted force and power to resist , but do not oblige us , when we can resist and conquer too . i have sometimes thought , that this objection ought to be answered onely with indignation and abhorrence , as an open contempt of the authoritie of the scriptures , and blasphemie against the holy spirit , by which they were indited ; but it may be , it is better to answer and expose it , and let the world see , besides the notorious folly of it , how near a kin the doctrine of resistance is to atheism , infidelity , and blasphemy . 1. first then i observe , that this very objection supposes that the doctrine of the gospel is against resistance ; for those who evade the authoritie of the scriptures , by saying , that christians were then forbid to resist , because they wanted power to conquer , must grant , that resistance is forbid . which is a plain confession , that they are conscious to themselves , that all the arts they have us'd to make the scriptures speak their sence , and justifie the doctrine of resistance , will not do . and therefore when men are once reduced to this last refuge , to confess , that the scriptures are against them , if they have any modesty left , they ought never to pretend to the authority of the scriptures in this cause more . and this is a sufficient answer to all men , who have any reverence for the authority of the scriptures , that they cannot resist their prince without disobeying the plain and express laws of the gospel ; for he is a bold man , who will venture his eternal salvation , upon pleading his exemption from any express law. 2. i would desire all men who have any reverence left for the religion of our saviour , to consider seriously how this pretence does disparage and weaken the authority of the gospel , and make it a very imperfect , and a very uncertain rule of life , which every man may fit and accommodate to his own humour and inclinations . christ and his apostles do in the most express terms , and under the most severe penalties , forbid the resistance of soveraign princes . but say these men , this law does not oblige us now , though it did oblige the christians of those days ; for our circumstances are much changed and altered . the christians at that time were weak , and unable to resist , and therefore were taught to suffer patiently without resistance ; but thanks be to god , the case is not thus now ; and therefore we may vindicate our natural and religious rights and liberties against all unjust violence . now observe what follows from hence : 1. that the gospel of our saviour is a very imperfect and uncertain rule of life ; that it absolutely forbids things , which are not absolutely evil , but sometimes lawful , without allowing for such a difference : that it gives general laws , which oblige onely at certain times , or in some circumstances , without giving any notice in what cases they do not oblige ; which is a mightie snare to mens consciences , or a great injury to their christian libertie . it imposes this hard necessitie upon them , either to make bold with a divine law , if they do resist tyrannical powers , which is grievous to a tender conscience , which has any reverence for god ; or to suffer injuriously , when they need not , had they been plainly instructed in their dutie , and acquainted in what cases they might resist , and in what not . and i think , there cannot be a greater reproach to the gospel , than to make it such an imperfect and insnaring rule . 2. nay , this charges christ and his apostles with want of sinceritie in preaching the gospel ; for either they knew , that this doctrine of non-resistance did not oblige all christians , but onely those who are weak and unable to resist , or they did not . if we say they did not , we charge them with ignorance : if we say they did , with dishonestie : for if they knew , that all christians were not obliged to such an absolute subjection to princes , as in no case to resist , why did they conceal so important a truth , without giving the least intimation of it ? did they think this so scandalous a doctrine , that they were afraid or ashamed to publish it to the world ? and can any thing be a doctrine of the gospel , which is truly scandalous ? but was the doctrine of resistance more scandalous ▪ than the doctrine of the cross ? would this have offended princes , and make them more implacable enemies to christianitie ? but would it not also have made more converts ? would not a libertie to resist the powers , and defend themselves , been a better inducement to imbrace christianitie , than a necessitie of suffering the worst things for the name of christ ? would not this have contributed very much to the conversion of the whole iewish nation , who were fond of a temporal kingdom , had christianitie allowed them to cast off the roman yoke , and restored their ancient liberties ? how soon should we have seen the cross in their banners , and how gladly would they have fought under that victorious signe , under the conduct of so many wonder-working prophets ? and how soon would this have made the doctrine of non-resistance useless and out of date , by making christians powerful enough to resist ? so that there is no imaginable reason , why christ and his apostle should conceal this doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting persecuting and tyrannical powers , especially at that time , when if it had been lawful , there was as much use for it , and as great reason to preach it , as ever there was , or ever can be . and therefore we must either think very ill of our saviour and his apostles , or a knowledge , that this is no gospel-doctrine , never was , and never can be any part of the religion of the cross. there is no reason , why christ should at first plant christianity in the world by sufferings , if it might afterwards be maintained and propagated by glorious rebellions . 3. if this plea be allowed , it weakens the authoritie of all the laws of the gospel , and leaves men at libertie to dispence with themselves , when they see or fancie any reason for it . non-resistance is as absolutely commanded , as any other law of the gospel ; but these men imagine , without any other reason , but because they would have it so , that this law onely concerned christians in the weak and infant-state of the church , while they were unable to resist . now should other men take the same libertie with other laws ( and i know no reason but why they may ) how easie were it to expound christianitie out of the world ? meekness , patience , humilitie , selfdenial , contempt of the world , forgiving enemies , contentment in all conditions , are parts and branches of this suffering religion ; and may we not with as much reason say , that these duties were calculated for the afflicted and suffering state of the church , when the profession of christianitie was discouraged in the world , and exposed them to the loss of all things , and therefore made it impossible for them to enjoy those pleasures and advantages of life , which other men did ; but that they do not more oblige us than resistance , now the church is flourishing and prosperous ? and thus men may justifie their pride and ambition and covetousness , and may be as very idolaters of the riches and pleasures and honours of the world , as heathens themselves , when christianity became the religion of the empire : it did indeed make too great an alteration in the lives of christians . but according to this way of reasoning , it made as great an alteration in religion it self ; at this rate we ought to have two gospels , one for the afflicted , the other for the prosperous state of the church ; which differ as much as christianity and paganism in the great rules of life . but we are hard dealt with , that we have but one gospel , and that the suffering gospel ; and for my part , i dare not undertake to make another . so that this plea for resistance in opposition to the plain and express laws of the gospel , in the consequences of it , strikes at the very foundations of christianitie , and becomes the mouth of none but an atheist or an infidel . 4. this is a very absurd pretence ▪ that the apostle forbids the christians of those days to resist , onely because they were weak , and unable to resist . this is a great reproach to the apostle , as if he were of the temper of some men , who crouch and flatter , and pretend great loyaltie , when they are afraid to rebel , but are loyal no longer than they have an opportunitie to rebel . this is dissimulation and flatterie , and inconsistent with the open simplicitie of the apostolick spirit ; but it is very strange that the apostle should so severely forbid resistance , when he knew they could not resist . one would think common prudence should teach such men to be quiet and subject ; and therefore his zeal and vehemence would perswade one , that as weak as the christians were , yet in those days they could have resisted . nay , it is evident , that there were a sort of men who in those days called themselves christians , and yet did resist the powers ; such were the gnostick hereticks , who despised government , who were presumptuous and self-willed , and were not afraid to speak evil of dignities , 2. peter 2. 10. jude v. 8. for to reproach and vilifie government , is one degree of resistance ; and no men are so weak , but they may do that . nay , though christians had not power enough of their own to have rebelled against the roman government , yet they had opportunitie enough to joyn and conspire with those who had , and to have made good terms and conditions for themselves . they lived in a very factious age , when both jews and heathens were very apt to rebel , and could both have promoted and strengthned the faction , if they had pleased , and have grown very acceptable to them by doing so ; and though no man knows what the event of any rebellion will be ▪ till he tries , yet they might have escaped as well as other men . this the apostle knew , and this he was afraid of , and this he warns them against ; and that for such reasons , as plainly shew , that it was not a meer prudential advice he gives them , for that time , but a standing law of their religion . 5. for this doctrine of non-resistance is urged with such reasons and arguments , as are good in all ages of the church , as well when christians have power to resist and conquer , as when they have not . thus ( 1. ) st. paul inforces this dutie of subjection to the higher powers , because all powers are of god ; the powers that be are ordained of god ; and therefore he that resisteth the powers , resisteth the ordinance of god. now if they must obey the powers , because they are from god , subjection and non-resistance is as much our dutie , when we have power to resist , as when we have not ; and is as much our dutie at this day , as it was in the time of the apostle , if we believe , that god has as great a hand in setting up kings now , as he had then . 2. he threatens eternal damnation against those , who resist : he that resists shall receive unto himself damnation ; which supposes , that there is a moral evil in resistance , and therefore that non-resistance is an eternal and unchangeable law : which cannot be true , if it be lawful to resist , when we can resist to some purpose , when we can resist and conquer . it is foolish indeed to resist a prince , when we have not sufficient force to oppose against him ; but it would be a hard case , if a man should perish etenally , for doing an action , which is lawful in it self , but imprudently undertaken . these men had need look well to themselves , how lawful soever they think resistance to be , if every imprudent and unfortunate rebel must be damned . 3. st. paul addes , that we must needs be subject , not onely for wrath , but also for conscience sake ; that is , not onely out of fear of men , but out of conscience of our dutie to god. now if resistance were not in its nature sinful , it were a very prudential consideration , not to resist for fear of wrath , that is , for fear of being punish't by men , if we cannot conquer ; but there would be no conscience in the case , no sence of any dutie to god ▪ unless we think , that non-resistance is our duty , when we cannot conquer , and resistance when we can . 4. st. peter tells us , that this subjection to kings and governours is a good and vertuous action , and therefore he calls it well-doing : for so is the will of god , that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men ; that is , by submitting to kings and governours , as you have already heard . now the nature of vertue and vice cannot alter with the circumstances of our condition ; that which is good in one age , is so in another ; which shews , that subjection and non-resistance was not a temporary law , and meer matter of prudence , but an essential duty of christian religion . 5. for it appears by what he adds , that it was a great credit and reputation to christianity , that it made men quiet , peaceable , and governable ; by well-doing they put to silence the ignorance of foolish men ; by their peaceable and obedient behaviour to their governours , they sham'd those men , who ignorantly reproach't the christian religion . now hence there are two plain consequents : 1. that subjection to government is a thing of very good repute in the world , or else it could be no credit to christianity ; and this is a good argument that subjection to government is a great vertue , because all men speak well of it . it is a thing of good report , and therefore becomes christians , 4 phil. 8. 2. it hence follows also , that subjection to government was a standing doctrine of the christian religion , because it was the will of god , that they should recommend christianity to the world by subjection to princes . but certainly god never intended they should put a cheat upon the world , and recommend christianity to them , by that , which is no part nor duty of christianity . this is abundantly sufficient to confute that vain pretence , that the doctrine of subjection and non-resistance obliged christians only , while they were unable to resist and defend themselves ; and this is enough to satisfie us , what the doctrine of the apostles was about subjection to princes . as for their examples , i think there was never any dispute about that . it is sufficiently known , that they suffered martyrdom , as a vast number of christians in that and some following ages did , without either reproaching their governours , or rebelling against them : and this they did , as they taught others to do , not meerly because they could not resist , but out of duty and reverence to god , who sets princes on thrones , and has given them a sacred and inviolable authority ; and in imitation of their great lord and master , who went as a lamb to the slaughter , and as a sheep before the shearer is dumb , so he opened not his mouth . chap. vi. an answer to the most popular objections against non-resistance . i proceed now to consider those objections , which are made against the doctrine of non-resistance ; though methinks after such plain and convincing proof , that non-resistance is the doctrine both of the old and new testament , though witty men may be able to start some objections , yet wise and good men should not regard them : for no objection is of any force , against a plain and express law of god. indeed , when we have no evidence for a thing but only natural reason , and the reason seems to be equally strong and cogent on both sides , it renders the matter very doubtful , on which side the truth lies : but when on one side there is a plain and express revelation of the will of god , and on the other side some shew and appearance of reason , i think there can be no dispute , which side we chuse ; unless any man think it doubtful , which is the most certain and infallible rule , scripture or meer natural reason . and therefore till men can answer that scripture-evidence , which i have produced , ( which i am not much concerned about , for i guess it will take them up some time to do it ) all their other objections , whether i could answer them or not , signifie nothing at all to me , and ought to signifie as little to any man , who reverences the scriptures . but let us consider their objections ▪ for they are not so formidable , that we need be afraid of them . now i know no body , but will acknowledge , that in most cases it is the duty of subjects not to resist their prince ; but they only pretend , that this is not their duty , when their prince oppresses and persecutes them contrary to law ▪ when their lives and liberties and properties and religion are all secured by the laws of the land , they see no reason why they should tamely suffer a prince to usurp upon them , why they should not defend themselves against all unjust and illegal violence ; and they urge several arguments to prove , that they may do so ; which may be reduced to these five . 1. that they are bound by no law to suffer against law. 2. that the prince has no authority against law. 3. that they have a natural right of self-defence against unjust violence . 4. that otherwise we destroy the distinction between an absolute and limited monarch ; between a prince whose will is his law , and a prince who is bound to govern by law ; which undermines the fundamental constitution of the english government . 5. that if resistance in no case be allowed , the mischiefs and inconveniencies to mankind may be intolerable . i suppose it will be acknowledged , that these five particulars do contain the whole strength of their cause ; and if i can give a fair answer to them , it must either make men loyal , or leave them without excuse . 1. they urge , that they are bound by no law to suffer against law. suppose , as a late author does , that a popish prince should persecute his protestant subjects in england for professing the protestant religion which is established by law ; by what law ( saies he ) must we die ? not by any law of god surely , for being of that religion , which he approves , and would have all the world to embrace , and to hold fast to the end . nor by the laws of our country , where protestancy is so far from being criminal , that it is death to desert it , and to turn papist . by what law then ? by none that i know of , saies our author : nor do i know of any ; and so far we are agreed . but then both the laws of god and of our countrie , command us not to resist : and if death , an illegal unjust death follow upon that , i cannot help it ; god and our countrie must answer for it . it is a wonderful discoverie , which this author has made , that when we suffer against law , we are condemned by no law to die● ; for if we were , we could not suffer against law : and it is as wonderful an argument he uses to prove , that we may resist , when we are persecuted against law , because we are condemned by no law to die ; which is supposed in the very question , and is neither more nor less , than to affirm the thing which he was to prove . we may resist a prince who persecutes against law , because we are condemned by no law , that is , because he persecutes against law. this proves indeed , that we ought not to die , when we are condemned by no law to die ; but whether we may preserve our selves from an unjust and violent death by resisting a persecuting prince ▪ is another question . 2. it is urged , that a prince has no authoritie against law ; there is no authority on earth above the law , much less against it . it is murder to put a man to death against law ; and if they knew who had authority to commit open , bare-faced , and downright murders , this would direct them where to pay their passive obedience ; but it would be the horridest stander in the world to say , that any such power is lodged in the prerogative , as to destroy men contrary to law. now i perfectly agree with them in this also , that a prince has no just and legal authoritie to act against law ▪ that if he knowingly persecure any subject to death contrary to law , he is a murderer , and that no prince has any such prerogative to commit open , bare-faced and downright murders . but what follows from hence ? does it hence follow , therefore we may resist and oppose them , if they do ? this i absolutely denie ; because god has expresly commanded us not to resist : and i see no inconsistencie between these two propositions , that a prince has no legal authoritie to persecute against law , and yet that he must not be resisted , when he does . both the laws of god , and the laws of our countrie , suppose these two to be very consistent . for notwithstanding the possibilitie , that princes may abuse their power , and transgress the laws , whereby they ought to govern ; yet they command subjects in no case to resist : and it is not sufficient to justifie resistance , if princes do , what they have no just authoritie to do , unless we have also a just authoritie to resist . he , who exceeds the just bounds of his authoritie , is lyable to be called to an account for it ; but he is accountable onely to those , who have a superior authoritie to call him to an account . no power whatever is accountable to an inferiour ; for this is a contradiction to the very notion of power , and destructive of all order and government . inferiour magistrates are on all hands acknowledged to be lyable to give an account of the abuse of their power ; but to whom must they give an account ? not to their inferiours ; not to the people , whom they are to govern , but to superiour magistrates , or to the soveraign prince , who governs all . thus the soveraign prince may exceed his authoritie , and is accountable for it to a superiour power ; but because he has no superiour power on earth , he cannot be resisted by his own subjects , but must be reserved to the judgement of god , who alone is the king of kings . to justifie our resistance of any power , there are two things to be proved . 1. that this power has exceeded its just authoritie . 2. that we have authoritie to resist . now these men indeed prove the first very well , that princes , who are to govern by law , exceed their legal authoritie when they persecute against law : but they say not one word of the second , that subjects have authoritie to resist their prince , who persecutes against law ; which was the onely thing , that needed proof : but this is a hard task , and therefore they thought it more adviseable to take it for granted , than to attempt to prove it . they say indeed , that an inauthoritative act , which carries no obligation at all , cannot oblige subjects to obedience . now this is manifestly true , if by obedience they mean an active obedience ; for i am not bound to do an ill thing , or an illegal action , because my prince commands me ; but if they mean passive obedience , it is as manifestly false ; for i am bound to obey , that is , not to resist my prince , when he offers the most unjust and illegal violence . nay , it is very false and absurd to say , that every illegal , is an inauthoritative act , which carries no obligation with it . this is contrarie to the practice of all humane iudicatures , and the daily experience of men , who suffer in their lives , bodies , or estates by an unjust and illegal sentence . every judgement contrarie to the true meaning of the law , is in that sence illegal ; and yet such illegal judgements have their authoritie and obligation , till they are rescinded by some higher authoritie . this is the true reason of appeals from inferiour to superiour courts , to rectifie illegal proceedings , and reverse illegal judgements ; which supposes that such illegal acts have authoritie , till they are made null and void by a higher power : and if the higher powers from whence lies no appeal , confirm and ratifie an unjust and illegal sentence , it carries so much authoritie and obligation with it , that the injured person has no redress , but must patiently submit ; and thus it must necessarily be , or there can be no end of disputes , nor any order and government in humane societies . and this is a plain demonstration , that though the law be the rule according to which princes ought to exercise their authoritie and power , yet the authoritie is not in laws ; but in persons ; for otherwise why is not a sentence pronounced according to law by a private person , of as much authoritie , as a sentence pronounced by a judge ? how does an illegal sentence pronounced by a judge , come to have any authoritie ? for a sentence contrarie to law , cannot have the authoritie of the law. why is a legal or illegal sentence reversible , and alterable , when pronounced by one judge , and irreversible and unalterable , when pronounced by another ? for the law is the same , and the sentence is the same , either according to law or against it , whoever the judge be ; but it seems the authoritie of the persons is not the same , and that makes the difference ; so that there is an authoritie in persons , in some sence distinct from the authoritie of laws , nay superiour to it . for there is such an authoritie , as , though it cannot make an illegal act legal , yet , can and often does make an illegal act binding and obligatorie to the subjects , when pronounced by a competent judge . if it be said , that this very authoritie is owing to the law , which appoints judges and magistrates to decide controversies , and orders appeals from inferiour to superiour courts : i would onely ask one short question , whether the law gives authoritie to any person to judge contrarie to law . if it does not , then all illegal acts are null and void , and lay no obligation on the subject : and yet this is manifestly false , according to the known practice of all the known governments in the world . the most illegal judgement is valid , till it be reverst by some superiour power ; and the judgement of the supreme power , though never so illegal , can be repealed by no authoritie but its own . and yet it is absurd to say , that the law gives any man authoritie to judge contrarie to law : for , to be sure , this is besides the end and intention of the law . whence then does an illegal act or judgement derive its authoritie and obligation ? the answer is plain , it is from the authoritie of the person , whose act or judgement it is . it will be of great use to this controversie , to make this plain and obvious to every understanding ; which therefore i shall endeavour to do , as briefly as may be . 1. then i observe , that there must be a personal power and authoritie antecedent to all civil laws . for there can be no laws without a law-maker , and there can be no law-maker , unless there be one or more persons invested with the power of government , of which making laws is one branch . for a law is nothing else , but the publick and declared will and command of the law-maker , whether he be the soveraign prince , or the people . 2. and hence it necessarily follows , that a soveraign prince does not receive his authoritie from the laws , but laws receive their authoritie from him . we are often indeed minded of what bracton saies , lex facit regem , that the law makes the king ; by which that great lawyer was far enough from understanding , that the king receives his soveraign power from the law ; for the law has no authoritie , nor can give any , but what it receives from the king ; and then it is a wonderful riddle , how the king should receive his authoritie from the law . but when he saies ▪ the law makes the king , he distinguishes a king from a tyrant , and his meaning is , that to govern by laws , makes a soveraign prince a king , as king signifies a just and equal and beneficial power and authoritie ; as appears from the reason he gives for it , non est enim rex , ubi dominatur voluntas , & non lex ; he is no king , who governs by arbitrarie will , and not by law : not that he is no soveraign prince , but he is a tyrant and not a king. 3. and hence it evidently follows , that the being of soveraign power is independent on laws ; that is , as a soveraign prince does not receive his power from the law , so , should he violate the laws by which he is bound to govern , yet he does not forfeit his power . he breaks his faith to god and to his countrie , but he is a soveraign prince still . and this is in effect acknowledged by these men , who so freely confess , that let a prince be what he will , though he trample upon all laws , and exercise an arbitrarie and illegal authoritie , yet his person is sacred and inviolable , and irresistible ; he must not be touch'd nor opposed . and allow that saying of david to be scripture still , who can stretch forth his hand against the lord 's anointed , and be guiltless ? now what is it , that makes the person of a king more inviolable and unaccountable than other men ? nothing , that i know of , but his sacred and inviolable authoritie : and therefore it seems , though he act against law , yet he is a soveraign prince , and the lord ▪ s anointed still ; or else i see no reason , why they might not destroy his person also . and yet if nothing but an inviolable and unaccountable authoritie can make the person of the king inviolable and unaccountable , i would gladly know , how it becomes lawful to resist his authoritie , and unlawful to resist his person . i would desire these men to tell me , whether a soveraign prince signifies the natural person , or the authoritie of a king ; and if to divest him of his authoritie , be to kill the king , why they may not kill the man too , when they have killed the king. thus when men are forc't to mince treason and rebellion , they always speak nonsense . those indeed who resist the authoritie of their prince , but spare his person , do better than those , who kill him ; but those who affirm , that his person is as resistible and accountable as his authoritie , speak more consistently with themselves , and the principles of rebellion . 4. and hence i suppose , it plainly appears , that every illegal act the king does , is not an inauthoritative act , but laies an obligation on subjects to yeild , if not an active , yet a passive obedience . for the king receives not his soveraign authoritie from the law , nor does he forfeit his authoritie by breaking the law ; and therefore he is a soveraign prince still ; and his most illegal acts , though they have not the authoritie of the law , yet they have the authoritie of soveraign power , which is irresistible and unaccountable . in a word , it does not become any man who can think three consequences off , to talk of the authoritie of laws in derogation to the authoritie of the soveraign power . the soveraign power made the laws , and can repeal them and dispence with them , and make new laws ; the onely power and authoritie of the laws is in the power , which can make and execute laws . soveraign power is inseparable from the person of a soveraign prince : and though the exercise of it may be regulated by laws , and that prince does very ill , who having consented to such a regulation , breaks the laws ; yet when he acts contrarie to law , such acts carrie soveraign and irresistible authoritie with them , while he continues a soveraign prince . but if it be possible to convince all men how vain this pretence of laws is , to justifie resistance or rebellion against a prince , who persecutes without or against law , i shall only ask two plain questions . 1. whether the laws of god and nature be not as sacred and inviolable as the laws of our country ? if they be , ( and methinks no man should dare say that they are not ) why may we not as well resist a prince , who persecutes us against the laws of god and nature , as one , who persecutes against the laws of our countrey ? is not the prince as much bound to observe the laws of god and nature , as the laws of his country ? if so , then their distinction between suffering with and against law signifies nothing . for all men , who suffer for well-doing , suffer against law ▪ for by the laws of god , and the natural ends of humane government , such men ought to be rewarded , and not punisht . nay , they suffer contrarie to those laws , which commanded them to do that good , for which they suffer . thus the christians suffered under pagan emperors , for worshipping one supreme god , and refusing to worship the numerous gods of the heathens ; and therefore , according to these principles , might have justified a rebellion against those unjust and persecuting powers ; but the apostles would not allow this to be a just cause of resistance , as i have already shewn you ; and yet i confess i am to seek for the reason of this difference , why we may not resist a prince , who persecutes against the laws of god , as well as him , who persecutes against the laws of england . 2. my other question is this , whether a prince have any more authority to make wicked and persecuting laws , than to persecute without law ? these men tell us , that if paganism or popery were established by law , they were bound to suffer patiently for their religion , without resistance ; but since christianity and protestancy is the religion of the nation , they are not bound to suffer , but may defend themselves , when they are condemned by no law. but if we examine this throughly , it is a very weak and trifling cavil . for what authoritie has a wicked and persecuting law ? and who gave it this authoritie ? what authoritie has any prince to make laws against the laws of god ? if he have no authoritie , then it is no law ; and then to make a wicked law to persecute good men , is the same thing , as to persecute without law , nay as to persecute against law. the pretence for resistance is , when the prince persecutes without authority . now i say , a prince has no more authoritie to make wicked persecuting laws , than to persecute without law. should a popish prince procure all our good laws for the protestant religion to be repealed , and establish popery by law , and make it death not to be a papist , he would have no more real authoritie to do this , than to persecute protestants without repealing the laws . a soverain and unaccountable power will justifie both , so as to make resistance unlawful ; but if it cannot justifie both , it can justifie neither . for a prince has no more authoritie to make a bad law , than to break a good one ; so that this principle will lead them a great deal farther than they pretend to ; and let the laws of the land be what they will , in time they may come to think it a just reason for rebellion , to pull down antichrist , and to set up christ iesus upon this throne . this i hope is a sufficient answer to the two first objections , that we are bound by no law to suffer against law ; and that the prince has no authoritie against law. 3. the next objection is , that they have a natural right of self-preservation and self-defence against unjust and illegal violence . this very pretence was made great use of to wheadle people into this late conspiracie . those who were employed to prepare and dispose men for rebellion , askt them , whether they would not defend themselves , if any man came to cut their throats : this they readily said they would : when they had gained this point , they askt them , whether they did not value their liberties , as much as their lives ; and whether they would not defend them also . and thus they might have proceeded to any part of their liberties , if they had pleased ; for they have the same right to any part , as to the whole , and thus self-defence would at last reach to the smallest occasion of discontent or jealousie , or dislike of publick government . now in answer to this , i readily grant , that every man has a natural right to preserve and defend his life by all lawful means ; but we must not think every thing lawful , which we have strength and power and opportunity to do ; and therefore to give a full answer to this plea , let us consider , 1. that self-defence was never allowed by god or nature against publick authority , but only against private violence . there was a time , when fathers had the power of life and death over their own children ; now i would only ask these men , whether if a son at that time saw his father coming to kill him , and that as he thought very unjustly , he might kill his father to defend himself . this never was allowed by the most barbarous nations in the world ; and yet it may be justified by this principle of self-defence , as it is urged by those men ; which is a plain argument that it is false . it is an express law , that he that smiteth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death , 21 exod. 15. and yet then the power of parents was restrained by publick laws . and the authoritie of a prince is not less sacred than of a parent ; he 's god's minister and vicegerent , and subjects are expresly forbid to resist ; and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural right against the express law of god. 2. for the sole power of the sword is in the king's hands , and therefore no private man can take the sword in his own defence but by the king's authoritie , and certainly he cannot be presumed to give any man authoritie to use the sword against himself . and therefore as christ tells peter , he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword ; he who draws the sword against the lawful powers , deserves to die by it . 3. we may consider also , that it is an external law , that private defence must give place to the publick good . now he that takes arms to defend his own life and some few others , involves a whole nation in blood and confusion , and occasions the miserable slaughter of more men , than a long succession of tyrants could destroy . such men sacrifice many thousand lives , both of friends and enemies , the happiness and prosperity of many thousand families , the publick peace and tranquillity of the nation , to a private self-defence ; and if this be the law of nature , we may well call nature a step-mother , that has armed us to our own ruine and confusion . 4. and therefore we may farther observe , that non-resistance and subjection to government , is the best way for every mans private defence . our atheistical politicians , who know no other law of nature , but self-defence , make this the original of humane societies ; that it is a voluntarie combination for self-defence . for this reason they set up princes and rulers over them , and put the power of the sword into their hands , that they may administer justice , and defend their subjects from publick and private violence : and they are certainly so far in the right , that publick government is the best securitie not onely of the publick peace , but of every mans private interest ; nay it is so , though our prince be a tyrant , as i have already shewn you , that no government can be secure without an irresistible and unaccountable power . so that the natural right of self-defence is so far from justifying rebellion against princes , that it absolutely condemns it , as destructive of the best and most effectual means to preserve ourselves : for though by non-resistance a man may expose his life to the furie of a tyrant , so he may loose his life in any other way of defence ; but publick government is the best and surest defence , and therefore to resist publick government , is to destroy the best means of self-defence . 5. however , this principle of self-defence , to be sure , cannot justifie a rebellion , when men do not suffer any actual violence ; and therefore those men who were drawn into this late conspiracie , when they saw no bodie attempt cutting their throats , when they saw none of their liberties invaded , were so well prepared to be rebels , that they needed no arguments to perswade them to it . 4. the next objection against the doctrine of non-resistance is this , that it destroys the difference between an absolute and limited monarchy , between a prince whose will is his law , and a prince , who is bound to govern by law ; which undermines the foundamental constitution of the english government . if this were true , i confess , it were a very hard case for the ministers of the church of england , who must either preach up resistance , contrarie to the laws of the gospel , and the sence and practice of the christian church in all ages , or must preach up non ▪ resistance , to the destruction of the government under which they live ; but thanks be to god , this is not true . for the difference between an absolute and limited monarchy , is not , that resistance is unlawful in one case , and lawful in another ▪ for a monarch , the exercise of whose power is limited and regulated by laws , is as irresistible , as the most absolute monarch , whose will is his law ; and if he were not , i would venture to say , that the most absolute and despotick government , is more for the publick good , than a limited monarchy . but the difference lies in this , that an absolute monarch is under the government of no law , but his own will ; he can make and repeal laws at his pleasure , without asking the consent of any of his subjects ; he can impose what taxes he pleases , and is not tied up to strict rules and formalities of law ▪ in the execution of justice ; but it is quite contrarie in a limited monarchy , where the excercise of soveraign power is regulated by known and standing laws , which the prince can neither make nor repeal without the consent of the people . no man can loose his life or estate without a legal process and tryal ; no monies can be levyed , nor any taxes imposed on the subject , but by authority of parliament ; which makes the case of subjects differ very much from those , who live under an arbitrary prince . no , you will say , the case is just the same : for what do laws signifie , when a prince must not be resisted , though he break these laws , and govern by an arbitrarie and lawless will ? he may make himself as absolute , as the great turk or the mogul , whenever he pleases ; for what should hinder him , when all men's hands are tied by this doctrine of non-resistance ? now it must be acknowledged , that there is a possibilitie for such a prince to govern arbitrarily , and to trample upon all laws ; and yet the difference between an absolute and limited monarchy is vastly great . 1. for this prince , though he may make his will a law to himself , and the onely rule of his government , yet he cannot make it the law of the land ; he may break laws , but he can neither make nor repeal them ; and therefore he can never alter the frame and constitution of the government , though he may at present interrupt the regular administration of it : and this is a great securitie to posteritie , and a present restraint upon himself . 2. for it is a mightie uneasie thing to any prince , to govern contrarie to known laws . he offers as great and constant violence to himself , as he does to his subjects . he cannot raise mony , nor impose any taxes without the consent of his subjects , nor take away any man's life without a legal tryal ( which an absolute prince may do ) but he is guiltie of rapine and murder , and feels the same rebukes in his own mind , for such illegal actions , though his impositions be but reasonable and moderate , and he put no man to death , but who very well deserves it , that an absolute tyrant does for the most barbarous oppressions and cruelties . the breach of his oath to god , and his promises and engagements to his subjects , makes the excercise of such an arbitrarie power very troublesome : and though his subjects are bound not to resist , yet his own guilty fears will not suffer him to be secure : and arbitrarie power is not so luscious a thing , as to tempt men to forfeit all the ease and pleasure , and securitie of government , for the sake of it . 3. though subjects must not resist such a prince , who violates the laws of his kingdom ▪ yet they are not bound to obey him , nor to serve him in his usurpations . subjects are bound to obey an absolute monarch , and to serve his will in lawful things , though they be hard and grievous ; but in a limited monarchy , which is governed by laws , subjects are bound to yeild an active obedience onely according to law , though they are bound not to resist , when they suffer against law. now it is a mighty uneasy thing to the greatest tyrant , to govern always by force ; and no prince in a limited monarchy can make himself absolute , unless his own subjects assist him to do so . 4. and yet it is very dangerous for any subject to serve his prince contrary to law. though the prince himself is unaccountable and irresistible , yet his ministers may be called to an account , and be punish't for it ; and the prince may think fit to look on quietly , and see it done : or if they escape at present , yet it may be time enough to suffer for it under the next prince ; which we see by experience makes all mon wary how they serve their prince against law. none but persons of desperate fortunes will do this bare-fac't ; and those are not always to be met with , and as seldom fit to be employ'd . 5. and therefore we may observe , that by the fundamental laws of our government , as the prince must govern by law , so he is irresistible : which shews , that our wise law-makers did not think , that non-resistance was destructive of a limited monarchy . 6. and in this long succession of princes in this kingdom , there has been no prince that has cast off the authority of laws , or usurpt an absolute and arbitrary power : which shews how vain those fears are , which disturb the fancies and imaginations of rebels , if they be not pretended onely to disturb the publick peace . 7. non-resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a limited into an absolute monarchy . the laws of england have made such an admirable provision for the honour and prosperous government of the prince , and the security of the subject , that the kings of england have as little temptation to desire to be absolute , while their subjects are obedient and governable , as their subjects have , that they should be so . and if ever our kings attempt to make themselves absolute ( which thanks be to god , we have no prospect of yet ) it will be owing to the factious and traiterous dispositions of subjects . when subjects once learn the trade of murdering princes , and rebelling against them , it is time then for princes to look to themselves ; and if ever our posterity should suffer under so unhappy a change of government , they will have reason for ever to curse the fanatick rage and fury of this age ; and the best way to remove that scandal , which has been already given to princes , is by a publick profession and practice of this great gospel-duty of non-resistance . 8. the last objection against non-resistance is this , that if resistance in no case be allowed , the mischiefs and inconveniences to mankind may be intolerable . to which i shall briefly return these following answers . 1. that bare possibilities are no argument against any thing . for that which may be , may not be ; and there is nothing in this world , how good or useful or necessary soever it be in its self , but may possibly be attended with very great inconveniences ; and if we must reject that which is good and useful in it self , for the sake of some possible inconveniences , which may attend it , we must condemn the very best things . modesty and humility , justice , and temperance , are great and excellent vertues ; and yet we may live in such an age , when these vertues shall beggar a man , and expose him to contempt . mercy and clemency is a noble quality in a prince , and yet it is possible , that the clemency of a prince may ruine him , and he may spare traitors lives , till they take away his . marriage is a divine institution , which contributes as much to the happiness and comfort of humane life , as any one thing in this world ; and yet it may be you cannot name any thing neither , which many times proves so great a plague and curse to mankind . thus non-resistance is a great and excellent duty , and absolutely necessary to the peace and order and good government of the world ; but yet a bad prince may take the advantage of it , to do a great deal of mischief . and what follows from hence ? that non-resistance is no duty , because it may possibly be attended with evil consequences ? then you can hardly name any thing , which is our duty ; for the most excellent vertues may at one time or other expose us to very great inconveniences ; but when they do so , we must not deny them to be our duty , because we shall suffer by it ; but must bear our sufferings patiently , and expect our reward from god. and yet that there is not so much danger in non-resistance , as these men would perswade the world , i hope appears from my answers to the last objection . 2. when we talk of inconveniences , we must weigh the inconveniences on both sides , and consider which are greatest . we may suffer great inconveniences by non-resistance , when our prince happens to prove a tyrant ; but shall we suffer fewer inconveniences were it lawful for subjects to resist ? which is the greatest and most merciless tyrant ? an arbitrary and lawless prince , or a civil war ? which will destroy most mens lives ? a nero or dioclesian , or a pitcht battel ? who will devour most estates ? a covetous and rapacious prince , or an insolent army , and hungry rabble ? which is the greatest oppression of the subject ? some illegal taxes , or plunderings , decimations , and sequestrations ? who are most likely to abuse their power ? the prince , or the people ? which is most probable , that a prince should oppress his dutiful and obedient subjects , or that some factious and designing men should misrepresent the government of their prince , and that the giddy multitude should believe them ? who is most likely to make a change and alteration in government ? an hereditary prince , or the people , who are fond of innovations ? while soverain and irresistible power is in the hands of the prince , it is possible we may sometimes have a good one , and then we shall find no inconvenience in the doctrine of non-resistance . nay , it is possible , we may have a great many good princes , for one bad one ; for monsters are not so common , as more natural productions : so that the inconveniences we may suffer by this doctrine will but seldom happen ; but had the people power to resist , it is almost impossible , that publick government should ever be quiet and secure for half an age together : they are as unstable as the seas , and as easily moved with every breath , and as outragious and tempestuous too . these are not some guesses and probabilities , but demonstrations in this unhappy age , wherein we have seen all these things acted . the conclusion , containing a short dissuasive from resistance and rebellion . having thus largely proved that subjection and non-resistance is a necessary duty , which subjects owe to soverain princes , and answered all those objections which are made against it ; the result of all is , to perswade subjects to the practise of it . and st. paul urges two very powerful arguments to perswade us to it , rom. 13. 1. that the powers are of god , and he that resisteth the powers , resisteth the ordinance of god. and certainly he is no christian who disputes obedience to the divine ordinance and constitution . a prince is the image , the vice-gerent of god , and therefore princes are called gods in scripture , and be he what he will , a good or a bad prince , while god thinks fit to advance him to the throne , it becomes us to submit and reverence the divine authority . will you lift up your hand against god ? will you cast off his authority and government too ? does not he know how to rule us ? how to chuse a prince for us ? the greatest rebel would blush to say this in so many words , and yet this is the language of rebellion . men dislike their prince , that is , that governour , whom god sets over them : they rebel against their prince , they depose him , they murder him ; that is , they disown the authority of god , they deface and destroy his image , and offer scorn and contempt to his vice gerent . earthly princes look upon every affront and disgrace done to their ministers and lieutenants , to be a contempt of their own authority ; and so does god too : he who pulls down a prince , denies gods authority to set him up , and affronts his wisdom in chusing him . 2. and therefore such men must not expect to escape a deserved punishment , they shall receive to themselves damnation . now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either signifie the punishment of rebellion in this world , or in the next ; and here it signifies both . 1. they shall be punisht in this world . and whoever consults ancient and modern histories , will find , that rebels very seldom escape punishment in this world . how often does god defeat all their counsels , discover their secret plots and conspiracies ! and if they be prosperous for a while , yet vengeance overtakes them ; if they escape punishment from men , they are punisht by some such remarkable providence , as bears the characters of a divine justice in it . 2. however , such men shall not escape the punishments of the other world ; and if you believe there is a hell for rebels and traitors , the punishment of resistance is infinitely greater than all the mischiefs which can befal you in subjection to princes , and a patient suffering for well doing . what shall it profit a man , though he should gain the whole world , which is something more than a single crown and kingdom , and loose his own soul ? though an universal empire were the reward of rebellion , such a glorious traitor , who parts with his soul for it , would have no great reason to boast much of his purchase . let us then reverence the divine judgments , let us patiently submit to our king , though he should persecute and oppress us ; and expect our protection here from the divine providence , and our reward in heaven ; which is the same encouragement to non-resistance , which we have to the practise of any other vertue . were the advantages and disadvantages of resistance and non-resistance in this world fairly estimated , it were much more eligible to submit , than to rebel against our prince ; but there can be no comparison between these two , when we take the other world into the account . the last judgment weighs down all other considerations ; and certainly rebellion may well be said to be as the sin of witchcraft , when it so inchants men , that they are resolved to be rebels , though they be damned for it . the end . books printed for fincham gardiner . 1. a perswasive to communion with the church of england . 2. a resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion . 3. the case of indifferent things used in the worship of god , proposed and stated , by considering these questions , &c. 4. a discourse about edification . 5. the resolution of this case of conscience , whether the church of englands symbolizing so far as it doth with the church of rome , makes it unlawful to hold communion with the church of england ? 6. a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . 7. certain cases of conscience resolved , concerning the lawfulness of joyning with forms of prayer in publick worship . in two parts . 8. the case of mixt communion : whether it be lawful to separate from a church upon the account of promiscuous congregations and mixt communions ? 9. an answer to the dissenters objections against the common prayers , and some other parts of divine service prescribed in the liturgy of the church of england . 10. the case of kneeling at the holy sacrament stated and resolved , &c. in two parts . 11. a discourse of profiting by sermons , and of going to hear where men think they can profit most . 12. a serious exhortation , with some important advices , relating to the late cases about conformity , recommended to the present dissenters from the church of england . 13. an argument for union ; taken from the true interest of those dissenters in england who profess and call themselves protestants . 14. some considerations about the case of scandal , or giving offence to weak brethren . 15. the case of infant-baptism ; in five questions , &c. 16. the charge of scandal , and giving offence by conformity , refelled , and reflected back upon separation , &c. 1. a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? 2. a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . 3. the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . 4. the protestant resolution of faith , &c. some seasonable reflections on the discovery of the late plot , being a sermon preached on that occasion , by w. sherlock , d. d. rector of st. george buttolph-lane , london . king david's deliverance : or , the conspiracy of absolon and achitophel defeated , in a sermon preached on the day of thanksgiving appointed for the discovery of the late fanatical plot. by thomas long , b. d. one of the prebendaries of exon. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59793-e11630 milton pro pop. angl. defensio . p. 68. notes for div a59793-e19640 iulian the apostate . iulian apostate the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined and the doctrine of a real trinity vindicated from the charge of tritheism : in answer to a late socinian pamphlet, entituled, the judgment of a disinterested person, concerning the controversie about the blessed trinity, depending between dr. s--th, and dr. sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1696 approx. 175 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 45 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59822 wing s3294 estc r19545 12442486 ocm 12442486 62123 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59822) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 62123) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 948:4) the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined and the doctrine of a real trinity vindicated from the charge of tritheism : in answer to a late socinian pamphlet, entituled, the judgment of a disinterested person, concerning the controversie about the blessed trinity, depending between dr. s--th, and dr. sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [4], 84 p. printed for william rogers ..., london : 1696. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc pre-1956. table of contents: p. [3]-[4] created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng south, robert, 1634-1716. -judgement of a disinterested person, concerning the controversie about the blessed trinity. trinitarians. trinity -controversial literature. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 rachel losh sampled and proofread 2005-02 rachel losh text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined , and the doctrine of a real trinity vindicated from the charge of tritheism . in answer to a late socinian pamphlet , entituled , the judgment of a disinterested person , concerning the controversie about the blessed trinity , depending between dr. s — th , and dr. sherlock . london , printed for william rogers , at the sun , over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street , 1696. the contents . sect . i. concerning real and nominal trinitarians . page 1 the late arch-bishop tillotson and dr. bull owned by him to be real trinitarians , p. 3 dr. bull 's learned defence of the nicene faith asserts and proves a real trinity , p. 4 sect . ii. this author's account of the doctrine of the realists and nominalists , concerning the holy trinity . p. 10 the occasion of this distinction between real and nominal trinitarians and the use the socinians make of it , ibid. this author's account of the doctrine of the realists p. 13 that there are three minds , spirits , substances , in the trinity , not the language of all realists , nor own'd by any of them in his sense , p. 14. &c. the difference between an individual and singular substance , p. 16 his representation of the doctrine of the nominalists , p. 19 the only difference between them and the realists , not in three substances and one substance , p. 21 sect . iii. the authorities ( as ●he calls them ) of the nominals against a real trinity , examined , p. 22 what the nicene council meant by the homoousion , or one substance of father and son , p. 24 socrates's account of the dispute concerning the word homoousios , p. 25 this author's mistake in making the arian homoiousios signifie the same substance in sort , or kind , or properties , p. 32 the third council of constantinople , concerning two natural wills , and two operations in christ , ibid. in what sense this council owned but one will in the trinity , p. 33 the doctrine of the council of lateran , concerning the trinity , p. 34 in what sense they teach that the divine essence , neither begets , nor is begotten , nor proceeds , p. 37 spanhemius's account of some late disputes about the trinity , and the judgment of the belgick synods , p. 38 sect . iv. his three first arguments against a real trinity , p. 41 all his arguments oppose a trinity of subsisting persons , ibid. one ( personal ) infinite mind or spirit , not the definition of the one god , p. 43 concerning three wills , understandings , &c. in one god , p. 45 his argument to prove , that the second and third persons in the trinity are not substance and spirit , but only properties , or immanent acts , ibid. his argument from the council of lyons answered , p. 46 concerning the eternal generation and procession , p. 48 in what sense the son is the wisdom of the father , p. 52 what the fathers meant by that argument for the eternity of the son , that god was never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without his word , p. 53 the judgment of cabassutius about this argument , p. 54 concerning emanatory causes and effects , p. 56 sect . v. the fourth and fifth argument against a real trinity answered , p. 59 the difference between three divine persons , [ each of which is true and perfect god , ] and three gods , p. 63 the charge of tritheism founded on an equivocal use of those terms , one god , and one person , p. 67 whether the arguments for the unity of god , prove , that there is but one person , who is god , p. 69 sect . vi. the defence this author makes for the nominals against the objections of the realists , p. 78 the end of the contents . errata . page 15. marg. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 49. l. 6. for or r. are . p. 63. l. 12. dele for . p. 75. l. 25. for aclls , r. calls . the distinction between real and nominal trinitarians , considered . sect i. concerning real and nominal trinitarians . this author calls himself a presbyter of the church of england ; and by what i have heard , i fear it is too true : i pray god preserve the church from such presbyters , who eat her bread , and betray her faith. his pretence for writing this pamphlet , is , the controversy between dr. s — th and dr. sherlock , about the b. trinity . i will say nothing of that matter , let the animadverter answer it to god and his own conscience ; this author has said enough about it , and i wish he had but used the same candour throughout , and then there would have been no need of this answer , but tho' it seems he was disinterested as to the contending doctors , he was deeply interested as to the cause of socinianism , to which he promised no small advantage from this dispute . and indeed it is too evident , what advantage our socinian adversaries have made , and hope still to make of this controversy . this has occasioned that scandalous distinction between real and nominal trinitarians ; which is such an open abuse upon the nominalists , that were i one of those whom he reproaches with that title , i could not bear it : for the plain english of it is no more but this ; those who believe a trinity , and those who believe no trinity ; for nominal trinitarians , as opposed to real trinitarians , can signifie nothing more . and could this author , and his friends , persuade the world , that the greatest part of our clergy , nay , the church of england it self , as he pretends , are but nominal trinitarians , their work were done ; for a socinian is a much more honourable name ; and when men agree in the faith , it is a vain thing to dispute about words ; and therefore this author is equally zealous to oppose the realists , that is , to overthrow the doctrine of a real trinity , and to persuade the nominalists , that tho' they differ in some peculiar forms of speech , yet there is no reason they should quarrel , for their faith is the same : and this i thought a sufficient reason to judge over again , the iudgment of this disinterested person . i shall pass over the account he gives of the history of this dispute , only observing , that dr. sherlock did not begin it ; he wrote against the socinians , without suspecting that he should meet with such furious and bitter assaults from another quarter , and yet after such great provocations as might move a very tame man , he has made no return , which unbecomes a true christian spirit in such cases . but there is one thing wherein this author has done the dean right , by acquainting the world , that he has not been the first broacher of this heresy ( as they call it ) of three distinct infinite minds and spirits in the vnity of the godhead . he reckons up several others of the same mind , some who appeared before , and some since his vindication , as dr. cudworth , dr. bull , the late archbishop tillotson , the present bishop of glocester , mr. how , mr. i. b. mr. bingham . and i could tell him of many more , as many as do sincerely believe , that god is a father , and has a true , real , subsisting son , and holy spirit . but yet he himself is sensible , and his socinian friends , or rather he himself , in some former pamphlets , has observed very material differences between the dean's hypothesis , and some of these learned men : he neither owns the platonick inequality of dr. cudworth , nor the sabellian composition and union of others , but asserts three real , distinct , coequal , coeternal persons ; not in one singular and solitary , but in one numerical nature and essence . but i believe the dean will heartily thank him for giving him the late archbishop and dr. bull , two such names as will command reverence , and shelter him from the imputation either of novelty or heresy , at least as to this point : and it is worth observing , from the example of these two great men , at what rate some persons judge of men and doctrines . the good archbishop , by his trinitarian adversaries , is charged with socinianism , and by his socinian adversaries with tritheism ; and yet he must have very ill luck , if he could stumble upon two such extremes . as for dr. bull , his learned and elaborate defence of the nicene faith , was printed at oxford , and received with universal applause , as it highly deserved : none of them to this day have charged him with the least heresy , and i believe will not yet venture to do it . and yet , as this writer confesses , and as every unprejudiced reader must own , the doctrine of the defence as to this point , is the very same with the dean's hypothesis , which these very persons have condemned as impious and heretical . so true is it , duo cùm faciunt idem , non est idem . all that this socinian intended by bringing dr. bull into the fray , was to follow the blow which the animadverter and the oxford decree had given to a trinity of distinct , proper , subsisting , living , intelligent persons , ( which is all that dr. bull , or the dean assert ) by their charge of tritheism ; which he hoped would be a sufficient answer to that otherwise unanswerable book , and together with dr. bull , would confute all the fathers at once , on whose authority he so much relies , and to whom he perpetually appeals ; for no christian must hearken to those men , whatever their authority be , did they really ( as they are unjustly charged ) preach three gods ; and thus he thinks he has got rid of all antiquity , and of the tritheistick trinity with it . but still this makes well for the dean , who will be contended to stand and fall with the catholick fathers , and will never desire to be thought more orthodox than they . that dr. bull asserts a real , substantial trinity , in as high and express terms as ever the dean did , is so plain throughout his book , that it is needless to prove it . all his arguments suppose this hypothesis , and are unintelligible without it ; and therefore i shall take notice but of one or two particular passages , whereon , as we shall presently see , this whole heavy charge of tritheism rests . he tells us , that hypostasis , both before and in , and after the nicene council , was used by the catholick fathers for subsistence , or a particular thing which subsists by it self , which , in intelligent beings , is the same with person : that in this sense , they taught father and son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be two hypostases ; and father , son , and holy ghost , to be three hypostases . and that upon this account tertullian , to assert the subsistence of the son against those who denied him to be a distinct person from the father , affirms him to be substantiam & rem substantivam , substance , and a substantial being . and having by many irrefragable instances proved this use of the word to be very catholick , he adds , that probably this word hypostasis would still have been used in this sense , had not the arians abused it to countenance their heresy , expounding it to a more general notion of essence , nature and substance , and teaching , as the catholick fathers did , that the father and son were two hypostases ; but thereby meaning , that they were of a different nature and substance , unlike to each other : and that in opposition to them it was , that the sardican council taught , father and son to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one hypostasis ; that is , as they themselves expresly affirm , in the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or one nature and essence . we may find a great deal more to this purpose in the same place , in his vindication of origen from the objections of huetius , who charges him with denying the father and son to be of the same essence and substance , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because he opposes those who denied the holy ghost to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a substance of his own , distinct from the father and the son : whereas that learned man shews , that origen by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , meant no more than hypostasis , in which sense that word is often used among the ancients ; and therefore in opposition to those noetian hereticks , asserts father , son , and holy ghost , to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , three hypostases , as hypostasis signifies rem singularem & individuam per se subsistentem , quae in iis , quae vita & intellectu gaudent , idem est quod persona : a singular and individual thing , which subsists by it self , which in beings that have life and understanding , signifies a person : so that three hypostases , are three substantial , self-subsisting , living , intelligent persons . and tho' the phrase , of three minds , three spirits , three substances , ought to be used very cautiously , and not without great necessity , when applied to the holy trinity , for fear of the arian notion of three substances , yet it is evident how far this learned man is from thinking such expressions to be impious and heretical : he expounds ▪ three hypostases to the very same sense ; and elsewhere quotes that passage of st. hilary concerning the synod at antioch , as truly catholick , where in opposition to the sabellians , they assert the divine persons in the trinity , to be tria in substantia , or tres substantias , three in substance , or three substances . thus when petavius accuses methodius for calling father and son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , two creating and operative powers , he answers , that father and son might with less offence , and better reason , be called two powers by methodius , than two natures and substances , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as they are called by other fathers , who yet were always accounted catholick ; but such expressions as these must be understood only personally , and then they are orthodox : so that according to this learned man , two personal natures , substances , and powers , are catholick expressions ; and this is the very account which dr. sherlock in his defence , if he were the author of it , gives of three minds , and spirits , that he understood it personally , for three divine intelligent persons ; and therefore is as orthodox in these very expressions , as dr. bull , and those catholick fathers to whom he appeals . in another place , speaking of some modern divines , who allow the son to be of the father , considered as a son , but not as god ; that he receives his person , but not his essence or divine nature of the father ; he observes that we cannot conceive the person without the essence , unless by person in the divinity , we mean no more than the meer mode of subsistence , which is plain sabellianism . so that this writer has done dr. sherlock a greater kindness than he was aware of , and as it will quickly appear , has lost his own cause by it ; if dr. bull have truly represented the sense of the fathers , as all learned and unprejudiced men must own he has : for here are such a cloud of witnesses to the doctrine of a real , substantial , subsisting trinity , as no later authorities , whatever they are , can stand against . what i have now quoted , is only what first came to hand , but there is hardly any thing in the whole book , but what by immediate and necessary consequence , proves the real dictinction of proper , subsisting persons in the trinity ; that each person is by himself in his own proper person , as distinguisht from the other two , infinite mind , substance , life , wisdom , power , and whatever is contained in the notion and idea of god. instead of particular quotations for the proof of this , i shall only appeal to the titles of the several sections of that learned work , which i believe no man can make common sense of , without acknowledging a trinity of proper , substantial , subsisting persons . the first section concerns the preexistence of the son of god , that he , who afterwards was called jesus christ , did subsist before his incarnation , or nativity , according to the flesh of the blessed virgin , in another and more excellent nature than that of man ; that he appeared to the holy men under the old testament , as a kind of anticipation of his-incarnation ; that he always presided over , and took care of his church , which he was to redeem with his own blood ; that he was present with god his father before the foundation of the world , and that by him all things were made . this is the faith of christians , and this he proves to be the constant doctrine of all the catholick fathers for the first three hundred years , and so it continued to after-ages : now let any man consider , what a pretty kind of dispute this is , about the preexistence of the son , if he have no proper permanent existence of his own , but considered as a divine person , is only another name for the father , or an immanent act , like the transient thought , or transient act of reason in man. for if the son be not a distinct person from the father , and as proper a subsisting person as the father himself is , the question will amount to no more but this , whether god the father had a being before jesus christ was born of the virgin , or before the world was made ? or , whether he had any immanent acts of wisdom or reason , before he made the world ? or , whether he took the name of son upon himself , before he made the world , or made any creature to know him or his name . the christian fathers were wiser men than to talk at this impertinent rate ; and therefore they did believe , that god had a son in a true and proper sense ; a subsisting , living , omnipotent son , by whom he made the world ; who appeared in his own proper person to several of the patriarchs under the old testament ; and in the fulness of time , was incarnate of the substance of the virgin mary . the very question it self necessarily supposes this to make sense of it ; much more impossible is it to understand what the fathers say upon this argument , upon the sabellian or socinian hypothesis . the second section concerns the consubstantiality of the son with the father ; that the son of god is not of a created or mutable essence , but perfectly of the same divine unchangeable nature with his father , and therefore is true god of true god. now , what sense can be made of this , if the son be not as truly and properly substance in his own person , as distinguished from the person of the father , as the father is in his own person ? for , how can the son be consubstantial , or of the same substance with the father , if he be no substance at all ? especially since this learned man has proved , that the catholick fathers rejected the homoousion in the sabellian sense , for one singular substance of father and son , and that they assert , as common sense would teach us , that nothing is consubstantial to it self , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one thing is consubstantial to another . the third section concerns the co-eternal existence of the son with the father : now for father and son to coexist , necessarily supposes , that they both exist , and actually subsist by themselves ; for two cannot exist and subsist together , unless each of them actually subsist ; for as the fathers observe , nothing can properly be said to coexist with it self : for it can admit of no question , whether any one has been , as long as he has been : and therefore , since the co-eternity of the son has been a very serious dispute between the catholicks and the arians , it is certain , that both of them owned father and son to be two distinct persons , which did distinctly exist and subsist . the fourth section teaches the subordination of the son to the father ; that tho' the son be co-equal with the father , as having the same divine nature with the father , without any change or diminution ; yet he is subordinate to the father , as receiving the divine nature from him : that the father is god of himself ; the son , god of god. now if the son receive the divine nature by an eternal communication from the father , he must have it in himself , in his own person , and be a living , subsisting son , true god of god ; and if he be a true proper person , and subordinate to the father , he must be a distinct person , for no person can be subordinate to himself . these questions dr. bull has discoursed at large , with great variety of learning , and acuracy of judgment ; and it is a mystery to me , how those , who pretend to admire dr. bull , should quarrel with dr. sherlock ; or that those who pay any reverence to the catholick fathers , should quarrel with either of them . this socinian , as i observed before , was glad to draw dr. bull into the number of tritheists , but by that means he has drawn in all the catholick fathers too , and has now drawn together so many tritheists , as he will never know how to get rid of again : or to speak more properly , he has unanswerably confuted the charge of tritheism , and discovered the trick and mystery of it , by charging the catholick faith it self , and all the catholick fathers , the most zealous patrons and advocates of it , with tritheism . sect ii. this author's account of the doctrine of the realists and nominalists , concerning the holy trinity . the very name of socinianism is justly abhorred by all christians , who place all their hopes of salvation in the incarnation , sacrifice , and intercession of the eternal son of god : for if christ jesus , who is the saviour of mankind , be not the eternal son of god in humane nature , all those great assurances , which the gospel gives us , of god's love to sinners , in giving his own eternal son for us , of the expiation of our sins by the blood of the son of god , a price of inestimable value , and of all the blessings which we expect , both in this world and in the next , from the powerful intercession of a beloved son , and a meritorious high-priest ; i say , all these strong consolations dwindle into no more , than the word and promise of a great and extraordinary prophet , the death of a martyr , and the intercession of a beloved creature , and humble supplicant , who has no inherent power and authority to save us . our modern socinians are very sensible , what an invincible prejudice this is ; for few serious christians will be willing to part with their hopes of heaven , or to part with greater , infinitely greater hopes for less , or to think so meanly of their saviour , who is the object of their faith and worship , as to thrust him down into the rank and number of meer creatures . this the catholick church would never endure in the arians , who yet attributed a most excellent nature and glory to christ , next to god himself , superior to the highest orders of angels , as being before the world it self , and the maker of it , but yet not true and perfect god , as not having the same nature with his father , nor eternally begotten by him ; much less would they ever endure the thoughts of the photinian or samosatenian heresy , that is , of socinianism , which makes christ but a meer man , who had no being before he was born of his virgin mother . this , i say , being so invincible a prejudice against them , they have of late tried new arts , and have taken advantage of some very unhappy disputes , to impose upon unwary men , and to appear abroad with new confidence under a less frightful disguise . the late controversy about three infinite minds and spirits in the trinity , has given them the advantage of distinguishing between real and nominal trinitarians , or such trinitarians as believe a trinity of real subsisting persons ; and those who believe only one real person , who is god , with a trinity of names , or offices , or immanent acts and powers . the realists , they call trithiests , or such hereticks , as assert three gods. the nominals , they think very orthodox , and the church ; and tho' the nominals and socinians differ in some forms of speech , yet they say , and i think very truly , that there is no considerable difference in their faith , as they state it , and seem well enough inclined to exchange that odious name of socinians , for the more plausible and popular name of nominal trinitarians . and thus they can dispute as heartily as ever , and with more safety and honour , against the faith of the trinity , so they do but call it a real trinity ; and may dispute for socinianism as earnestly as ever , so they do but call it a nominal trinity . — en quo discordia cives . perduxit miseros ! — that this is the whole artifice of this present pamphlet , any one who reads it , may see with half an eye ; and i hope some men , if ever they can grow cool , will consider a little better of it : i do not so much intend gravely to dispute with this author , as to wash off his paint , and bring the controversy back again to its right owners , those truly opposite parties of trinitarians , sabellians and socinians . that those whom he calls the real trinitarians , are the only men who believe a christian trinity , and that the nominal trinitarians do not believe a trinity , is evident in their very names ; for a trinity , which is the object of our faith and worship , is certainly a real trinity , if it be at all ; and one would think , that a trinity , which is not a real trinity , should be no trinity at all : the zeal which the socinians express against a real trinity , is a good argument , that that is the true christian trinity which they and their predecessors have always rejected in contradiction to the catholick faith ; and the great fondness they express for a nominal trinity , is as good a proof , that it is no trinity at all . such a trinity as is reconcileable with socinianism , as all these men own a nominal trinity to be , can never be the christian faith , unless socinianism be christianity : which i hope , those men , whom this and some other late writers call nominal trinitarians , will not yet own ; and yet if socinianism be a contradiction to the christian faith , that must be the true catholick faith of the trinity , which most directly contradicts socinianism in the parting points , and that none but a real trinity does : so that it is in vain for them to hope to conceal themselves under some insignificant names ; let them deal fairly with the world , and dispute professedly against a trinity ; for a real trinity is neither better nor worse than a trinity ; and then let them produce their authorities and reasons to prove , that the catholick church , even the nicene council it self , never believed a trinity , and that the faith of a trinity is tritheism : this becomes men of candour and honesty , let their opinions be what they will ; but to sneak and sculk like men who have a mind to steal a cause , and are as much ashamed to appear in open light , as such kind of traders use to be , is mean and pilfering , and unworthy of their ancestors , who own'd themselves at noon-day , and bravely outfaced all the authority of the catholick church , and all the reason of mankind . that this is the truth of the case , and that they themselves look upon this distinction as no more than a jest , is evident from that account this writer gives of the doctrine of the realists and nominalists concerning the trinity . as to the explication , the party called realists say , the holy trinity , or the three divine persons , are three distinct infinite substances , three minds , three spirits ; they are three such persons ; that is , as distinct , and as really subsisting and living , as three angels , or three men are . each person has his own peculiar individual substance , his own personal and proper understanding , will and power of action ; an omnipotence , omniscience , and all other divine attributes , divers in number from the personal omnipotence , omniscience , &c. of the other two persons . in the creation , as also in the government of the world , they are to be considered as distinct agents , not as one creator , or one governor ; but only in this sense , that the father acts by the son through the spirit : of which the meaning is , that the father , in regard of his paternal prerogative , acteth not immediately , but by the son and spirit . this account , as far as it concerns the real subsistence of three distinct infinite persons in the unity of the god-head , does contain the true catholick faith of the trinity ; and yet he has both imperfectly and falsly represented the opinion of the realists . 1. he tells us , they say that the holy trinity , or the three divine persons , are three distinct infinite substances , three minds , three spirits . now any one would hence conclude , that this is the universal doctrine of all the realists , and that this phrase of three substances , minds , and spirits , is the parting point between the realists and nominals : that all who believe a real trinity , own three infinite minds and spirits ; and that no man can believe a real trinity , who does not own this . now this is manifestly false , as our late experience proves . the greatest number of realists ( as far as i can guess ) who believe a real trinity , a real subsisting father , a real subsisting son , and a real subsisting holy spirit , do yet reject those expressions of three infinite minds and spirits , which are liable to a very heretical sense , either arianism , or tritheism ; and therefore were very sparingly , and with great caution used by the catholick fathers , tho' they used three hypostases in the very same sense , and did not condemn three natures and substances when personally used , as we have seen above . and therefore the late dispute about three minds , does not in it self divide the contending parties into realists and nominals , as the socinians too hastily conclude , and think to carry their cause by it . very good catholicks may dispute such expressions , as we know they did the homoousion it self ; for one substance is as liable to an heretical sense , as three substances : for that may be sabellianism , and the other may be arianism or tritheism , and both of them rightly understood may be very orthodox ; but whether they are or no , must be judged by the sense in which they are used ; and the catholick fathers , like good christians , have easily yielded to each other in a dispute of words , when it has appeared that the difference has been only in words , not in the faith. what athanasius says upon a like occasion , is a very good rule to maintain christian peace and unity . to corrupt the faith is always unlawful , tho' we palliate it with the most popular and orthodox forms of speech : but a true and holy faith does not degenerate into impiety and heresy by some new improper expressions , while he who uses such words , has a pious and orthodox sense . but to proceed . tho' all realists do not agree about the use of those words , three minds or substances ; yet they all do , and all must agree in what follows , viz. they are three such persons , that is , as distinct , and as really subsisting and living , as three angels , or three men. they are so without doubt , if they be real proper persons ; for a person lives and subsists , and three persons must be really distinct , or they can't be three ; that is , the father's person is no more the person of the son , nor the person of the son the person of the father , than peter is john , or john is peter ; but then they do not subsist dividely , or separately , as peter and john do . he adds , each person has his own peculiar individual substance , his own personal and proper vnderstanding , will , and power of action ; an omnipotence , omniscience , and all other divine attributes , divers in number from the personal omnipotence , omniscience , &c. of the other two persons . now i except against nothing in this , but the phrases of peculiar and individual substance , and divers in number ; for peculiar and individual , i would say a singular substance . for tho' a singular substance in created natures is a peculiar and individual substance also , it is not so in the divinity . the catholick fathers always distinguish'd between one substance , and one singular substance of the godhead . to deny one substance , or the homoousion , was arianism : to assert one singular substance , was sabellianism ; for one singular substance is but one person , which denies a trinity of persons : but the divine nature and substance is both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one and common , and therefore not one singular substance , which can never be common ; and by the same reason , a personal substance , though it be singular , and appropriate to such a particular person , and therefore as incommunicable as the person is , yet it is not peculiar and individual in the common acceptation of those words , but the same one common undivided inseparable essence of the divinity , subsisting distinctly and singularly in each person . thus for the same reason , i will not say , that the personal omnipotence , &c. of the father , is divers in number from the personal omnipotence of the son , because it is the same one omnipotence , as it is the same one divinity , which subsists distinctly in each person ; but we may and must say , that the personal omnipotence of the father , is not the personal omnipotence of the son , no more than the person of the father , is the person of the son. but this disguised socinian has taken great care in representing the doctrine of the realists , to conceal their faith of the perfect undivided unity and identity of the divine nature in three distinct subsisting persons , which yet he knows they as sacredly profess , as they do the real distinction of persons , and is owned in as high terms by dr. sherlock himself , as by any of his adversaries , and is almost the only pretence of those many contradictions he is charged with , by such as will not understand a perfect distinction in perfect unity , which yet is essential to the catholick faith of a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity . but as for this author , whether he had thought such a distinction and unity reconcileable or not , yet when he undertook to represent the doctrine of the realists , he ought to have represented it whole and entire , and to have left it to the judgment of the reader : whereas he is very careful to observe that they say , the three persons in the trinity are three substances , three minds , and spirits ; [ which yet only some of them say , ] but takes no notice that these three distinct persons have one undivided nature and essence , which they all agree in : for this would have spoiled his objections of tritheism , and what he immediately adds about three creators and governors of the world , which they never owned , any more than three gods ; for tho' there are three who are omnipotent , and three who create , yet they are so inseparably united in nature , that they are but one agent , one omnipotent , and produce but one effect : as the catholick fathers concluded for this reason , that as the scripture teaches us , that there is but one god , and yet that the father is god , the son god , and the holy ghost god ; so it attributes the making and government of the world both to father , son , and holy ghost , and yet there is but one and the same world which is made and governed ; which proves , that though they act as distinctly as their persons are distinct , yet there is such an essential unity of will and power , and operation , from the indivisible unity of nature , that they are but one agent , and produce but one and the same effect . but still as for the main of the charge , that every distinct person in the trinity , has a personal substance , life , will , understanding , power , of his own , which is not the personal substance , life , will , understanding , power , of either of the other persons , is what all , who believe a real trinity , do and must agree in , whether they will agree to call these three substances , wills , understandings , &c. or not . nay , this is all that those very persons who assert three substances , three minds and spirits in the trinity , ever meant by it . own but each person in his own proper person , to be infinite substance , mind , spirit , and that neither person is each other , and they will consent to any other form of words , and not dispute the reason or propriety of them ; all that they contend for is a real trinity of true , real , proper persons ; and that they are certain cannot be , unless each person by himself , as distinct from the other persons , be substance , mind , spirit , will , understanding , power . this is the only trinity which socinus , crellius , slichtingius , and others of that party , have hitherto disputed against ; and therefore certainly they did apprehend , that the christians in their days , even all the divinity-chairs of europe , did assert such a trinity ; and those learned men who opposed them , did believe so too , or there must be very wise doings amongst them : tho' our modern socinians have now made a discovery , that these realists are not the true catholick trinitarians , but that the nominalists are the church ; and now they are grown friends with the church , and orthodox , beyond their own hopes ; and their business is only to defend the church against this new sect of real trinitarians . let it be so : but still they maintain the same doctrine that socinus did , and dispute against the same trinity which he disputed against , and therefore these real trinitarians are no new upstart sect , but their old adversaries , who will never be cheated by new names into an accommodation or comprehension with socinians . the plain state of the case is this : father , son , and holy ghost , are the christian trinity ; now the question is , whether this be a real trinity or not ; that is , whether the father be an eternal , infinite , living , omniscient , omnipotent , subsisting person , and did truly beget of his own nature and substance , a true , living , omnipotent , omniscient , subsisting son ; and in like manner , whether the holy ghost proceeds from father and son , a true , living , omnipotent , omniscient , subsisting spirit . this is the doctrine of those whom our modern socinians call realists , that is , of true and orthodox trinitarians ; and without asserting this , whatever they teach besides , a trinity is nothing but a name , and therefore such men may properly be called nominalists ; so that the realists only are trinitarians , the meer nominalists , whatever they are else , are no trinitarians ; and this new contrivance of opposing these real trinitarians , is neither better nor worse than opposing the doctrine of the trinity : and let but our people understand this , and we are where we were , and then the socinians may call themselves nominalists , or what they please . to proceed : he is as artificial and unsincere in his account of the nominalists , as of the realists . we must not conceive of the divine persons , say the nominalists , as we do of created persons . very right ! there is an unconceivable difference between them , as all realists acknowledge , they are perfectly distinct , but yet inseparably one ; they never did , never can subsist apart ; the same one undivided divinity subsists whole and perfect , and yet distinctly in each of them , and is as perfectly one in three , as any one thing is one with it self . and thus we allow what he adds to be a very great truth , and wish he himself would consider better of it : that the conception we ought to have of their personalities , or what they are as they are persons , is as different from the personalities of any created beings , as the perfections of the divinity are paramount to human or angelical perfections . this we are sensible of , and therefore do not presently cry out of nonsense and contradiction , when we are forced by scripture and reason to attribute such things to the divine nature and persons , as we can find no images or idea's of in created nature : for we know that creatures cannot be perfectly like to god , and consequently we ought not to oppose the idea's of nature to revelation . but the present question is not , whether father , son , and holy ghost , are such persons as created persons , as angels , or men are ; for it is certain there is an unconceivable difference between them ; but whether they may be called persons in the true and proper notion of the word person ; for one who does really and substantially subsist , live , will , understand , act , according to his natural powers : and whether there be three such subsisting , living , willing , understanding persons in the godhead , or only one : whether as the father hath life in himself , so the son hath life in himself ; and as the father knows the son , so the son knows the father ; and whether the spirit of life , and the spirit of holiness , and power , and the spirit that searcheth the deep things of god , be not a subsisting , living , knowing , working spirit ; and this is the reason , why the church calls them three persons , ( which the scripture does not call them ) because the holy scripture distinctly attributes life , will , knowledge , power , to these three , father , son , and holy ghost , which is the notion all men have of a person when applied to creatures ; and to talk of three divine persons , who are not subsisting , living , knowing persons , destroys the only reason for calling them persons . but he adds , as the doctrine of the nominalists , that god is but one being , but one substance , mind , or spirit , with one only will , understanding , energy , or power of action . but is not this , in a true catholick sense , the doctrine of the realists also , as i observed before ? but this is what this disinterested person would be at ; to distinguish the realists and nominalists by three substances and one substance of the divinity : and were this the whole truth , the realists would certainly be hereticks , and the nominalists might be the orthodox church : whereas the realists , as they own three real subsisting living persons , so they as constantly profess the homoousion , or one undivided substance and nature , subsisting and acting distinctly , but indivisibly and inseparably in three , which is a real perfect subsisting trinity in perfect unity : but the nominalists , truly so called , as they own but one substance in the divinity , so but one single person , which is their one god , and can find a trinity only in a trinity of names , or properties , or meer immanent acts. that there are many such nominalists among us , i fear is too true ; but i must say again , that the bare dispute concerning the use of those words , three eternal infinite minds and spirits , for three eternal infinite intelligent persons , no more proves those who reject such expressions , while they own each person by himself , to be infinite mind and spirit , to be meer nominalists , than the use of such expressions in a qualified catholick sense , ( as the catholick fathers have formerly used them , or other terms equivalent to them ) proves those who use them to be tritheists : and yet this is all our author pretends to justifie this distinction between realists and nominalists , viz. the controversy depending between dr. s — th and dr. sherlock . but i cannot pass on without making one remark on this , that dr. s — th , and those who have espoused that side of the question , are as much concerned to vindicate themselves from the imputation which this author has fixed on them , of being meer nominalists or sabellians , as dr. sherlock and his friends are , to vindicate themselves from tritheism ; and i confess , i think , a great deal more ; because in the heat of dispute , or through inadvertency , if it be not their settled principle and judgment , they have given more just occasion for such a charge . when one and the same person , with three substantial deaneries , shall be very gravely alledged as a proper representation of a trinity in unity ; when a meer mode of subsistence shall be given as a proper and adequate definition of a person , as applied to the trinity ; when a large book shall be writ on purpose to demonstrate , that there is and can be but one person in the trinity , in the true proper notion , as it signifies an intelligent person ; what can the most equal and impartial judge make of this , but downright sabellianism ? for , whether it be allowable to say , three minds and spirits or not , i 'm sure without owning three proper , subsisting , intelligent persons , each of whom is in his own person , infinite mind and spirit , there can be no real trinity . if their sense be more orthodox than their words , i do heartily beg of them for god's sake , and the sake of our common faith , so to explain their words , as to remove this scandal , as dr. sherlock has done , and not to charge a trinity of real , subsisting , intelligent persons , ( which is all he professes to own , or ever to have intended ) with tritheism , till they can give us something in the room of it more orthodox than a sabellian trinity , which the catholick church has always rejected with abhorrence . sect iii. the authorities of the nominalists against a real trinity , briefly examined . this socinian having given such an account as it is , of the doctrine of the realists and nominalists , as disinterested as he pretends to be , he professedly espouses the side of the nominalists against the realists ; that is , under a new name he follows his old trade of disputing against the trinity ; only with this advantage , that he now pleads the cause of the church , of his beloved church of nominalists , against these tritheistick hereticks , the realists : but when men consider , who this advocate is , it will do the nominalists no credit , nor any service to the cause ; for a socinian , tho' he change his name , will be a socinian still , that is , a professed enemy to the catholick faith of the trinity , and to the eternal god head and incarnation of our saviour christ ; and there is very good reason to believe , that what he opposes is the true catholick faith , and what he vindicates and defends is heresy . what agreement there is between the nominalists and socinians , and what an easie accommodation may be made between them , we shall hear towards the conclusion ; but this will not satisfie our author , that the present orthodox church ( which to the reproach of the church , and to the advantage of his own cause , he will have to be all nominalists , which is such an abuse as concerned persons ought to resent ; i say , not satisfied that the present church ) is on his side ; nothing will serve him less , than to prove , that this was always the faith of the catholick church : a brave and bold undertaking , but what his wiser predecessors , socinus , crellius , &c. would have laught at ; and which i doubt not but he laughs at himself , and will have cause to laugh , if he can meet with any persons soft and easy enough to believe him . he well and truly observes , that this question , what has been the doctrine of the catholick church in this point , must be decided by authorities or witnesses , and therefore he appeals to authorities , and those i grant the most venerable authorities and witnesses that can be had , even general councils . i wish he would continue in this good humour , and then i should not doubt but he would quickly change his side : but this is contemptible hypocrisy in a man , who despises all authorities , not only human , but sacred , when they contradict his own private reasonings , to appeal to authority : i can easily bear with men of weak understandings , but i hate knavery ; for truth needs no tricks : and how much socinians value fathers and councils is sufficiently known . he begins with the nicene council , which brought into the church the term homoousios ; by which is meant , that the divine persons have the same substance , or are of one substance : but then he says , it is disputed between the nominalists and realists , in what sense the council understood this one substance ; whether the same substance in number , the self-same substance ? so that there is indeed , but one divine substance : or the same substance for kind , sort , or nature , namely the same in all essential properties — so that in truth , there are three distinct ( or numerically different ) substances , which are the same only in nature and kind . this he makes the controversy between the church ( that is , his nominalists ) and the realists ; but this is far from being the true state of the controversy : all whom he calls realists , own , that father and son are but one and the self-same substance , communicated whole and undivided from father to son , so that the father is substance , the son substance in his own person , and both the same substance ; and the like of the holy spirit , that as marius victorinus says , they are ter una substantia , thrice one and the same substance ; and this is all that those mean , who venture to say , they are three substances ; for the dispute between those realists , who say there is but one substance of the divine persons , and those who own three , is not whether the son be true and real substance in his own person , as distinct from the person of the father ; for all but sabellians agree in this ; but whether considering the perfect unity and identity of nature and substance in three , it be orthodox to say , three substances , and not rather one substance , and three who subsist ; which is a more orthodox form of speech , and less liable to exception : and thus we allow , that the nicene fathers , by the homoousion , did mean one and the self-same substance of father and son , but so that the son is a true and proper son , a real subsisting person , substance of his fathers substance ; god of god , light of light , very god of very god , begotten not made , of one substance with the father , by whom all things were made ; which so expresly declares the sense of the council , that this author durst not so much as mention , god of god , light of light , &c. which can never be reconciled with his notion of one substance , which leaves no substance , nor any real subsistence to the son distinct from the father . it is a bold stroke , and worthy of our author , to make the nicene council determine for sabellianism , in the term homoousios ; but yet he has a little story , which he thinks proves it beyond exception , for which he quotes socrates : that historian tells us , that there happened a great quarrel in aegypt about the word homoousios , which he says was like fighting in the dark , without distinguishing friends from enemies ; for neither of them seemed to understand each other , as to those matters for which they reproached one another : this our author takes no notice of , for it would not serve his purpose ; it appearing from hence , that the accusations on both sides were causeless , and like dealing blows in the dark : but now our author begins . those fathers of the council that were against the term homoousios , ( but those fathers of the council are not in socrates , but only those who declined the term homoousios ; but the fathers of the council served his purpose better , and therefore he makes bold with the historian ) or of one substance , ( which the historian has not added neither ) accused such as were for it , as sabellians and montanists , ( but the historian says , did suppose that those , who received that term , did introduce the doctrine of sabellius and montanus , that is , that this was their design in using that term , which as he observed before , was their mistake ) calling them also blasphemous , because they seemed to take away ( by that word ) the real existence of the son of god : while on the other hand , they that stood for homoousios , believed that such as were against it , did introduce more gods , and therefore detested them , as reviving paganism . here our author leaves off ; but i shall go on with the history . eustathius bishop of antioch , accuses eusebius pamphili , as adulterating the nicene faith ; eusebius denies , that he in the least departed from the nicene faith , and accuses eustathius of sabellianism : and thus they wrote against each other as adversaries , and yet both of them taught , that the son of god was a true and proper person , and had a real subsistence of his own ; and that there was one god in three persons : that one would wonder whence it came to pass that they could not agree . from this story , our author thus reasons . this is a deciding-testimony in the case . for the realists will never be able to shew , that if by homoousios the council intended three distinct substances , three beings , minds , or spirits : how the fathers of the council could be accused of montanism and sabellianism ; for three intellectual infinite substances , three divine beings , spirits or minds , was the doctrine chiefly opposed by sabellius and montanus , as all confess : ( then by his own confession , his nominalists are sabellians , and all those fathers and councils which condemned sabellius were realists , and then we have got the nicene council again . ) and on the other hand , the council which contrived and defended homoousios , could as little censure those who were against it as introducers of tritheism and paganism , if it had not been supposed , that in opposing homoousios , they professed to believe three infinite substances in number , three divine minds , and spirits ; which is the very doctrine of the modern realists . 1. now in answer to this , i observe first , that the historian says all this was an angry mistake , ( as angry men are very apt to mistake , and to reproach each other with their own mistakes ) but neither of these parties were guilty of the heresies they were charged with ; neither the one were sabellians , nor the other tritheists ; now this i think proves the direct contrary to what he concludes from it : for if those who were charged with sabellianism for owning the homoousion were not sabellians , then it is certain , that they did not think , that the nicene council by the homoousion , or one substance , meant one singular substance , for that is sabellianism : and when those who professed the homoousion , and were no sabellians , charged those who rejected the homoousion , with tritheism , they must believe , that the nicene homoousion is neither sabellianism nor tritheism , but the middle between both ; such a unity and sameness of substance , as is neither a sabellian singularity , nor a tritheistick diversity and multiplicity of substances ; that is , where father and son are in their own persons , as distinct from each other , infinite substance , and yet but one substance , one of one , god of god , light of light. this is the medium which socrates tells us they both agreed in ; and therefore wondered how they should come to differ ; that the son of god was a true and proper person , and had a real subsistence of his own ; and that there was one god in three persons . 2. but if by homoousios the council intended three distinct substances , ( that is , according to our sense , three , each of which is true and perfect substance , and yet but one substance ) how could the fathers of the council be accused of montanism or sabellianism ? had he consulted dr. bull , he would have learnt the difference between these two ; but let that pass : he phrases this , as if he would insinuate , that the council it self was accused of sabellianism for this term ; which is false . but this word homoousios had sometimes been abused to a sabellian sense , tho' the council did not use it in that sense ; and some men might still conceal their heresy under the covert of an orthodox word ; for this reason , some who professed the nicene faith , yet disliked the homoousion ; and when this dispute had heated them , it was too natural to charge those , who from the authority of the nicene council defended the use of that word , with such secret heretical senses as they thought that word chargeable with : and this is the whole truth of the case , as socrates tells us ; and this is a very strange way to prove the sense of the council , from the groundless accusations of angry and jealous men . 3. but how could the council , which contrived and defended homoousios , censure those who were against it , as introducers of tritheism and paganism , which the historian witnesses that it did with great earnestness ? but socrates ( his historian ) says not one word of the council , but only of these angry . disputants censuring and accusing each other , and both unjustly ; but he would sain ascribe all this to the council , because it is not fathers , but councils he relies on ; of which more presently . but there may be a very good reason given , why those who rejected the sabellian unity and singularity of the divine essence , might yet charge those with polytheism who rejected the homoousion , or consubstantial ; and there may be two accounts given of it . 1. that they suspected them of arianism , in opposition to which , the council taught the homoousion ; one sense of which was such a sameness of nature , as is between father and son , which in creatures we call a specifick sameness , in contradiction to the arians , who taught , that the son was of a different nature and substance from the father , as different from god the father , as a created and uncreated nature differ ; and this is downright polytheism and paganism ; for this makes the son and holy spirit , how excellent soever their natures are , but meer creatures : and for this reason we know , the catholick fathers charged the arians with pagan polytheism and idolatry ; and the arians at that time were such zealous opposers of the homoousion , even while they concealed themselves under some other catholick forms of speech , that it was too great a reason to suspect those of arianism , who denied the homoousion , whatever they would seem to own besides : and when men are angry , less reasonable suspicions than these , are thought sufficient to form an accusation ; and this is one fair account of it : such men were thought secret arians , and therefore charged with polytheism . 2. but there was another notion of the homoousion , which the catholick fathers thought absolutely necessary to the unity of god , and consequently that the denial of it would introduce three gods , instead of three divine subsisting persons in the unity of the same godhead : and that is , that when the son is said to be homoousios , or consubstantial with the father , the meaning is , that he is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the very substance of the father , and not of any other created or uncreated substance : this st. basil is positive in , that two , who are of the same substance for kind , are not therefore consubstantial , as father and son , but are rather brethren , unless one be of the other : but now many true catholicks very much suspected this term , because it seemed to imply a division and separation of the father's substance ; for , how can the son be of the same substance with the father , without a division of the father's substance ? the nicene fathers answered , that the very name of son , and the natural notion of generation , did necessarily prove , that the son must be of the father's substance ; but then the absolute purity and simplicity of the divine essence , which is a perfect indivisible monad , proves , that this eternal generation of the son , can't be by a division of substance , as it is in human generations ; but is whole of whole , in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner , so as no creature can understand ; which is no great wonder , when we can understand so little of creature generations , especially when creation it self is as perfectly unaccountable as the eternal generation ; for we can no more understand , how the world was created of nothing , than how the son was begotten of his father's substance , whole and perfect , without any division or separation : that the whole divine essence is originally in the father , and communicated whole to the son , subsists whole and distinctly in both , and is one in both. this is that sense of the homoousion , which occasioned so many warm disputes between the catholicks themselves ; for this reason , that party which rejected the homoousion , accused those , who received it , of sabellianism , because they asserted , that there was but one and the same substance in father , son , and holy ghost , which was the heresy of sabellius ; and the heat of dispute would not suffer them to see how vastly the catholick homoousians and sabellians differ'd , tho' they both asserted but one substance : for the sabellians asserted but one single substance , which is but one real subsisting person ; and therefore made father , son , and holy ghost , but three names of the same person : but the catholicks asserted three real subsisting persons , who were substance , substance , and substance , and yet but one of one , the perfect same of the perfect same : vna substantia non unus subsistens ; one substance , not one that subsists ; and therefore generally rather called them three subsistences , than three substances ; not but that they owned each subsistence to be a substance , but they were in the common acceptation of the word not three substances , but one substance , really and actually subsisting thrice , which they allowed to be one , and one , and one , but not three . on the other hand , those who received the homoousion , accused those who rejected it , of polytheism and tritheism : for in truth , to deny that father , son , and holy ghost , are so of one substance , that the son receives his whole substance of the father , and that the holy ghost receives his whole substance of father and son , is to make them three absolute , independent , self-originated substances , which have no relation to each other ; three such as the father is , who is of no other but himself , and the catholick fathers always accused this of tritheism : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , three fathers , was the same to them , as to say three gods ; and they vindicated the doctrine of a real subsisting trinity , against the sabellian and arian charge of tritheism , by saying , that they did not own three fathers , but only one father , one self-originated divinity , which communicates his own substance to the son ; and therefore they are not two gods , but god of god. but now these good fathers , tho' they were right in the notion of tritheism , and in the nicene notion of the homoousion , yet they wrongfully accused those , who rejected that term , of tritheism ; for they owned that the son was of the father ; that all that the son was , he was of the father ; that he was god of god , light of light , and therefore not an absolute self-originated god , but one god with the father ; but they did not like those terms of consubstantial , and one substance , and of the father's substance , as having something too material in their conception , and sounding harsh , as if the son were part of the father's substance ; which was objected against the homoousion in the nicene council it self , which yet disclaimed all such absurd senses , and received the term as the most infallible test against arianism : but tho' the authority of the council over-ruled the generality of christians ; yet some , who were truly catholick and orthodox in the faith , could not digest it ; and this was the true occasion of this dispute , and these mutual fierce accusations ; and let our author now make the best he can of it ; but instead of doing him service , he will never be able to defend himself against it . after all , our author was aware of a very terrible objection against his sense of the nicene homoousion , for one single sabellian substance and person ; viz. that the catholick fathers rejected and condemned this sense of it as heresy , even sabellianism ; and it is not probable that these fathers should not understand the sense of the council ; or that while they contended earnestly for the nicene faith , they should condemn the true nicene faith for heresy , as he owns they do . this would have put a modest man out of countenance ; but he takes courage , and huffs at these fathers and private doctors : particular fathers are but particular doctors ; 't is from general councils only we can take the churches doctrine . it is very provoking to see a man banter the world at this rate , with the utmost contempt and scorn of his readers : it is plain how great an admirer he is of general councils , and what he thinks of his readers , whom he hopes to persuade , that the catholick fathers , who made up the council , even athanassius himself , who had so great a part in it , did either ignorantly mistake the sense of the council , or wilfully pervert it ; especially when all the ante-nicene fathers owned the same faith , as he may learn from dr. bull ; and those catholicks , who after the nicene council , disputed the use of that term homoousios , yet agreed in the same faith , as i have already shewn . what follows is all of a piece . he expounds the arian homoiousios , or of a like substance , to signify the same substance in sort , or kind , or properties ; that is , specifically the same , but only differing in number , as father and son have the same specifick nature , but are two persons : and thence concludes , that the nicene homoousios which the arians at first refused , but afterwards fraudulently subscribed in the sense of homoiousios , must signify but one singular solitary substance , but one person in the sabellian sense : but who ever before heard , that the arian homoiousion signified a specifick sameness and unity of nature ? or , that the arians owned father and son to have the same specifick nature as adam and abel had ? the catholick fathers themselves , as , athanasius , hilary , basil , the two gregory's , &c. owned such a likeness of nature as this , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be equivalent to the homoousion , and to be true catholick doctrine ; and this they asserted against the arians : but it is in vain to dispute with a man , who has either ignorance or confidence enough thus to impose upon his readers . his next appeal is to the sixth general council , which was the third of constantinople ; and when i met with this , i was not a little surprized to think what he would make of it . this council , as he himself tells the story , determined , that there were two natural wills , and two operations in the lord christ ; and the reason of this was , because they asserted two natures in christ , the divine and human nature ; and that each nature has a natural will of its own ; and therefore as there are two natures , there must be two distinct and natural wills in christ. this is a plain proof of the mystery of the incarnation ; that the divine nature in the person of the son was incarnate ; for there could not be two wills , unless there were two natures ( which was the foundation of this decree ) in christ : and this macarius himself in his confession of faith profest to own , both in opposition to nestorius and eutyches . now this catholick faith of the incarnation , which is so often and so expresly own'd by this council , is utterly irreconcileable with this sabellian unity of the divine nature and substance , without running into the patripassian heresy , that the whole trinity is incarnate : for if christ in one person hath two natures , be truly and really both god and man , and consequently has two distinct wills , a divine and humane will ; either as god , he must be distinct in nature and person from the father and the holy ghost ; or if all three persons of the trinity , are but one single solitary nature , and consequently but one true and proper person , all three , father , son , and holy ghost , must be incarnate , and suffer in the incarnation and sufferings of christ , which the catholick church condemned as heresy . well! but he tells us , that this council owned that there is but one will in the three persons of the trinity , and therefore consequently they can be but one true and proper person . this we own with the council , that there is but one essential will in the trinity , tho' each person has a personal will : but this he says , cannot be the meaning of the council , because the question was concerning natural wills , or powers of willing : this is all fallacy . a natural will is such a will as belongs to that nature , whose will it is : as a divine nature has a divine will , and a humane nature a humane will ; the power of willing is personal , and signifies a personal will : and it is evident , the council speaks of the first , not of the second : and not to multiply quotations , i shall give but one plain proof of it . theophanes askt macarius and stephen , whether adam had a reasonable soul ? they answer , yes . then he askt them , whether he had a natural will ? stephen the monk answers , that before the fall he had a divine will , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he willed together with god , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : demetrius calls this blasphemy ; for if he was a co-willer , he was a co-creator also with god , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and others said , that this made adam , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , consubstantial with god ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; for he , who is a co-willer with god , is consubstantial also : and for this they alledge the authority of st. cyril , who tells us of christ ; that as he is consubstantial , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so he wills together with his father ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and gives this reason for it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that one nature has but one will : now if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one who wills with another , then there must be two who will ; and if these two are one will , it cannot signify personally , but essentially one : and if they be consubstantial , have one substance and one will in the same sense , we know what this council meant by one substance , no more one personal substance , than one personal will. his next authority is the council of lateran , under pope innocent iii. and though the christian world is not much beholden to that council , yet i cannot think , as i find a great many wise men do , that they have made any alteration in the substance of our faith , whatever they have done in the form of expression . that the trinity is una summa res , one supream being , was the doctrine of st. austin , from whom peter lombard had it ; and all the catholick fathers owned the trinity to be a most simple monad , ( which is the same thing ) when at the same time they asserted against the sabellians , three real , subsisting , distinct persons , each of which is the same whole undivided divinity , communicated whole and perfect from father to son , and from father and son to the holy ghost , without any division or partition of substance . and this is the doctrine of the lateran council ; that this one supream thing , is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , veraciter , truly and really , father , son , and holy ghost ; three united persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tres simul personae , and each of them distinct from the others ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ac singulatim quaelibet earum ; and therefore there is only a trinity , not a quaternity in god , as abbot joachim had objected ; and that each of these divine persons is this divine substance , essence , and nature . all this athanasius himself would have subscribed , who yet with the other catholick fathers rejected the notion of a singular and solitary divinity . they add , that this one supreme nature , substance , essence , ( which is father , son , and holy ghost ) neither begets , nor is begotten , nor proceeds : nor did ever any man in his wits assert , that the divine nature and essence , as common to father , son , and holy ghost , that is , that the whole trinity did either beget , or was begotten , or did proceed ; this belongs to persons , not to nature formally considered ; as they expresly teach , that the father begets , the son is begotten , and the holy ghost proceeds , so that there is a distinction of persons , and unity of nature ; that the father is alius , another , the son another , the holy ghost another ; but not aliud another thing : but what the father is , and what the son is , and what the holy ghost is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they are all perfectly the same ; that according to the catholick faith , we may acknowledge them to be consubstantial ; for the father from eternity begetting the son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , gave his own substance to him , as he himself witnesses . the father who gave them me is greater than all : nor can it be said , that the father gave part of his substance to his son , and retained another part himself ; for the hypostasis or substance of the father is indivisible , as being perfectly simple : nor can we say , that when the father begat the son , he so communicated his own substance to him , as not to have it himself ; for then he must cease to be an hypostasis , substance , and a substantial person himself . so that it is evident , that the son , when begotten , received the father's substance without any diminution of the father ; and thus father and son have the same substance ; and father and son and holy ghost are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one and the same supreme nature and substance ; which they call , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the unity of sameness and identity : this is true catholick doctrine , and the very language of the nicene fathers . and if joachim rejected this essential unity of the trinity , and asserted a meer collective unity , as many christians are one church , as the council affirms he did , he was very justly condemned , and the nicene fathers themselves would have condemned him . the only thing which looks like an innovation in this decree , is , that whereas the catholick fathers allowed of those expressions , a begotten nature , begotten substance , begotten wisdom , begotten god ; and that substance begets substance , and wisdom begets wisdom , &c. this council denies , that this one supream divine essence , nature , or substance , which is the blessed trinity , does either beget , or is begotten , or proceeds , which some schoolmen think absolutely condemns those expressions , that substance begets substance ; and wisdom wisdom ; that the son is deus genitus , and natura genita , begotten god and begotten nature , and begotten wisdom ; which is to condemn all the catholick fathers , who used these expressions without any scruple ; nay , who thought that the mystery of the divine generation could not be secured without them . but i confes , i am of petavius his mind , ( though i find the learned doctor bull dissent from him ) that this council never intended absolutely to condemn all such expressions , when personally used ; for though the divine nature in a general notion , as common to all three persons , neither begets , nor is begotten ; yet the father begets the son by a true and proper generation , and a true and proper son ; and therefore that learned jesuit tells us , that the lateran council considered the divine nature absolutely , and in it self , and as abstracted from the three persons , not as subsisting distinctly in each person ; for so it is very catholick to say , that the divine nature in the person of the father begets the divine nature in the person of the son : for we cannot understand what a person is without its essence and nature ; and it is absurd to say , that the son receives his person from the father , without receiving that without which he cannot be a person : and the reason he gives , why they rather chose to say , that the father begets the son , than that essence begets essence , was to avoid the ambiguity of that expression , which might signify the production of another essence , as well as the generation of another person ; whereas this divine generation is the communication of the same eternal essence which is in the father to the son , which gives existence to a second person , not to a second nature : this is indeed very subtil , but there is some sense in it ; and while they acknowledge , that the son by an eternal generation receives a true divine nature from the father , and is in his own person true god , but yet not the father ; this is the old catholick faith , how new soever the expressions may be . thus i have done with his general councils ; and i hope every one sees how well he understands councils , or how honestly he deals with them . what concerns the church of england , needs no answer after what i have already said ; and the story of valentinus gentilis is much to the same purpose ; for he was so far from being a realist , that he was a down-right arian . but that he may not think himself and his nominalists so secure of all the divinity-chairs in europe , i will refer him to the learned spanhemius , to learn how it lately fared with some of them in the united provinces ; who were censured and condemned by various synods , and by the publick judgment and authority of several universities . the first proposition condemned was concerning the name of son , and his eternal generation of the father ; that this is not to be understood properly of a true and proper generation , as if the father , who begets , were a true and proper father ; and the son , who is begotten , a true and proper son ; but that these terms in scripture only signify , 1. that the second person has the same nature and essence with the first person , and did coexist with him from eternity : denying the manner of his having the same nature , by an ineffable generation , and the personal subsistence of the father , who begets , and the son , who is begotten , and consequently that true relation between father , and son , which the scripture constantly teaches , which gave just suspicion either of sabellianism , or tritheism . 2. that all these names ( of father and son , begetting , and being begotten , &c. ) respect the oeconomy of the covenant of grace , the manifestation of the second person in the flesh , as in the visible image of god , to execute the mediatory office , for which purpose he was given by god the father : in which sense , to beget , is the same with to manifest ; and to be begotten , to be manifested : this he says is coincident with the socinians ; and resolved into that fundamental error , that the true and proper generation of the son , though acknowledged ineffable , contradicts those natural ideas which are imprinted in our minds by god , and are the foundation of all assent , and all true and certain knowledge : and that we must not think that god has revealed any thing in his word , which cannot , and ought not to be examined by men , according to these ideas ; or that god proposes nothing in his word to be believed with a certain and firm assent , which a man of a sound reason cannot clearly and distinctly perceive , according to these ideas . and now let our author judge , whose character this is , and on which side these belgic synods and chairs have given judgment . sect iv. the arguments of the nominals , against a real trinity of proper subsisting persons , examined : and the three first arguments , answered . secondly , let us now briefly examine his reasons , which he thinks so demonstrative , that the ( so much talk'd of ) mathematical certainty is not superior to them : but i have heard some men brag much of demonstration , who have had nothing to say , that would amount to a good probability . now to make my answer plain and easy , i observe first , that all his arguments to prove the realists to be guilty of tritheism , and to assert three gods , are levelled against a trinity of distinct , real , subsisting , intelligent persons , as he himself owns ; for those invidious terms , of three substances , three minds and spirits , and wills , and understandings , signify no more than three , each of which in his own proper person , is substance , mind , spirit , will , understanding : so that all these arguments are against the catholick faith of a real trinity ; that is , to prove the doctrine of the trinity to be tritheism ; for that which is not a real trinity , is no trinity : and therefore these arguments do no more concern dr. sherlock , and some few others , whom this author would fain single out from the body of catholick believers , by the name of realists , than all other christians , who heartily believe in father , son , and holy ghost , and own christ jesus to be the eternal son of god , and true and perfect god himself . secondly , i observe , that all these arguments are no farther considerable , than as they directly oppose the catholick faith in its full latitude ; that is , a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity . the scripture assures us , that there is but one god , but teaches withall , that the father is god , the son god ; and the holy ghost god ; we believe god concerning himself , and his own nature and unity , because he best knows himself , and therefore we believe , that there is but one god , but not that there is but one person , who is god , for there are three in the unity of the same godhead , and each of them true and perfect god ; so that it is not enough for these demonstrators to prove , that there is and can be but one eternal divinity , or one god ; for we readily own it , and as heartily believe it as they do ; but we say withall , that this one divinity subsists distinctly and indivisibly , whole and perfect in three , and that therefore there is a trinity in unity : nor is it sufficient to prove , that in the trinity of the realists , there are three , each of which is by himself true and perfect god , and therefore that there are three gods ; for we own such three , but say , that these three are not three gods , but subsist inseparably in one undivided divinity , and therefore that there is a vnity in trinity . but if they would consute either the trinity or the unity , they must prove , that there are not , and cannot be , three real subsisting persons in one insinite undivided essence , and then they will effectually confute the scripture , and a trinity with it ; or they must prove , that though three such persons should subsist distinctly in one undivided essence , yet they are not one and the same divinity , or one god ; and then they will confute not only scripture , but common sense ; that three , which are one , are not one , or that one divinity is not one god : having premised this , let us now consider his arguments . 1. in the first place , he says , three infinite intellectual substances , or three eternal omnipotent minds or spirits , ( or which we have heard is the same thing , three infinite intelligent persons ) can never be but one god ; because 't is evident , nay confessed , that one such spirit , mind , or substance , is one ( absolute and most perfect ) god. — if the definition is multiplied , the thing defined is also therewith multiplied , — seeing then 't is the definition of one god , that he is one infinite ( intellectual , spiritual ) substance , one eternal , omnipotent , and omniscient spirit or mind ; therefore if we multiply our definition , by saying , three infinite ( intellectual , spiritual ) substances , &c. we thereby multiply the thing we pretended to define , namely , god ; which is to say , we affirm more geds , as many gods as such substances and spirits . here our demonstrator stumbles at the very threshold . i grant , that an infinite intellectual spiritual substance , an eternal , omniscient , omnipotent mind or spirit , is the definition of one , who is god , or of a divine person ; but i absolutely deny , that this is the definition of one god , that he is one eternal , omniscient , &c. personal mind or spirit , as he fallaciously and absurdly represents it ; and in so doing , instead of proving what he undertakes , he very modestly and humbly begs the question . he is to prove , that three infinite substances , minds , or spirits , are three gods : his argument is , because one infinite substance , mind , or spirit , is the definition of one god ; and if you multiply the definition , you multiply the thing defined , and therefore three infinite substances and minds must be three gods ; but how does he prove , that one infinite substance and mind ( personally understood as we understand it ) is the definition of one god ? for this is the thing in dispute , which certainly no trinitarian will grant him , and therefore ought to be proved . those who assert , as all trinitarians do , that three infinite intelligent persons , each of which is infinite substance , mind or spirit , are but one god , will not be so good-natur'd as to grant , that one infinite substance and mind ( or one divine person ) is the definition of the one god ; this would not be to dispute , but to beg the cause on one side , and to give it away on the other . but this may be thought perverseness , to put men upon proving what is self-evident : for , is not an infinite intelligent person , substance , mind , spirit , true and perfect god ? yes , most certainly ; but it is not the definition of the one god , but only of a divine person ; and the christian faith teaches us , that three such divine persons are but one god. the catholick fathers have given us another notion of one god , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one god is one divinity ; that is , an eternal , immutable , indivisible , omnipotent , omniscient , life , being , essence , nature : and the essential , undivided , unity , sameness , identity , of the godhead in father , son , and holy ghost , is the unity of god : for i take it to be more like a demonstration , than any i expect to meet with in this author , that where there is but one essential undivided divinity , there is but one god. now this i think may vindicate those obnoxious expressions as some think them , of three infinite substances , minds and spirits , from the charge of tritheism ; for since infinite substance , mind , and spirit , is not the definition of one god , but only of a divine person , to say , three infinite substances , minds , and spirits , does not multiply gods , but only divine persons . 2. his second argument is against three wills , three vnderstandings , three energies , or principles , or powers of action in one god : this he represents as monstrously absurd ; when as in truth , if it be absurd , the only absurdity is , that there should be three divine persons , that is , three , who have a personal will , understanding , power , of their own , in the unity of the same godhead : now the absurdity of this i cannot see , nor has he made the least offer to prove it . but the secret of all these monstrous absurdities , is this . he represents one god , to signifie only one single person , who is god , and then indeed , three wills , three understandings , three lives , of one single person , is as absurd and monstrous as one would wish ; but before he had charged the doctrine of a real trinity with such absurdities , he should first have proved , that one god signifies but one single person , and have exposed the monstrous absurdities of three persons and one god , and then we would have given him leave to have represented three personal wills , understandings , and lives , as absurd as he pleases ; but if it be not absurd to own three persons , i 'm sure it is very absurd to deny , that there are three , who live , and will , and understand , that is , in his language , three wills , understandings , and lives , in one god. 3. his third argument comes nearer the business ; for he undertakes to prove , that the second and third persons in the trinity , the son and the holy ghost , are not substance and spirit , but only properties , or immanent acts , or relative subsistences in the notion of the nominals : and his argument is made up partly of authority , and partly of his own reasoning upon it . his authority is the council of lyons in the year 1274. which condemns those , who presume to deny , that the holy spirit does eternally proceed from the father and the son. — he adds , 't is evident at first sight to any learned man , who is conversant in these questions , and in the writers , who ( in several ages ) have managed 'em , what the fathers of this council meant , and what they aimed at in this decree or canon : for because they believed that the divine persons are not minds and spirits , but relative subsistences , or what is the same , immanent acts : therefore they could not but believe and define , that the second person is eternally generated , and therefore called the son ; that the third is an eternal spiration , and therefore called spirit . i can't think what to call this , and therefore shall say nothing of it , but only beg my reader 's pardon for giving it an answer . in the first place this council says nothing of the eternal generation of the son , and therefore this could not be what they aimed at , as he pretends . in the next place , the eternal procession of the holy ghost was not the thing in question , but his eternal procession from father and son , which the latin church professed , and therefore added the filioque to their creed ; but the greek church had disputed and condemned it , and that was one great design of this council to bring the greeks to consent to this addition : so that it was not the aeternaliter , but the filioque which the council had principal regard to in this decree ; not the eternal procession , but the procession from the father and the son ; so little did they think of what our author makes their chief design . but there is another clause in this decree which he has concealed , which proves , that they thought quite otherwise ; for they do not only condemn those , who deny that the holy spirit proceeds eternally from father and son ; but those also , who teach that he proceeds from father and son , as from two principles , and by two spirations , and not as from one principle , by one spiration . now had they believed the son to be a meer immanent act , such an unsubsisting reason and wisdom as is in man , had not this been a very wise dispute , whether this immanent act were a principle of spiration , either together with the father , or distinct from him ? but nothing is to be wondered at in an author , who will venture to say , that eternal generation , and eternal procession , is not reconcileable with the real personal subsistence of the son and holy spirit , but proves them to be meer immanent acts ; and that those , who own such an eternal generation and procession , must consequently believe so : for this is the only argument he has to prove the fathers of this council to have believ'd the son and spirit to be meer immanent acts , because they assert the eternal generation and procession ; whereas on the contrary it is evident , that all the catholick fathers , who asserted the eternal generation and procession , did as strenuously assert against the noetians and sabellians , the true and proper personality of the son and spirit . but let us hear how he proves , that if the son and spirit , the second and third persons , be distinct substances and spirits from the first , ( that is , if the son in his own person , as distinct from the person of the father ; be substance and spirit , and so of the holy ghost ) it were heinous nonsense to say , they were eternally generated , or eternally proceed . his argument is this : if the persons are substances and spirits , it must be said , that the second was compleatly and finally generated from all eternity ; the like also of the third person , else they should be incompleat substances , unfinisht spirits . — if they are spirits or substances , it can never be said that one is eternally generated , the other does eternally proceed : but the former was generated from all eternity , and the other actually and compleatly proceeded from all eternity . now supposing the reason of this to be unanswerable ; all that it amounts to is no more but this , that the catholick fathers , who attested the true and proper personality of the son , and holy spirit , were very absurd , and guilty of heinous nonsense , in saying , that the son is eternally generated , and the spirit eternally proceeds . these are nice speculations , which the arian controversy engaged them in ; but the nicene fathers contented themselves to affirm no more concerning the eternal generation , than that the son was begotten of his father before all worlds , god of god , light of light , very god of very god. and this notion of an eternal generation our author has no objection against , and we do not think our selves bound to answer for all the subtilties either of the fathers or schools ; nor to determine every curious question , which perverse and heretical wits can start concerning the divine generation and procession , which is above the comprehension of angelical minds , and which we know no more of , but that the son is begotten , and the spirit proceeds . and yet this reasoning is very absurd , when applied to an eternal and immutable nature . things , which have a beginning , which are made , which are successively and gradually perfected by art , are incompleat and unfinish'd , while they are a-making , and if they are always a-making , or always incompleat ; but a generation or procession , without a beginning , and without succession , must always be perfect , and always the same , if it be at all ; here is no new production , no making any thing , no transient action ; in which sence the catholick fathers denied the divine generation to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or action , but only an essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , habitude , relation between father and son , who both perfectly and eternally subsist , and co-exist with each other , but so , that the son is of the father , and the holy spirit of father and son : thus they were without any beginning , and thus they always are , and this is all they meant by an eternal generation and procession , and this the immutability of the divine nature forc'd them to own ; for though external acts and relations make no change in the divine nature , yet what is ad intrà does ; and therefore could we conceive any distinguishable moments in eternal duration , when god was no father , when he begot a son , and when he ceased to beget , this would make an internal change in the divine nature it self , which is inconsistent with perfect immutability . but the son always was and is of the father , and this is his eternal generation , and the holy spirit always was and is of father and son , and this is his eternal procession , and thus the divine essence always was and is the same , a trinity in unity , and this is the perfect immutability of god. and yet his philosophy is very absurd , when he argues from an eternal generation and procession , that therefore the son and holy spirit must be incompleat and unfinish'd ; for this will not be granted him even in created nature , much less in the divinity . they are no mean philosophers , who tell us , that the world may very properly be said to be perpetually created ; that what we call preservation , or upholding all things in being , is the very same act and power which at first gave being to them ; and such a permanent act is creation still , though no new production of any thing : but these men would scorn any one who should hence conclude , that there is no compleat or finish'd substance , no really subsisting substantial world : much more absurd is it , to conclude this of an eternal generation , which produces nothing new , nothing that ever began to be , and is the same that ever it was , without any succession . and he defends the nominalists just as wisely and philosophically , as he opposes the realists , as if his only design were to expose both . he says this eternal generation proves the son and holy spirit , to be only immanent acts in god , reflex wisdom , or the wisdom that resulteth from original minds eternal contemplation and knowledge of the divine nature and perfections , and the everlasting spiration of love that must proceed from the original and reflex wisdom of the deity . and here we have just such a trinity in the god-head , as there is in every particular man , his mind , and the immanent acts of wisdom or reason , and love , which all learned men know to be one kind of sabellianism . that the son is the wisdom and power of god , and that the peculiar character of the holy spirit is love , is the language both of scripture and fathers ; but not as immanent acts , but the living subsisting wisdom of the father , and living subsisting love , eternal and infinite persons , co-eternal and co-equal with the father : but it is a new language , unknown to scriptures and fathers , to call an immanent act of wisdom a son , and the minds producing such an act , its generating or begetting a son , and to call such an immanent act in god , the son of god , and god ; by which rule , every thought or act of reason in any man , is man , and the son of that man whose thought and act it is . and it as new philosophy to talk of immanent acts in god ; for there can be no immanent acts , but where there are powers and faculties , which is the imperfection of the creature-state , not incident to the perfect simplicity of the divine nature . but besides this , what does he mean by the eternal generation and spiration of an immanent act ; an immanent act ( according to all the accounts i ever met with of it , and as every man may feel in himself ) is not an abiding , as he calls it , but a transient act : it has no permanent stable nature , no subsistence of its own , but vanishes and dies assoon as generated , to speak in his language ; which is a necessary reason to remove all such immanent acts from god , in whom there is nothing vanishing , nothing successive : but if men will attribute immanent acts to god , ( reflex wisdom , as opposed to a living , subsisting , personal wisdom ) they must speak of them according to the known nature of such acts , and then an eternal generation of such an immanent act , which vanishes , assoon as generated , can signifie no more , than an eternal successive repetition ( which is a contradiction ) of the acts of reflex wisdom , that as one vanishes , another succeeds ; that though god has always this reflex wisdom , yet he has not always the same act of reflex wisdom , but produces it a-new every moment , which he calls an eternal generation : just as it is with men who may have the same thought for kind some time together , but yet every moment it is new produced : to talk of such an eternal son as this , and such an eternal generation , is heresie in philosophy , and in common sense , as well as in christianity , and it would be loss of time to expose it . i must no more omit than he , another surprizing argument whereby he proves , that the catholick church did believe , that the second person is the reflex wisdom of god , and the third divine love , because for this reason , as he tells us , this question has been very warmly debated whether the son is that wisdom , wherewith the father is wise. those fathers , who affirm this question , usually alledge these two arguments ; that the eternity of the son cannot be otherwise proved , but by this , that he is the eternal wisdom of the father ; and that otherwise we must suppose two wisdoms in god , which is so absurd to a late learned ecclesiastical historian , that he concludes his dissertation concerning this question , with these words : the father neither is , nor can be actually wise , but by the word or son. i. cabassutius notit . eccl. p. 120. correct . 119. let the reader now judge of all the rest by this . that this question was disputed i own : but he has assign'd a very false and a very absurd occasion for it ; for had this been the received faith of the catholick church , that the son is only the immanent act of reflex wisdom in god , what occasion had there been for this dispute , whether the son is that wisdom by which the father is wise ? that is , the personal wisdom of the father ; for who ever disputed , whether immanent acts were personal , or no ? and therefore this very dispute proves , that they did not believe the son to be a meer immanent act. but though they did dispute among themselves , in what sence christ is called the wisdom of god , and the power of god ; and whether christ be that wisdom , wherewith the father is wise , and in what sence the father may be said to beget his own wisdom ; and how the son can be said to be sapientia de sapientia , wisdom of wisdom , if the father in his proper person be not wisdom , but only the begetter of wisdom , with many other questions , as we see in st. austin , lib. vi. de trin. yet they never divided upon this point , but did universally agree , that the father in his own proper person is original mind , and wisdom ; and that the son in his own proper person is begotten wisdom , even the essential wisdom of god , not that personal wisdom wherewith the father is wise , but wisdom truly and properly begotten of original wisdom ; living , subsisting wisdom ; distinct in person from the father , who is original wisdom , but perfectly the same one undivided essence , and therefore not essentially two , but one and the same wisdom , which is the wisdom of the father : so that though there was some dispute about the true signification of such expressions , yet here was no division among the catholicks , who all agreed on that side of the question , which directly contradicts this author's catholick faith of immanent acts. the true occasion of this dispute , as st. austin tells us in the same place , was this ; that some of the fathers , i think he might have said all the nicene fathers , in their disputes with the arians and eunomians about the eternal generation of the son , or word , used this argument , that god was never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without his word , or wisdom : not that they had no other argument to prove the eternity of the son , as this author represents it , but that they thought this a very good one : now the force of this argument seemed to be this , that god is always wise ; and therefore that person , who is the word and wisdom of god , must have always been with him , as eternal as god is : and to make this a good argument , the necessary consequence seemed to be , that the person of the son , who is the begotten word , and wisdom of the father , is the personal wisdom of the father , that wisdom wherewith the father is wise : and the difficulty of this was , how this begotten wisdom , which is a distinct person from the person of the father , should be that wisdom whereby the person of the father is wise : how they justified this argument , and yet avoided such absurdities , is too long now to account for ; those who please may consult st. austin for it ; but i hope every one sees that both the reason of this question , the nature of those difficulties , it was incumbered with , and their determination of the point , are all direct contradictions to what this author alledged it for . and now let us hear what our author 's learned cabassutius says , but what the world will say of him , when they hear what cabassutius says , let other guess . this learned historian takes notice of this dispute , and gives the same account of it which i have now done ; and vindicates that argument of the catholick fathers for the eternity of the son , because he is the wisdom of the father , that were he not eternal , the father could not be always wise , from the exception of st. austin . this he does by a distinction borrowed from aquinas ; that those , who taught the son to be the wisdom of the father , are to be understood * , not in a formal , but causal and illative sence . for though the son , as a son , is not that wisdom , wherewith the father is wise ( let out author first observe that ) yet he is necessarily united with it , and arises from it : so that the son is not the personal wisdom of the father , but is begotten of his father's wisdom , and inseparably united to it : and therefore is the wisdom of god , wisdom of the father's wisdom and inseparable from it ; which are two , one of one , and indivisibly and inseparably one. but let us hear his reason for this * : for the wisdom which is in the father , is not a habit , or faculty , or power , as it is in created beings , but a pure and simple act. what is now become of his immanent act , by which he tells us original mind must be wise ? for if he believes his learned historian , original mind is a pure simple act it self , and therefore not wise by immanent acts of reflex wisdom , which suppose habits and faculties and powers , and have no place in a pure simple act ; that if the son be only an immanent act of reflex wisdom , he will never find his second person in a pure and simple act. the historian proceeds † , every act of wisdom and understanding necessarily includes its terminus or effect , and that is what we call word , or in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which st. cyril very well understood , where he tells us , that mind is never without its word ; and st. thomas saies , that tho' commonly things receive their denomination from their forms , as white from whiteness , man from humanity , yet sometimes they are denominated from their effects ; as a tree is called florid , from the flowers it produces , though that be not the form of it ; and thus the fathers rightly concluded against arius , that the father neither was nor could be actually wise without his word , and only begotten son : our author renders it , but by the word or son , directly contradictory both to the argument and words of cabassutius : for by signifies the formal cause , and is so intended by him , that the father is wise by the son , by that immanent act of reflex wisdom which he calls the son ( tho' one would wonder , how original mind and wisdom , should be wise by reflex wisdom , which is but a secondary wisdom , which supposes a first ; and therefore , as one would guess , could not make the first wise ) but cabassutius only says , that the father is not actually wise without the son , that is , as he explains it , without begetting that eternal word and wisdom , which is the person of the son. i shall make no remarks on this , let the world judge of the skill , or the honesty of this author . what he adds about emanations , is just to the same tune : the eternal generation of the substance of the father , was by the nicene council represented by light of light , and the co-eternity of the son with the father by the co-existence of emanatory causes and their effects , as of the sun and its rays , which are as old as the sun. the author , like other socinians , thinking of nothing but body , and bodily and corporeal emanations , falls presently a demonstrating ; let a. b. c. be three infinite substances , if b. and c. ( infinite substances ) emane from a. an infinite substance also : it is self-evident , that the two infinite substances must exhaust , and thereby in the end annihilate one infinite substance . this is a notable demonstration as to corporeal substances ; for if the whole flow out of it self , it is certain , it must cease to be what it was , and become another whole , if it be not a contradiction , that the same whole should flow out of it self , and become another whole , which in bodies could make no other change in a whole , but a change of place , for let a whole emane , ( if that be not nonsense , for a corporeal whole to emane ) and go where it will , it is it self , and the same whole still . and i think it is no better sense , to talk of exhausting an infinite substance ; for nothing can be exhausted , but what is finite , unless what is infinite can have an end : and an exhausting emanation of an infinite substance , is no better sense than the rest ; for it necessarily supposes an infinite substance with divisible parts , which may be separated from it self and from each other , which i take to be a contradiction to the very notion of infinity . it is certain , that such emanations , as exhaust their subject , can be only bodily emanations , for bodies only have divisible and separable parts , that i defie the most absurd , self-contradicting trinitarian in the world , to put so many absurdities and contradictions into one sentence , as he has done in this : one infinite substance ( whether corporeal or incorporeal ) can never eternally supply two infinite substances : the two infinite substances by continual emanations must needs dry up the one , that was their fountain . to talk of an infinite corporeal substance ( which he here supposes ) is absurd and unphilosophical , for nothing can be infinite which has parts ; for what is infinite by nature can never be finite ; and yet if such a supposed infinite body were divided in the middle , ( as all bodies may be divided ) this infinite corporeal substance would prove two finite substances , for each of them would have one end , where their substance was divided : to talk of such emanations from incorporeal substances ( which have no divisible parts ) as can dry up an infinite fountain , which must be by a partition and division of substances , is another contradiction ; and to dry up an infinite fountain , as i observed before , is another ; and to supply infinite substances by such emanations , which cannot be infinite , if they want any supply , is a fourth very good one . but allowing this author to rejoice in such refined speculations , i would desire to know , who those are who attribute the eternal generation of the son , and procession of the holy spirit , to such eternal , corporeal effluxes and emanations , as will endanger the exhausting and drying up the infinite fountain of the deity ? if there be any such men they are arrant hereticks , i assure him , for the catholick fathers abhorred the thoughts of all such emanations . they did not indeed scruple the use of such words , as emanation , probole , exition , and the like , whereby they signified that the son was truly and in a proper sense of his father's substance , and a real distinct person from the person of the father , but they expresly rejected all corporeal effluxes , all division and separation of the father's substance ; and taught that the son is begotten whole of whole , perfect god of perfect god , by a real communication , but not a transfusion of substance , not ad extra , without , as creature-generations are , but within his father ; as the word is inseparable from the mind , whose word it is . so that our author disputes here without any other adversary , but his own gross imaginations , and he may triumph securely , and demonstrate these corporeal , exhausting , dying emanations , out of countenance , and the realists no farther concerned , than to look on , and see the event of the combate , or to wish him better employed . if he would have effectually baffled these realists , he should have proved , that god could not communicate his own nature and substance to the son , whole of whole , without such an emanation of his substance , as divides it from it self , and separates one part of it from another , as it is in bodily exhalations : this would effectually have confuted a substantial generation ; for all men grant , that the divine substance can't be divided , and this was the objection of the arians against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the son 's being begotten of the substance of the father , but the catholick fathers asserted a real substantial generation , without a division of substance , and taught them to distinguish between the generation of body and spirit . and whoever considers , how a finite created mind can communicate its thoughts to another , which when perfectly communicated , are perfectly the same , whole and entire in both , and but one and the same thought , though in two minds ; may conceive , that an infinite mind , which is a pure and simple act , infinitely more simple and indivisible than thought it self , may be able to communicate its self more perfectly , than a finite mind can communicate its thoughts , and if it can , it must communicate it self whole and entire , and as indivisibly as a thought , and subsist distinctly , perfectly one and the same in two. sect . v. the fourth and fifth arguments against a real trinity answered . iv. to proceed , his next argument against the realists is this , that all explications , by which 't is endeavour'd to shew , how three infinite ( intellectual substances ) three almighty spirits and minds , may be one god , are manifestly deficient . now , suppose this true , that no man can give a perfect account of the unity of the divine nature in three distinct , infinite , divine persons ; must we therefore deny either the trinity or unity ( both which , we say , are expresly taught in scripture ) because we cannot fully comprehend so sublime and venerable a mystery ? they pay greater deference than this to the evidence of sense ; they will believe their senses , where their reason and philosophy is at a loss , nay , in such matters , as if they did not see them , they think they could demonstrate absolutely contradictious and impossible : and did men heartily believe the scriptures , why should they not as absolutely submit their reason to the authority of god , as to the evidence of sense ? but let them answer for this . but the whole strength of this argument , which he manages with great triumph and scorn , dwindles into the old socinian sophism , that one god signifies but one only person , who is god ; and that whatever other unity you ascribe to three persons , each of which is by himself true and perfect god , still they are three gods ; for since each of these spirits ( or persons , each of which is an infinite mind or spirit ) are said to be infinite , all-perfect , they must be said to be gods , mutually conscious , mutually inexisting , and the rest ; but no more one god , than they are one spirit : and therefore the realists may as well pretend that by these devices of theirs , they have contrived three infinite spirits into one person , or into one spirit , as into one god. and that a disinterested person ( i suppose he means such as himself ) and philosophers , and jews and pagans , he might have added sabellians , and socinians , and mahumatans , will call these three gods. now it is no wonder that this disinterested person thinks all our explications of the unity of god insufficient , when we so vastly differ about the notion of one god : that we are so far from proving three divine persons to be one god in his sense , that we reject his notion of one god , as judaism and heresie ; and herein we have the authority of the catholick church on our side . and here i would desire the reader to observe , that this argument is not meerly against that phrase of three minds and spirits and substances ; but against three persons , each of which is in his own proper person , mind and spirit and substance ; for three such persons , by this authors argument , are three gods , and can no more be contrived ( as he prophanely speaks ) into one god , than into one personal spirit . but yet since he graciously owns , that one infinite almighty spirit , is one god , what if we should prove these three infinite persons , each of which is mind and spirit , to be one and the same infinite eternal spirit : and yet this has always been the faith of the catholick church , st. austin is express in it , the father is spirit , and the son spirit , and the holy ghost spirit , but not three spirits , but one spirit ; that is , not personally , but essentially one , they are three persons , but one essence , essentially one spirit : and if god be perfect , pure , simple essence , the unity of essence , is the unity of god. this was the doctrine of all the catholick fathers , and this we must insist on till our modern demonstrators speak more home to this point , that one divine essence , one self-originated divinity , though subsisting in three distinct persons , is but one god. i can't discourse this at large now , that may be done , if there be occasion for it , another time , but at present i shall only give a brief account of the doctrine of the fathers , as to this point . they tell us , that there is but one self-originated divinity , but one father , and therefore but one god ; that this eternal unbegotten father , begets an eternal son of his own nature and substance , and in like manner , that is , in the same nature and substance the holy spirit eternally proceeds from father and son : so that there being but one nature , one divinity , communicated whole and entire and perfectly the same , without division of substance , there is but one divine nature , but one divinity distinctly in three : not one meerly as a species is one ( though they often allude also to a specific unity ) but one , as one individual , though not one singular , nature is one : as one which subsists wholly , indivisibly , and perfectly in three , is one ; which is one , and one , and one , by a perfect sameness , and identity of nature , and substance , but not three . that these three are inseparable from each other , never did subsist a part , never can ; but are in each other , which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and circumincession , which makes the divinity one simple , indivisible monad : and here we may allow a place , ( and he never intended any other place for it ) to what dr. sherlock calls , mutual consciousness , which is the proper and natural in-being of three , each of which is mind and spirit : which is not barely a knowing each other by an external communication of thoughts and counsels , which is far from being an essential natural unity ; but such an inward vital sensation , as each person has of himself ; which after all the noise and clamour about it , seems to be a very sensible representation of the natural in-being and circumincession of the divine persons ; and as natural a demonstration of the unity of the divine essence , as self-consciousness must be acknowledged to be of the unity of a person . it is certain , without this they cannot be one energy and power ( wherein the fathers also place the unity of the god-head ) one agent , one creator and governour . but where there is such an inseparable union , such a mutual conscious sensation , there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as greg. nyssen speaks , one motion of the divine will , though distinctly and without confusion in three : and this makes them one agent , one essential will , one essential wisdom , one essential power ; so that here is in the properest sence , but one omniscience , one omnipotence , one will , &c. and therefore but one god , though father , son , and holy ghost , are each of them in their own persons , omnipotent , omniscient , and whatever belongs to the idea of god. all this , indeed , does not make these three divine persons one person , and therefore not one god , in the socinian sense of one god , which is the only deficiency this author charges this account of the divine unity with ; and is wisely done of him , because he knows we reject this notion of the divine unity , and therefore here he is safe ; we assert that the unity of god , is not the unity of a person , but the unity of nature and essence ; and to confute this , he gravely proves , that three persons are not , and cannot be one person : but if he would have opposed us , he should either have shewn , first , that the account the catholick fathers give ( for for we pretend to give no other ) of the unity of god , does not prove , the perfect unity of the divine essence in three persons : or secondly , that one undivided divinity is not one god : or thirdly , that the same eternal essence cannot subsist whole and perfect , distinctly and indivisibly in three ; that is , that god cannot communicate his own nature and substance , without division and separation , to his son , and spirit ; or that god cannot have an eternal son , and an eternal spirit : if he can do either of these , we will very tamely and humbly follow his chariot ; in the mean time ( for i believe this will take up some time ) i will shew him the difference between three divine persons , each of which is true and perfect god , and three gods. 1. first , then one god in the socinian notion , is one infinite mind and spirit , one eternal divinity , in one only person : so one person , and one divinity , that no other person communicates with it in the same divinity , in the same one eternal essence and substance : now according to this notion of one god , three gods are three such eternal minds , substances , divinities , each of which in his own person , has a whole , perfect , undivided essence and divinity , which is not common to any other person : so that three gods are three absolute substances , essences , divinities , which have no essential relation to , or communication with each other . there can be no other notion of three gods , if as this author , and all the anti-trinitarians assert , one god is one absolute divinity in one person ; for then three gods must be three absolute divinities in three persons : now every one sees , what a vast difference there is , between three such gods , and the catholick faith of a trinity of person , in the unity of the divine essence . why , you 'll say , is not every person in the trinity , by himself , in his own person , true and perfect god ? yes , most certainly ; but he is not one absolute , separate divinity ; he has not a divinity so peculiarly his own , that no other person communicates in it ; there is but one undivided divinity in all three , and therefore there is a trinity in unity . but is not each person in the trinity infinite mind , spirit , substance ? nay , do not some realists venture to call them three minds , spirits , substances ? and what are such three , but three gods , if one infinite mind and spirit , be one god ? i answer : an infinite mind and spirit , is certainly true and perfect god ; but one personal infinite mind and spirit is not the one god , so as to exclude all other persons , unless he have one absolute , separate divinity also , so proper and peculiar to himself , that no other person does or can communicate in it ; for if more persons than one can perfectly communicate in the same one divinity , there must be more divine persons than one , and each of them perfect god , but neither of them the one god , in exclusion of the other persons , but all of them the one god as the one divinity . this , i think , the socinians will grant , that one divinity is but one god , and that one god is one absolute divinity ; and the reason why they assert the one god to be but one person , is because they think it impossible , that the same undivided divinity should subsist distinctly and perfectly in three ; but then before they had charged the faith of the trinity with tritheism , they should have remembred , that the persons of the trinity are not three such persons , as their one person is , whom they call the one god : and therefore though three such persons , three such minds and substances , as their one person , and one spirit is , who is the whole divinity confined to one single person , would be three gods , this does not prove , that three such persons as the catholick church owns in the ever-blessed trinity , who are all of the same one substance , and but one divinity , must therefore be three gods also . 2. three such persons as these , who are three gods , our author , and every one else , who understands any thing of these matters , must acknowledge to be three self-originated persons ; for god , in the full and adequate notion of one god , is a self-originated being ; and those , who assert , that the one god , is but one person , make him a self-originated person : now it is evident , that in this sense the three persons in the christian trinity are not three god's , for they are not three self-originated persons : the father alone is un-begotten , or self-originated , but the son is begotten of his father's substance , and the holy ghost eternally proceeds from father and son ; so that here is but one self-originated person , with his eternal son , and eternal spirit . and let this author try to make three gods of three , two of which are not self-originated persons . they might more plausibly dispute against the divinity of the son , and the holy spirit , from this topick , that they are not self-originated persons , than prove them to be a second and third god , by their perfect communication in a self-originated nature , which is the person of the father . for though a perfect communication of the divine nature makes a true divine person , who is true and perfect god , yet no person can be the one god , who is not self-originated ; and a self-originated person , who is a father , cannot be the one god , so as to exclude his son , who is of the same nature and substance with him ; nor the holy spirit , who by an eternal procession from father and son , perfectly communicates in the same eternal nature . 3. three such persons , as in a strict and proper notion are three gods , must be three separate persons , who have not only distinct , but separate natures , and substances , and have no internal union , or communication with each other ; and therefore are in a proper notion three principles , three agents , three wills , three lives , three omnipotents , &c. who always act a-part , and can never concur as one agent , in any one action ; cannot make and govern the same world ; have no relation to each other , no order , no union , as it is impossible three absolute , independent divinities should : but the catholick faith concerning the three divine persons in the trinity , is directly contrary to this , that as father , son , and holy ghost , are but one substance , one divinity ; so they are so perfectly in each other , that they have but one essential will , omnipotence , omniscience , are but one agent , one creatour and governour of the world. let this author , or any other adversaries , talk what they please , of the absurdity , nonsence , contradiction , of all this , which is not our present dispute , i stand to it , that they can never make tritheism of it ; for the three divine persons in the trinity , though each of them be by himself true and perfect god , yet as they are owned by the catholick church , and as we have now explain'd it , are not three such persons , as they themselves must confess , three persons must be , who are three gods. what i have now discoursed will help us to give a plain and short answer to those fallacies , whereby such disinterested persons , as this authour , charge the catholick faith of the trinity with tritheism ; for they manifestly equivocate both in the notion of one god , and of one person . by one god , they understand one who is true and perfect god , and every one , who is true and perfect god , is one , and now instead of all other demonstrations , they only desire you to number the persons of the trinity upon your fingers , and if you can but tell to three , you will infallibly find three gods : the father is true and perfect god ; there , say they , is one god : the son is true and perfect god ; there are two gods ▪ the holy ghost is true and perfect god ; there are three gods : quod erat demonstrandum . but do they think that all the catholick fathers knew not how to find three in the trinity , till they taught them to tell three upon their fingers ? and if they found three , but yet could not find three gods in the trinity , they might in modesty have thought , that something more than arithmetick , or telling their fingers , was necessary to make good this charge , and because they either are , or would seem to be ignorant of this , i will tell them what it is . in that dispute , whether there be only one god , or more gods than one ; by one god , in the first place , all men understand one divinity , one infinite , omnipotent , essence and nature ; for all the arguments relating to the unity of god directly prove no more than the unity of the divine essence : that god is but one person , as well as one divinity , ( as most men did , and as all men might reasonably conclude before the revelation of a trinity of divine persons in the essential unity of the god-head ) is not owing to any direct and positive proof , but to a common presumption : for since we have no example in created nature , of more than one proper person in one individual inseparable nature ; most men hence concluded , naturally enough , that one divinity was but one divine person also . but god , who understands his own nature best , has revealed to us in scripture , that there are three , father , son , and holy ghost , who equally and perfectly communicate in this one infinite and undivided essence , and therefore that there are three divine persons , and one god. and this has occasioned a confusion of terms , on which our socinian adversaries have grounded all their noisie triumphs : for now one god , and one person , signifie very differently in the mystery of the trinity , from what they do in common acceptation , and must of necessity do so . one god , in natural religion , before the revelation of this sacred mystery , signified one divinity , one infinite nature and essence , without any notion of more than one subsistence , and one personality ; and then consequently one person , who is this one god , must signifie one , who has this whole divinity , perfectly in himself , and exclusively to all other persons . but in the christian mystery ; one god , signifies also one perfect undivided divinity , but communicable whole and perfect , and indivisibly to more than one , and actually subsisting in three distinct persons , father , son , and holy ghost ; and therefore consequently , person also in this mystery , signifies one , who has the whole divine nature perfectly in himself , and therefore is true and perfect god , but has not the whole divinity incommunicably in himself , exclusively to all other persons , and therefore is not the one god , in the sense of one perfect incommunicable divinity , peculiar to himself , and communicated to no other person , nor subsisting in any other . and now let any man judge of the mean sophistry of our adversaries , who from their notion of one person and one god , which the catholick church with great reason rejects , charge the catholick faith of a real , subsisting , trinity , with tritheism , for they do not dispute ad idem , but impose upon men with an equivocal use of words . three such divine persons indeed , as they own , that is , each of which has a whole perfect divinity in himself , which no other person communicates , or can communicate in , must be in a proper notion , three gods , or three perfect , self-originated , separate , divinities ; but this does not prove ( and yet in the last result this is all the proof they offer at ) that three persons , who have but one comon divinity , though distinctly and perfectly subsisting in each of them , are therefore three gods ; for neither of these persons is so god , as to exclude the others from the same divinity , and therefore are not three divinities , not three self-originated divine essences , and therefore not three gods , according to the natural notion of tritheism : god , and god , and god , who have the same one divinity subsisting in them all , are not three gods , but one god , because one divinity . here it is they should attack us , and if they have any thing to say to this point , we are ready to join issue with them . fifthly , his last argument , which he places great confidence in , is very easily answered . it is this . that all the reasons used by philosophers , or divines , to prove that there is but one god , do as certainly and as clearly prove , that there can be but one infinite and all-perfect spirit . all this still is nothing but the same equivocation and fallacy , which i have already sufficiently answered : one infinite and all-perfect spirit may either signifie one person , who is infinite mind or spirit in his own person , and here we are ready to joyn issue with him , that all the arguments , which prove , that there is but one god , do not prove that there is but one divine person , but one , who is this one god : or it may signifie one divinity , which is essentially one infinite all-perfect spirit , but personally three ; and in this sense we agree with him ; for we assert one undivided essence essentially one in three , that is , we believe there is but one god , who is one in nature and three in persons . and this seems a pretty surprizing undertaking , to prove that the arguments for one god confute a trinity of real subsisting persons in the unity of the same god-head : it is certain , before he can do this , he must make three gods of these three divine persons ; for if they be but one god , the arguments for the unity of god , can never confute a trinity of persons ; and here i might reasonably leave this argument , till he has answered , what i have already said in this cause . but let us hear his arguments against polytheism , and see how he applies them . first , that created nature has nothing needless or in vain , much less can we suppose , that the uncreated divine nature hath ought , that is , superfluous or redundant — but now , is it not a superfluity , say they , to suppose more gods , when ( because one is sufficient ) more gods are needless , and wholly in vain ? i do not remember , that i have met with this argument in these terms , in any of the antient apologists for christianity : i think , it is a very bad argument against the being of any thing , but much more so , when applied to the divine nature . that nature does nothing in vain , has been allowed for a maxim among all philosophers , who have acknowledged a god , or that all things are made by a wise cause , the necessary consequence of which is , that nothing is made in vain , and this is the only proof , and the only reason of that maxim : but , that created nature has nothing needless , or in vain , is not a self-evident proposition , but must be proved by an induction of particulars , and is very hard to be prov'd in this way , because we understand so little of the designs , and contrivance and wisdom of nature ; that many who begin at this end of the question , reject a wise cause and maker of the world , because they think , they discover many defects , or many superfluities in nature , that is , many things which are needless or in vain : and this looks like an unfortunate beginning thus to mistake his maxim. but to allow him this : what philosopher ever pretended to prove by this argument , that such things either were , or were not , as they apprehended to be either defective , needless , or superfluous ? whether such things are , or are not , is pure matter of fact , and must be proved by such ways , as the nature of the thing admits ; matters of sense by sense , matters of revelation by revelation : and when men know , that such things are , and what they are , then they judge of them , whether they be vain and needless , defective or superfluous , or wisely made , as they begin at the right or wrong end of this question . those who are perswaded , that the world was made by a wise cause , hence conclude , that all things are wisely made , though there are many things which they do not understand the reason and philosophy of : others presuming upon their own skill in nature , pick many quarrels with it , and find few things , which thoroughly please them , and thence conclude that the world was not made by a wise cause , because they do not see the wisdom of it . but whatever truth or force , there be in this argument , it can relate only to created nature , to such things as are made , and are made to serve some particular end ; for then only a thing is vain and needless , when it is made so in whole , or in part , as to serve no wise end : but surely we must not dispute at this rate concerning an eternal , uncreated , self-originated nature , which was not made by any cause , and therefore has no end but it self : and yet this his argument , to prove two or three gods superfluous , needless , in vain , because one god is sufficient : sufficient for what ? why , to make and govern the world ; well! is god then only for the sake of creatures ? can a being , who was never made , who has no cause , no beginning , have any end but it self ? was one god a superfluous , needless being , before he made the world ? or was the world from eternity as well as god ? and does not an athiest , who can make and govern a world without a god , conclude from this very argument , that there is none , because he is a superfluous and needless being ? which shews , what a dangerous argument this is , when proposed in such loose general terms . god is indeed the maker and governour of the world , and we can prove , that the world could not be made and governed but by god , and that one god can make and govern the world , and there needs no more for this purpose , and the unity and harmony of the world , that is made , proves that there is but one maker and governour of it , and therefore but one god : such arguments as these , together with the notion of an absolute perfect being , which can be but one , were urged by the antient apologists , against the pagan politheism ; but to make god a superfluous or needless being , any farther than he has a respect and relation to creatures , which this argument against the plurality of gods supposes , is very irreverent to god , and liable to very ill consequences . it was never used in this sense by any of the antient fathers , and the first time petavius observes it is in abaelardus and edmundus cantuariensis : and that more cautiously expressed , and better qualified . secondly , his second argument is much of the same nature : the multiplicity of beings , of any sort , arises only from the weakness , imperfection , and unsufficiency ( in some regard or other ) of those beings ; which is such a wise reason for the multiplicity of beings , as i never in my life before met with . the reason why any imperfect beings are , is because they are made , for what is imperfect can't be without a cause ; and what ever is made must be imperfect , because it must have a finite and limited nature ; for an infinite nature is self-existent , and can't be made : and what is finite and limited , may be multiplied ; for there is nothing in its nature and idea to hinder it , if it find a maker ; and the wise maker of the world thought fit to make many creatures of the same kind : and now he may bring in his reasons , if he pleases , why god made so many creatures of the same kind , to supply mortality , or for mutual help or comfort , &c. but all these reasons relate only to such beings , as are made , and have a wise cause , and i perfectly agree with him , that god has none of these defects , and therefore none of these reasons can make it necessary that there should be more gods than one ; but then he should have remembred , that god was not made , and therefore not made for any end ; and this would have made him thought twice before he had added . to suppose more gods without assigning a final cause for such a supposition , is to imploy our fancy and invention ( to assign no cause ) not to exercise our reason : 't is to amuse our selves with conceits and chimera's , not to philosophize . you imagine more gods without giving a reason , whether final or declaratory . you ought to know that the proper name for this is whimsie . but i want a name for this argument , only i think it is neither reason nor philosophy , to talk of assigning a final cause , why there is a god , either one or more . a final cause is the reason and end , for which any thing was made ; but that which was not made , could be made for no end , and therefore it is absurd to talk of the final cause of a necessary and eternal being . but though he has managed these two arguments at such a rate , that no man has any reason to reverence him as an infallible dictator , either in philosophy or religion , yet we allow him , what he would have , that two gods are more than we have any need of , and that there is not the same reason for more gods than one , that there is for a number of creatures , of each kind ; and what then ? what then ? sure that is very evident , that there can no more be three all-perfect , all-sufficient spirits , than three gods : right ! not three such all-perfect , all-sufficient spirits , as are three gods ; but what does he think of three , each of which is an all-perfect , and all-sufficient spirit , and all three but one divinity , one god ? but one spirit , who is really all-sufficient and all-perfect , is enough to all purposes and intents whatsoever : i grant , one divinity is so ; but if this one divinity essentially and necessarily subsists in three , in father , son , and holy ghost , each of which is an all-perfect , and all-sufficient spirit , and yet but one whole undivided divinity , one all-perfect , all-sufficient being , these three are not more than enough , not redundant and superfluous in the divinity : and therefore he should have proved , that by the same reason , that three absolute , independent , self-originated divinities are superfluous and needless ; three divine persons , of the same one undivided divinity , are superfluous too . three divinities , three separate self-originated divine essences and natures , are superfluous ; but i hope one divinity , one divine nature and essence is not : and if three divine persons are essential to one undivided and inseparable divinity , i hope they are not superfluous neither : and this is the catholick faith : not three gods , or three divinities , but three persons in one infinite , undivided , nature and essence . three , which never did subsist , never did , never can act a-part , and therefore though three , are but one all-wise omnipotent agent ; and one omnipotent is not more than enough . but , none of these imperfections which are the reasons , why beings of the same kind are multiplied , are found in any one of these all-perfect , all-sufficient spirits . very true , but the same one whole perfect divinity is found in them all , and therefore though they are three , the divinity is not multiplied , but they are one god ; and this is all we are to account for : those who believe but one god , i hope , need not give a reason , whether final or declaratory , why there are more ; but if he expects a reason , why there are three living , subsisting , omniscient , omnipotent , persons in this one undivided god-head , a final reason i can give none , for i have learnt to give no such reasons of a necessary and eternal nature ; a declaratory reason , as he aclls it , i can give , because our saviour has assured us , that so it is , and has given command to his ministers to baptize in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost . thirdly , and this answers his third argument , that the works of creation , though they prove the being of a god , yet give us not the least intimation of more gods than one : we own the argument against a plurality of gods ; but now for the application : he says , this is as direct a proof against our professing more infinite and almighty mighty spirits . of one such mind or spirit , the works of creation are a clear demonstration , but they shew us not the least foot-steps or track of more such spirits and minds . [ or of three such divine almighty person ; ] and i know not how they should , when as the realists themselves profess , these three are but one essential wisdom , power , and goodness , and therefore but one maker and governour of the world. but he thinks , that if there were more than one such mind or spirit , or as we say , infinite person , who is an infinite and all-mighty mind , that also would have been made known to us , either by the works of creation or providence , that are visible to all , because all are concerned to know it . but though there were ( as we profess to believe ) three such divine persons in the unity of the god-head , yet he knows according to our principles , the works of creation could give no such notice of any distinction of persons in the god-head , because the father makes all things by his word and spirit , by an undivided and undistinguished wisdom and power , and when these divine persons have not distinct and separate parts in the creation , it is impossible , that this visible frame of nature should distinguish them ; and therefore this distinction cannot be learnt but by revelation . nor consequently were all men concerned to know this , till god thought fit to reveal it : it was sufficient in a meer state of nature to worship the maker of the world with an undistinguisht devotion : but the redemption of mankind by the incarnation and death of the son of god , and by the sanctification of the spirit , made the revelation of this mystery necessary ; and though the works of creation did not visibly distinguish the divine persons , yet the work of redemption does , father , son , and holy ghost , have their distinct parts and offices in this glorious work , and such as prove each of them to be a distinct person , and each person to be true and perfect god ; but this author will not stand the trial of revelation : for he tells us plainly , that the doctrine of the trinity ( for that is all he means by three minds and spirits ) is a point of so much importance , and so general concernment , that were it true , it must have been found , where all other necessary parts of religion are registered ; in the works of creation , or the methods of providence , or the congenit notions , which are inseparable from our rational natures . here he speakes out , and we thank him for it ; he hath done with all revelation , excepting where there is the least need of it , viz. such matters as may be known without a revelation ; and now he has pulled off his disguise , it is time for all christians to have done with him . he has hitherto concealed himself under the character of a nominalist , and according to his own rule he ought to shew us this nominal trinity registered in the works of creation , or the methods of providence , or those congenite notions , which are inseparable from our rational natures : and when he has done this , we will shew him a trinity of real proper subsisting persons . as for what he adds , that our saviour tells us , god is ( not three spirits ) but a spirit , it is like all the rest : spirit there , as in many other places , signifies the nature , not the person , and therefore these are not contradictory propositions ; god is a spirit , and there are three in the unity of the god-head , each of which is infinite mind and spirit . sect . vi. the defence this author makes for the nominalists , against the objections of the realists . this author having , as he thinks , sufficiently exposed the tritheistick trinity of the realists , proceeds to vindicate the nominalists from those exceptions , which are made against them : i need say little more to this , than to explain that defence he makes for them ; and leave the persons concerned to vindicate themselves from his vindication , which seems to me a very scandalous one . 1. the first objection is , that the explication ( of the nominalists ) is a bare-fac'd yielding the long-controverted question of the trinity , to the sabellians and samosatenians , and consequently to the socinians , who differ in nothing from noetus , sabellius , and paul of samosata ; ( they are near of kin indeed , but there is some difference between them . ) the god of the sabellians and socinians , and the god ( or pretended ) verbal trinity of the nominals , is perfectly the same : the latter have explained away the trinity to the former . the three divine persons of the nominals , do all make but one divine person of the socinians and sabellians . this is certainly true , ( as he explains the doctrine of the nominals , which , i hope , they can give a better account of ) but for fear some men should not believe it , he takes great pains to prove that it is so . now this is a very formidable objection : for if the nominals have revived sabellianism and socinianism , they have been condemned many hundred years since by all those catholick fathers and councils , who condemned noetus , sabellius , photinus , paulus samosatenus , and such like anti-trinitarian hereticks . and this justifies the realists , and undoes all that he has hitherto been doing ; for there is no medium between a real and a nominal trinity , a trinity of three real , living , subsisting , persons , and one living , subsisting person , with a trinity of names , offices , modes , or immanent acts , and therefore as far as the authority of the catholick church reaches , the condemnation of a sabellian and nominal trinity must justifie a trinity of real subsisting persons . and what now does he answer to this ? why he owns it , and says the socinians at length see it , and hope to make their advantage of it : that it is indeed an invidious objection , and that is the whole strength of it : invidious , i confess , it is , because all sincere christians abhor these names , and it would in a great measure put an end to this controversie , were our people satisfied , that a nominal trinitarian , and socinian , perfectly agree in renouncing the true catholick faith of the trinity ; though the nominalist still retains the name of trinity and persons , which the socinians have hitherto rejected , but are now willing to use them for peace sake , since they learn from these men , that they signifie nothing , and that the church never intended to signifie any thing real by them . this is what he tells us with great triumph : our english socinians claim in their writings , that they are the discoverers , that the feud between the church and them was ill-grounded . for that , in very deed , both ( the nominals , whom he calls the church , and the socinians ) say the same thing : as they pretend to this honour , so they are sufficiently paid , in that themselves have the whole benefit of it : they may enjoy thereby that peace and tranquillity , that ease and security from the laws themselves , which they before owed to the indulgence , or connivence of princes and magistrates . this now is very plain dealing , and i hope will be a fair warning to all serious christians , how they suffer themselves to be cheated out of their faith by the loud , groundless out-cries of tritheism , or imposed on by the old catholick names of trinity , and persons , without that catholick sense in which the church always used those words . and i think those persons to whom this author affixes the name of nominals , if they be not sabellians and socinians , ( which god forbid ) ought to vindicate themselves from this heavy imputation , and not only deny the charge , but so explain themselves , as to let us see , wherein their doctrine concerning the trinity , differs from the old condemned heresies of sabellius , photinus , and socinus : and i doubt not but this will produce a much happier agreement , and put an end to this scandalous distinction between real and nominal trinitarians . 2. but our author is much more troubled with the second objection : that the predications , or ( as others speak ) attributions given in holy scripture , and by the catholick church to the divine persons , seem not well to consist , or to be intelligible , on the hypothesis or explication of the nominals . his instance concerns the son or second person in the trinity , who is called god , and we say he was incarnate , and all things were made by him : in some places an omnipresence , in others omnipotence and omniscience are ascribed to him . but how can we ( with any tolerable propriety ) say , that a meer reflex wisdom is god , created all things , was incarnate , is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent ? or how can any of these things be affirmed of , or applied to our saviour , in regard of the incarnate or inhabiting logos , or reflex wisdom ? the which also how it should be incarnate , will be another unaccountable , unintelligible paradox . this is a very notable objection ; he has brought the nominals on , let him see how he can bring them off again . now , in the first place , he is not willing to own , that any such things as these are said of christ , and therefore tells us , we should do well to consider the interpretations of the texts , wherein these things are said , or seem to be said . and here he is at his old trade of admiring his critical interpreters , whom he prefers much before divines ; and of disparaging those copies we have of the scriptures : the mystery of which is , that some criticks give up some texts of scripture , out of wantonness and vanity , which the catholick church always thought good proofs of the divinity and incarnation of our saviour ; and he thinks it a better way to judge of the sense of scripture , by some new critical pointings , or the mistakes of some old copies , which may furnish them with various readings , than by the whole series of the discourse , and the traditional interpretations of the catholick church ; but i shall not dispute this matter now . he is certainly so far in the right , that the safest way of answering all this , is to deny it all ; and this is what he means , when he says , it were easie to make such an application of this reflection , as would ( perhaps ) offend many ; but would ( for all that ) be most true . now i would only ask the nominalists , how they like this way of answering these difficulties , by criticizing away all the proofs of the divinity and incarnation of christ ? this their pretended , but treacherous friend , says is the best and truest way , and he is a man of skill in these matters , and seems to be ashamed of any other answer but this , which will unavoidably entangle him in unaccountable and unintelligible paradoxes . i verily persuade my self , that many of those , whom this author calls nominals , abhor the thoughts of this , and therefore ought freely and openly to declare themselves in this matter , and not to suffer this bantering socinian to impose upon the world in their names . but if this answer don't please , our author has another for them , as good to the full : let us , says he , distinguish the two natures in christ , his divinity and humanity , and rightly understand the doctrine of the incarnation : this looks very promisingly ; for to acknowledge two natures in christ , and rightly to understand the doctrine of the incarnation , will rectifie all other mistakes : let us then hear what he has to say of this . as to the incarnation , every body knows , that the most learned interpreters , do not limit the incarnation to the person of the logos or son : but they say , the whole divinity , or as st. paul speaks , the fulness of the god-head ( was incarnate , or ) dwelt in christ. who these most learned interpreters are , i can't tell , unless he means the patripassion hereticks , for all catholick christians believe only the incarnation of the person of the son , and that neither the father , nor the holy spirit were incarnate in the incarnation of christ. but can we deny , that the whole divinity , the fulness of the god-head was incarnate , or dwelt in christ ? i answer , this is meer fallacy : for the whole divinity may signifie either essentially or personally : the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the one whole divinity is father , son , and holy ghost , the same perfect divinity , subsisting whole and indivisible in each of them , that they are all three but one divinity , or one god ; and thus the whole divinity was not incarnate in christ : but then , as christ in his own person is true and perfect god , so the fulness of the god-head was incarnate in him ; which is all st. paul means . but will this author in good earnest allow , that god was incarnate in christ , and that christ was in one person , both god and man ? hold there a little : they do not mean , he says , that god was so incarnate , or so dwells in the humanity of christ ▪ that he is not also every where else : and whoever said he was ? but is he so incarnate , as to be truly god-man in one person , as the soul and body are one man ? no! no! but only thus , christ is perfect god in respect of god in him ; because , or as god is perfect god in whatsoever place or person he is : god is perfect god in the least point of space , no less than in never so large a portion of extension : and this is all the mystery of the incarnation : and thus god , the fulness of the god-head , is as much incarnate in every man in the world , as he was in christ ; for god is every where , and is perfect god , where-ever he is . thus i have endeavoured to unmask this author , to let the world see , who they are that make their advantage of these disputes : his very expedients for peace shew how unwilling he is to have this controversie silenced , which should teach all the sincere lovers of the catholick faith , who heartily believe in father , son , and holy ghost , three persons and one god , not to lose the faith in a contention about words , nor give a handle to our enemies , to represent our faith as uncertain , various , or heretical , when under different forms of speech , we may , and i hope do mean the very same thing . the learned bishop of worcester , whose discourse in vindication of the trinity i have just now received , has undertaken this charitable work , and i hope his great judgment , learning , and authority , may tend very much , if not to make all men speak and think alike , yet at least to prevent their charging each other with such heresies , as they all abhor , and which their words fairly and candidly expounded , are by no means chargeable with , as that excellent person thinks , neither side is , and i wish with all my heart , he may be in the right : and this would soon qualifie our differences ; for did it once appear , that we all mean the same thing , the dispute about words would die of it self , and our common adversaries could no longer conceal themselves under a disguise , but must take their old name of socinians again . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59822-e1440 denique vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquoties à priscis ecclesiae doctoribus , etiam qui concilium nicaenum antecesserunt , pro subsistentia , vel pro re singulari per se subsistente , quae in rebus intellectu praeditis idem est quod persona , usurpari multis exemplis constat . bull. defens . fid. ni●aen . p. 182. et hoc sensu sine offensione usurpari perseverasset ( ut arbitror ) vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nisi ariani ipsam abusi fuissent ad propagandam haeresin suam , pro natura & substantia in generaliori significatione accipientes , ac docentes patrem & filium duas esse hypostases , hoc est , naturas ac substantias diversas , à se invicem discrepantes . ibid. p. 188. p. 190. page 269. sed haec omnia catholicum sensum facile admittunt , adeoque postulant — ad primum quod attinet , potiori jure pater & filius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a methodi● dicuntur , quàm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ab aliis patribus appellantur , qui pro catholicis tamen & orthodoxis in hoc articulo habiti sunt . scilicet hae voces omnino personaliter , ut dici solet , accipiuntur ut supra ostendimus . bull. defens . p. 274. addo ego , personam hic sine essentia concipi non posse , nisi statueris personam in divinis nihil aliud esse , quàm merum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quod plane sabellianum est , p. 439. the judgment of a disinterested person . p. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ath. decret . syn. nic. p. 267. p. 13. considerations concerning the trinity . page 14. p. 16. socr. h. e. l. 1. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 19. p. 21. labb . concil . tom. 6. p. 760. concil . t. 11. p. 1. p. 143. pet. de trin. l. 6. c. 12. quippe essentia neque sic gignit essentiam , ut ei absolutam existentiam tribuat , neque sic gignitur , ut existat , sed generare , cùm ad essentiam pertinet , est generando communicare , gigni est communicari . filius verè & propriè à patre gignitur ; essentia autem ejus non eodem modo gigni dicitur , sed generatione accipi ; vel gignere est dare substantiam , gigni est datam accipere . p●t . ibid. parcimus hoc loco celebribus in belgio theologis , quorum scripta nuper censuerunt , & reprobarunt dogmata variae synodi faederatae belgicae , sed & academica judicia , etiam publica auctoritate expressa . prior in hoc ordine suit franckeranus theologus , vir acri ingenio , dictione eleganti , cujus scripto non uno , etiam vernaculo hae videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . prima nempè , appellationem filii tributam secundae personae s. trinitatis , ut & generationem ex patre , non intelligendam esse propriè , ut fit ab orthodoxis , de vera aliqua generatione , aeternâ●ll●â quidem & ineffabili , secundum quam pater generans sit verè & propriè pater , & filius genitus sit verè sic propriè filius , modo tamen divinae naturae convenienti . nihil autem istis vocibus , patris & filii , generantis & geniti , innui aliud in scripturâ s. quam ; 1. quod secunda persona haebet eandem cum primâ personâ essentiam & naturam , illique ab aterno coëxtiterit : negato modo illo habendi per ineffabilem generationem , & sublatâ personali illâ subsistentiâ patris generantis & filii geniti hinc verâ relatione qualis perpetuò est , praecipuè in scriptis novi testamenti inter patrem & filium : unde vel sabellianismi , vel tritheismi cujusdam , oriri possit suspicio . nec dubia his minùs , fuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritus sancti quàm est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filii . 2. quod respiciant illa ad oeconomiam testamenti gratiae , ad manifestationem in carne secundae personae , tanquam invisibili dei imagine & ad executionem officii mediatorii ad quod datus est à deo patre : quo sensu generare sit idem quod manifestare . gigni idem quod manifestari , patefieri , eitatis locis , prov. 17. 17. 27. 1. cant. 8. 5 , &c. quae coincidunt ferè cum exceptionibus familiae socini ad verba , hodie genui te , omniumque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse videtur : quod repugnet vera illa & propria generatio filii ineffabilis licet , ideis innatis à deo ipso inditis menti humanae quae sint principium omnis assensus , omnis verae ac certae cognitionis : nec censendum revelasse deum quicquam in verbo suo quod non ab homine ad ideas istas exigi possit & debeat , seu nihil proponere deum in verbo suo credendum assensu certo & fiduciali , quod non clare & distincte ab homine sana ratione uso secundum ideas innatas percipi possit . spanhem . elenchus controversiarum , p. 670. &c. p. 35. p. 38. spiritus sanctus aeternaliter ex patre & filio , non tanquam ex duobus principiis , sed tanquam ex uno principio , non duabus spirationibus , sed unica spiratione procedit . damnamus & reprobamus omnes qui negare praesumpserint . spiritum sanctum aeternaliter ex patre & filio procedere , sive etiam temerario ausu asserere , quòd spiritus sanctus ex patre & filio , tanquam ex duobus principiis , & non tanquam ex uno , procedat . conc. lugdun . page 41. page 42. * veruntamen non est caduca caeterorum , quos nominavimus , patrum adversus arium instantia , si debitam adhibeas distinctionem , qualem insinuat praeclarè s. thomas 1. p. q. 37. art . 2. ut non in formali , sed in causali & illativo , ut ita dicam , sensu sancti patres intelligantur , quamvis enim filius , quâ silius non sit illa sapientia , quâ pater est sapiens , necessario tamen cum illa conjungitur , ab eâque oritur . * sapientia quippe quae in patre est , non est habitus , aut facultas , aut potentia , qualis est in rebus creatis , sed est purus & simplex actus . † porro actus omnis sapiendi , intelligendíque ( verbum ) necessariò complectitur omnis intellectionis terminum inevitabilem , sine quo sapiendi aut intelligendi actus ne quidem animo concipi potest . terminus autem est ipsum verbum graecè denominatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut advertit cyrillus l. 4. in joan. c. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nunquam enim mens erit sine verbo , quod & in l. 5. thesauri uberiùs explicat . et s. thomas , loco paulò antè allegato , res ait communiter denominari non solùm à suis formis , sicut album ab albedine , homo ab humanitate : sed etiam à termino , ut cùm arbor dicitur florida à floribus quos produxit , quamquam non sint arboris forma , sed effectus & terminus , atque ita optimè contra arium , patrem non fuisse actu sapientem , nec esse potuisse sine verbo ac unigenito filio , concludunt sancti patres . page 44. page . 45. page 46. page 49. page 52. page 56. page 57. page 58. page 59. a discourse concerning a judge of controversies in matters of religion being an answer to some papers asserting the necessity of such a judge : with an address to wavering protestants, shewing what little reason they have to think of any change of their religion : written for the private satisfaction of some scrupulous persons, and now published for common use : with a preface concerning the nature of certainty and infallibility. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 212 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 52 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59812 wing s3285 estc r8167 11902925 ocm 11902925 50616 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59812) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 50616) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 512:4) a discourse concerning a judge of controversies in matters of religion being an answer to some papers asserting the necessity of such a judge : with an address to wavering protestants, shewing what little reason they have to think of any change of their religion : written for the private satisfaction of some scrupulous persons, and now published for common use : with a preface concerning the nature of certainty and infallibility. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 82, [2] p. printed for robert clavell ..., london : 1686. attributed to william sherlock. cf. halkett & laing (2nd ed.). running title: concerning a judge of controversies. there were two or more editions of this work printed in the year 1686. wing number has been arbitrarily assigned. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -doctrines. catholic church -controversial literature. catholic church -infallibility. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-01 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-01 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion nov. 15. 1686. imprimatur , jo. battely . a discourse concerning a judge of controversies in matters of religion . being an answer to some papers asserting the necessity of such a judge . with an address to wavering protestants , shewing what little reason they have to think of any change of their religion . written for the private satisfaction of some scrupulous persons . and now published for common use. with a preface concerning the nature of certainty and infallibility . london , printed for robert clavell at the peacock in st. paul's church-yard . 1686. the preface . when i first undertook to answer these papers , i little thought of writing a book ; but when it was writ , i was more easily perswaded to make it publick ; for such kind of objections as these , our people are daily assaulted with , and our ministers daily troubled to answer ; and therefore it will be very serviceable to both to print such a plain discourse as this , which whatever defects it may have , i am pretty confident , does sufficiently expose the weakness and sophistry of such arguments . the truth is , this ought not to be made a dispute , and the fundamental miscarriage is , that our people are not taught , or will not learn , to reject such captious questions as tend only to sceptism , and deserve not to be confuted ; which i think , i may have liberty to say , now i have confuted them ; and to shew the reason i have to say so , shall be the subject of this preface . it is thought ( and certainly it is so ) the most compendious way to reduce protestants to the communion of the church of rome , to perswade them , that they can have no certainty of their religion without an infallible judge , and that there is no infallibility but in the church of rome . now could they prove that the church of rome is infallible , this indeed would be an irresistible reason to return to her communion ; but this they say little of now-a-days , this they would gladly have us take for granted , especially if they can prove that we can have no certainty without an infallible judge , and therefore this they apply themselves to , to run down protestant certainty , and first to make men scepticks in religion , and then to settle them upon infallibility . now the way they take to do this , is not by shewing that the reasons on which protestants build their faith , either of christianity in general , or of those particular doctrines which they profess , are not sufficient to found a rational certainty on ; for this would engage them in particular disputes , which is the thing they as industriously avoid , as if they were afraid of it ; but instead of this , they declaim in general about the nature of certainty ; ask us , how we know that we are certain ; if we rely upon reason , other men do not reason as we do , and yet think their reason as good as ours ; if on scripture , we see how many different and contrary expositions there are of scripture ; and how can we be certain then that we only are in the right , when other men are as confident , and as fully perswaded as we ? now all this is palpable sophistry , and no other direct answer can or ought to be given to it , but to let them know , that after all they can say , we find our selves very certain ; and that their attempt to prove us u certain without confuting the reasons of our certainty , is very fallacious . 1. as for the first , whether i am certain or not , no body can tell but my self , for it is matter of sense , as sight and hearing is ; and they may as well ask me , how i know that i see and hear , as how i know that i am certain ; i feel that i am so , and that is answer enough . 2. and therefore when they ask me , how i know that i am certain ; if this question have any sense in it , it must signifie on what reason i found my certainty ; for nothing can create certainty in the mind , but that reason and evidence which we have of things , as we can see with nothing but light. now if certainty results only from the reason of things , it is ridiculous to expect any other answer to that question , how i am certain , than my giving the reasons of my faith ; for there is no other reason of certainty , than those particular reasons , for which i believe any thing : and this of necessity brings the controversie to particulars . there is no one reason of my certainty ; because the same reason will not serve for all things ; and therefore before i can give them my reason , i must know what they require a reason of , and then i will give it them . and thus we are just where we were ; and if they will prove that we have no certainty , they must confute all the reasons of our faith , and dispute over all the controversies between us ; a task which they are not willing to undertake ; and yet there is no other way to prove the faith of protestants uncertain , but by proving that they have no certain reasons of their faith. yes , you 'l say , it is proof enough , that we cannot be certain , because we every day find so many confident men mistaken , who yet think themselves as certain as we do , and therefore we may be mistaken , notwithstanding all our assurance and confidence that we are not . now this indeed would be an unanswerable argument , did we found our certainty upon the meer strength and confidence of perswasion ; for men may be very confident because they are ignorant ; and we readily grant , that an ignorant . confidence may betray men into the grossest errors ; and therefore though every confident man thinks himself in the right , we never think another man in the right meerly because we see him confident , which is a plain sign that all men distinguish between confidence and certainty . wise men , who would not be mistaken , are very careful that their confidence do not out-run their reason , for reason is the foundation of certainty ; and no man can have greater certainty than he has evidence for what he believes . now since men may be equally confident with or without reason , the only way to try the certainty of their faith , is to examine the reasons whereon it is founded ; if we can confute their reasons , we destroy their certainty ; if we can't , it is ridiculous to charge their faith with uncertainty ; for that is a certain faith which is built upon certain and immoveable reasons ; and if the certainty of reason makes men certain , and some mens faith may be built upon certain reasons , though others are mistaken , then the confident mistakes of some men is no proof , that the faith of all men is uncertain . i am sure all mankind think thus , who think any thing , which is a good sign that it is a very natural thought . no man thinks himself the less certain , because he sees other men differ from him . the foundation of this very argument against protestant certainty owns this . the argument is , that we can never know when we are certain , because of the multitude of differing opinions which are maintained with equal confidence on all sides . now that this is no plain and convincing argument against certainty , is evident from the argument it self , which confesses , that notwithstanding all this diversity of opinions , all men are very confident of their own : which i think proves , that every man believes that he may be certain ; nay does actually think himself certain , though he knows that other men differ from him ; and that i think proves , that they do not believe that no man can be certain , because some men are confident , and yet mistaken . and it is equally strange to me , both that if this be such a convincing argument ( as is pretended ) no man should believe it , and that the advocates of infallibility should think to impose upon the world , with such a palpable piece of sophistry as all men despise . there is no way to prove the faith of protestants to be uncertain , but to prove that the principles whereon we build our faith are uncertain ; for if there be certain means to know the true faith , then though some mistake , others may be in the right ; and those who are in the right , may know they are in the right ; for the mind does as evidently discover clear and bright truth , as the eye does the light. he who feels truth , will know himself certain , and no man can confute him , without confuting the reason of his faith. this shews how absurd it is to ask us , how we know that we are certain , and at the same time to refuse to hear the reasons of our faith ; or to attempt to prove that we are not , and cannot be certain , without confuting the reasons which make us certain . for certainty results from the reasons of our faith , as sight does from light ; and men may as well be certain without reason , as shew how they are certain , without assigning the reasons which make them certain . and therefore the only trial of our certainty is by examining the reasons whereon we build our certainty . and this is a plain direction to our people how to answer this captious and sophistical question . as to shew this very briefly by way of question and answer . quest. how do you know that you are certain , or are not deceived in those things , of which you think your selves most certain ? answ. what do you mean , sir ? how i know that i understand ? or how i know a good reason when i hear it ? truly i know this , only as i know how i see ; god has given me eyes to see with , and a faculty of reason to understand with , and i trust my eyes , and my understanding , and if you can tell me any better way , i shall gladly hear it . quest. but do not all men say as you do , that they trust their own understanding ? and are you not sensible what a fallible thing human understanding is ? do you not daily see how many men are mistaken ? and how then can you be sure that you are not ? answ. yes , i am very sensible that many confident men are mistaken ; but sure this is not the original fault of their understanding , for then all men must be mistaken ; and then we must either be certain without our understanding , which is to know certainly without knowing at all ; for there is no other faculty whereby we can know , but only the understanding ; or else we must be contented to know nothing ; for that knowledge which has nothing of certainty , does not deserve the name of knowledge . quest. but what is this to the purpose , what the cause of such mistakes are ? for let the cause be what it will , if men are still mistaken , how do you know that you are not mistaken too ? answ. yes , this is very much to the purpose ; for if the fault be not in the understanding , if human understandings are capable of knowing truth , then it does not follow , that because some men are mistaken , therefore all are ; nay , it does not follow , that because some men are very confident in their mistakes , therefore no man can be certain that he is not mistaken . for if the understanding is capable of distinguishing between truth and error , as the eye can distinguish its objects , then it can know truth when it sees it ; and this is the foundation of certainty . quest. but does not every man , who is in an error , think that he sees truth ? answ. yes , and so does a man who is in a dream , think that he sees , and talks with his friends ; but a man who is awake knows that he does so ; and though there are a great many dreamers , you can never perswade a man , who is awake , that he is in a dream ; and there is as much difference between the vigor and distinctness of perception in error and truth , as there is between the delusions of a dream , and the quick and strong perceptions of a man awake . and thus a man , who sees truth , does as certainly know that he sees it , as the eye does that it sees light . quest. and do you then resolve all certainty into your own sense and feeling , which is a kind of natural enthusiasm , and in most men nothing else but the strength of fancy and imagination ? answ. no , by no means ! i feel my self certain indeed , but my certainty does not result from bare confidence and assurance that i am in the right , which men may have , who are in the wrong ; but from the clear and irresistible evidence of reason , which pierces the mind , as light does the eye , and captivates the understanding into a full and immoveable assent . i have such reasons for what i believe , as do abundantly satisfie me in the truth and certainty of my faith , and when i feel the evidence and conviction of reason , i feel my self certain . quest. but still the same question returns , how you are certain of your reason ? for all men pretend to some reason or other for what they believe , and think their reason certain , or else they would not believe it . answ. right ! and will think themselves certain still , till you have confuted their reasons , and convinced them , that they are mistaken : for there is no other way of dealing with reasonable . creatures , but to rectifie their mistakes , and by strong and solid reasons to confute the vain and empty appearance of it . and if you can do this , i shall very gladly hear you , and when you please , will give you the particular reasons of my faith. quest. what do you mean ? that i should dispute all the points in controversies between us ? there is a task indeed ! there will be no end of wrangling at this rate ; no , no! since you are not certain , and cannot be certain in your way , i will direct you how you may be certain , without troubling your self with disputes . answ. i beg your pardon , sir , i am very certain ; or however you can never convince me that i am not certain , without hearing what the reasons of my faith are , and proving them to be uncertain ; for my certainty is founded upon reason , and if my reasons be certain , what should make me uncertain ? quest. do you not see , that reason it self is uncertain ? how do men differ in their reasons ? what contrary expositions of scripture do they give ? and what certainty then in this way ? answ. i hope , sir , you will not say , that there is no such thing as true reason , or that true reason is uncertain , or that scripture truly expounded is an uncertain rule : now though other men reason foolishly , and interpret scripture perversly , what is that to me , if i reason right , and expound scripture truly ? as i believe i do and , shall believe so , till you can prove ▪ that i don't . my certainty i told you is founded upon certain evidence , and you can never shake my certainty , till you can shake that . it would be great and contemptible weakness in me , to distrust the most plain and convincing reason , because you tell me , that other men are of another mind ; if you can prove , that their reason is better than mine , i will yield to the best reason ; but i cannot renounce my reason , while i believe it true , nor suspect it , while i believe it certain . quest. when two men differ in their opinions , and oppose reason to reason , must not one of them be mistaken ? answ. yes , it may be both ; but neither of them think themselves mistaken meerly because they differ from each other , for that would end the dispute . if the differences in religion were an argument against the certainty of all religions , there were an end of religion ; for infallibility it self could not escape , which is denied by more christians than believe it ; and therefore those who would be certain , must look well to the reasons of their faith , and those who will prove my faith to be uncertain , must prove that the reasons on which i believe are either false or uncertain ; and those who are not contented with this , quarrel with the state of human nature ; and may help themselves as they can . this , i think , is sufficient for a preface to this discourse . let but protestants maintain their ground , and not be perswaded , that they have no certain foundation for their faith , till papists have confuted the particular reasons of their faith , and i dare undertake , they will never see any reason to question their faith , nor find any want of an infallible judge . but yet since some men so despise that certainty , which results from a clear and distinct knowledge of things , in comparison with infallibility , let us briefly consider what the true notion of infallibility is , and how much it excels a certainty of knowledge . 1. first then i observe , that infallibility belongs to persons , not to things . a proposition cannot be fallible or infallible , but true or false ; for fallible signifies , that which can be deceived , infallible , that which cannot be deceived , and therefore can be applied only to intelligent beings , who are capable of either . so that to say , that any proposition is injallibly true , besides the impropriety of the expression , adds nothing to truth ; for that which is true is true , and can neither be more nor less true . secondly , perfect infallibility is nothing else , but an universal certainty of knowledge : as for instance ; god only is infallible by nature ; but infallibility is a negative , and there are no negatives in the divine nature ; and therefore if we would understand what god's infallibility is , we must reduce it to some positive perfection , and that can be nothing else but infinite knowledge ; for this reason we say , that god is infallible , because he knows all things , and he who knows all things can never mistake . so that it is knowledge which is the perfection , infallibility is only a mode of speech , to signifie the most perfect certainty of knowledge . thirdly , and therefore infallibility is not opposed to certainty of knowledge , with respect to the evidence and certainty of perception ; for infallibility is nothing else but certainty , and such a certainty as results from the most perfect knowledge of the reason and nature of things , as it is in god , which is only true infallibility . there is no difference between certainty and infallibility in god , and the difference between the certainty of creatures and the infallibility of god is this , that the one is a finite and the other an infinite knowledge ; for nothing can be by nature infallible but infinite knowledge , but a finite knowledge , which does not extend to every thing , may in some things be deceived , but as far as it reaches it may be certain , and that is a kind of a finite infallibility . a fallible creature does not signifie a being , which can never be certain , but a being which has not a natural knowledge of all things , and therefore may be deceived in those things which are without the sphere of its knowledge ; and therefore it is as absurd to say , that we cannot be certain of any thing , because we are not infallible , as to say , that we can know nothing , because we do not know all things . fourthly , and therefore fallibility , or infallibility , do not alter the nature of certainty . what is the certainty of god , but those clear and bright idea's of truth in the divine mind ? for he is not certain , because he is infallible , but he is infallible , because he is certain ; and thus in proportion to that distance which is between god and creatures , our certainty is nothing else , but a clear and distinct knowledge and perception of the reason and natures of things ; and whereever this is , how fallible soever the person is in other matters , he is certain so far ; and to demand any farther reason of certainty , than the clear and distinct knowledge of things , is to demand some other reason of certainty than knowledge ; and thus we may doubt of the certainty of god , as well as of men , if we do not allow a clear and distinct knowledge to be certainty , for there is nothing beyond this . fifthly , and hence it follows , that as to things which are knowable by the light of nature , our certainty results from the clear and distinct perceptions of our own minds , and depends on the truth and certainty of our natural faculties . as for instance ; those impressions which our senses make on us , and those perceptions they awaken in our minds , are so strong and forcible , that they create a natural certainty , and we cannot doubt , whether what we see , and feel , and hear , be real or not ; those natural idea's and notions we have in our minds , those first principles of reason and discourse , appear so plain and self-evident to us , that we can no more question them than our own being ▪ and seek for no other proof of them , but their own natural evidence ; as that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true ; that nothing can be and not be , at the same time ; that no power can make that never to have been , which once was ; that nothing that ever was not , can be without a cause . these propositions are so self-evident , that the mind assents to them without demanding any other proof but themselves , which shews , that the very highest certainty of all is nothing else but an intuitive knowledge , or the minds seeing and discerning that natural evidence which is in things ; and those who will not allow a clear and distinct knowledge to be the foundation of certainty , must reject all self-evident principles , which we can have no other proof of but themselves , at least no better , for we cannot reason in infinitum , and therefore must come to some first principles , which are known only by their own light and evidence . next to this , are those notions and idea's , which are so easie and natural to our minds , that most men believe them by a kind of natural sense and instinct , without reasoning about them ; and those who have no mind to believe them , yet cannot rid their minds of them ; such as the being and providence of god , and the essential differences between good and evil. these are the next degree to self-evident principles , for they are natural notions , which indeed may be proved by reason , and must be so , when we meet with men who will deny them ; but yet a well-disposed mind has a natural byass and inclination to believe them , sees them to be true and evident without reasoning about them . this is very plain , the less of reasoning there is required in any case , the more there is of certainty : first and self-evident principles admit of no reasoning , natural notions require none ; and as for all other matters , the nearer they lie to first principles or natural notions , the more certain and evident they are ; nay , we have no other certainty of the deductions and conclusions of reason , but their manifest connexion to some principles and notions , which may be known without reasoning ; which shews , as i said before , that all natural certainty is at last resolved into an intuitive knowledge ; and the certainty of reason is nothing else , but the connecting those things which we do not know by nature , with those which we do . sixthly , where natural knowledge and natural certainty ends , there revelation begins ; but still certainty is not infallibility , but evidence , and natural evidence too : for there can be no communication between god and creatures , as to revealing his will , but by the mediation of our natural faculties ; whether the object be naturally or supernaturally revealed , we have only our natural faculties to know and understand with , and therefore we can have no more than natural evidence of supernatural revelations , though this evidence is owing to supernatural causes . as for instance ; an inspired prophet , though he be infallible as far as he is inspired , yet it is not his infallibility , that makes him certain that he is inspired , but that certain evidence he has that this revelation comes from god ; which must either be by some external and visible signs , or by some such vigorous impression upon the mind , as carries its own evidence with it , which what it is no man can know , but he who has it . as for those who are not inspired themselves , but must learn from inspired men , their faith must depend upon that evidence they have for the revelation ; the natural notion of gods veracity is the reason , why they believe what they know is revealed ; they must use their own faculties to understand what is revealed , and they must judge of the truth and certainty of a revelation from such marks and characters as are evident either to sense or reason . so that infallibility sounds very big , but signifies very little in this dispute ; for all certainty , whether in natural or revealed knowledge , must be resolved into evidence , not into infallibility . though an inspired prophet is an infallible oracle in those things which he speaks by inspiration , yet it is not his infallibility , but that evidence he has that he is divinely inspired , which makes him certain ; much less can any man be infallibly certain , who is not infallible himself , how many infallible teachers soever there are in the world. for we may as well say , that a man may be wise with another mans wisdom , as infallible by another mans infallibility . every man must know and understand for himself , and infallibility is only such a perfect degree of knowledge as is not liable to any mistakes ; and if no man has any knowledge , but what be has in himself , then he has no degree of knowledge , but what he has in himself , and therefore can never have an infallible knowledge , unless he himself be infallible . suppose then we should grant , that the pope , or church of rome were infallible , what advantage has a papist for certainty above a protestant ? does the infallibility of the pope make them all infallible ? and if every papist be not not infallible , then they can have no more certainty than fallible creatures are capable of , and so much i hope may be allowed to fallible protestants . the authority of a revelation in matters divinely revealed , answers to natural evidence in things knowable by the light of nature ; as we cannot doubt of things which are plain and evident to our understandings , so we cannot doubt of what we know is revealed by god ; but then as we must use our reason to judge of the natural evidence of things , so we must use our reason to judge of the truth , and evidence , and sense of a revelation , and it is the same mind and the same understanding which must judge both of natural and revealed knowledge ; and if our understandings be not infallible , i know not how an infallible judge , or an infallible revelation , which are external things , should bestow an internal infallibility on us . and therefore after all their brags of infallibility , papists themselves must be contented if they can be certain ; for if infallibility did signifie somewhat more than certainty , yet certainty is the most that a fallible creature can have ; for it is impossible for any creature to have infallibility , who is not infallible himself . and this i hope will make them a little more favourable hereafter to protestant certainty ; for whatever can be objected against certainty in general , as distinguished from infallibility , will as effectually destroy the popish , as the protestant certainty ; for papists are no more infallible creatures , than protestants are . a discourse concerning a judge of controversies ; being an answer to some papers , &c. the paper . i am not satisfied with the foundation of the protestant religion . for if god has certainly left no visible judge of controversies ( as we assert ) and yet grant that there are things necessary to salvation to be believed , as well as things to be practised ; and that the scriptures are to a demonstration not plain , even in what we dare not disown to be fundamentals , as the trinity , &c. answer . these objections against the protestant resolution of faith , strike not only at the foundations of the protestant religion , but of christianity it self . for if the dispute were about the truth of christian religion , by such arguments as they can prove the christian religion to be true , we will prove the protestant religion , which is nothing else but the christian religion , purged from the corruptions and innovations of popery . now it would be very pleasant to hear a popish priest in a dispute with turks or pagans about christianity , urge the authority of a visible judge of controversies ; and if there be no way to instruct an infidel ( who cannot be presumed to own the authority of any judge ) what christian religion is , and to convince him of the truth of it , but by reason and scripture , either this is a good way or there is no certain foundation for christianity ; and let any man shew me a reason , why christians may not understand their religion the same way , that heathens must be taught it . this was the way which christ and his apostles took with jews and heathens , and they had no other way to take with them . the jews had a written law , which no authority could contradict ; and therefore our saviour did not only work miracles , but appealed to the scriptures both for the authority of his person , his miracles , and his doctrine , and left every man to his own liberty to judge for himself , what he must believe ; which shews , that miracles themselves are no authority against a written law , for then the jews could have had no pretence for their infidelity , and there had been no reason for christ and his apostles to have disputed with them out of the scriptures . the heathens had no standing revelation , and therefore the bare authority of miracles was sufficient to confirm that testimony the apostles gave of the resurrection of christ , and the doctrine which he preached ; and those who would not believe meerly for the miracles sake , were convinced by reason and argument ; for thus st. paul disputed with the philosophers at athens , as well as with the jews ; and thus the primitive doctors dealt with the infidels in their days , as we learn from those many excellent apologies they wrote in defence of christianity . but then those who did believe at first upon the authority of miracles , were particularly instructed in the faith of christ out of the law and the prophets , which though they were originally given to the jews , yet are the venerable records of the christian faith , to which the apostles had recourse in expounding the christian doctrines . thus christianity was taught at first , and if this be not a solid foundation , the christian faith has none ; neither christ nor his apostles ( though they were infallible ) made their own infallibility the only reason of mens faith , but referred them to the law and the prophets , which they expounded to the conviction of all honest and teachable minds ; and if they would not believe upon these terms , they must continue infidels . and that this way of resolving faith into the authority of a visible judge , was not known in the christian church even in the apostles days ( and yet methinks st. peter's authority , if he had any such authority , should have been better known in those days , than at such a distance of time ) is evident from those early heresies , which sprang up in the church . for let any reasonable man tell me , how it is possible there ever should have been any heresie in the church , if all christians had received the authority of an infallible judge together with their christianity , men might have renounced christianity and the visible judge together ; but had they then acknowledged a visible judge , it had been a contradiction to pretend to the name of christians , and to oppose the doctrine of the infallible chair . had there been a visible judge of controversies in the apostles days known to all christians , it had been impossible there should ever have been any heresies in the church , as those men must grant , who think it necessary there should be such a visible judge , to make all men of a mind , and to prevent the rise and growth of heresies ; which must suppose , that the authority of a visible judge would do this , or else this argument cannot prove the necessity of a visible judge : if then the appointment of a visible judge would certainly prevent all heresies , and yet from the beginnings of christianity there have been heresies in the church ; this is a demonstration , there was no visible judge in those days . well , but if there be no visible judge of controversies , how shall we arrive at any certainty in our religion ? for the scriptures are to a demonstration not plain , even in what we dare not disown to be fundamentals , as the doctrine of the trinity . now , 1. suppose there are some difficult passages in scripture , which are not obvious to every common understanding ; can we not therefore understand what is plain , because somethings are difficult ? can any thing be plainer than the first and second commandments , not to give divine worship to any being , but the supreme god , and not to worship god by images and pictures ? can any thing be plainer , than the institution of the lords supper in both kinds ? than st. pauls discourse against prayers in an unknown tongue ? can any thing be plainer , than what is evident to our very senses , that bread and wine is not transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ ? men , who will believe contrary to the plain words of scripture , contrary to the evidence of sense and reason , which certainly ought to be consulted in expounding scripture , who would prove that to be in scripture which is not in it , or that not to be in scripture which is there , have some reason to complain of the obscurity of scripture , for the scriptures were never written to prove what they would have proved ; but yet they may be very plain to men , who only enquire what the scripture teaches , without forcing such senses upon it as it does not teach : those , who will prove that from scripture which is not in it , to be sure must prove it very obscurely , and then to excuse the obscurity of their expositions , charge the scriptures with obscurity . though all things are not equally plain in scripture , yet all men may understand what is plain ; and it is a strange perversness to say nothing is plain in scripture , because some things are not plain ; or that we cannot be certain of the sense of plain texts , because there are some obscure texts . secondly , i do affirm , that every thing that is necessary to be believed is plain in scripture ; for else how should we know that we must believe it , or that it is necessary to salvation ? but then by plain , i do not mean , that it is plain to every man , and at the first sight ; but it is plain to men who apply themselves to the study of the scripture , and have skill and ability to do it ; and may be made plain to every man , who has the common understanding of a man , without any biass and interest , who will attend to the instructions of the learned . and this is reason enough to call it plain , if learned men by study and industry can understand it , and if the unlearned may be taught to understand it . thus mathematical demonstrations are certainly plain , for if a demonstration be not plain , nothing is ; but yet it is not every man can understand them without a teacher ; but since those who do study mathematicks can understand them , and any man of ordinary capacity , who will attend to the instructions of a skilful master may understand them , we may call them plain , though they are not obvious at the first sight . for this purpose christ appointed an order of men in his church , whose business it should be , to study the scriptures themselves , and to teach others , not to impose on their faith by their meer authority , which our saviour has expresly warned us against , to call no man master upon earth , and which st. paul expresly disclaims being lords of their faith ; but to open their understandings , and by easie steps to lead them into the true sense of scriptures . thus he taught his disciples himself , as appears from all his sermons ; thus the apostles taught the christians of their days ; and this is the only teaching i know of ; for to teach men to believe without understanding , is to teach them to believe they know not what nor why . but the doctrine of the trinity is not plain in scripture . an assertion which strikes at the very fundamentals of religion , and justifies all the ancient heresies , which can never be confuted but out of the scriptures . for , is the doctrine of the trinity in the scriptures , or not ? if it be not there , how comes it to be an article of our faith ? and if it be not plain in the scriptures , how can any man tell it is there , when it is not plain that it is there ? the primitive fathers , who opposed those ancient hereticks , wrote great volumes to prove the doctrine of the trinity from the scriptures , and therefore i presume did think it might be proved from scripture . this being a doctrine , which can be known only by revelation ; if it is not plain in scripture , it is plain no where , and so not the object of our faith ; unless they can shew us another revelation besides and above the scriptures : the only argument the paper urges to prove the doctrine of the trinity not to be plain in scripture , is , that some denied the divinity of the son , some believed the holy ghost not to be a separate person , but only an attribute of god. that is , whatever some men deny , is not plain ; and therefore christianity it self is not plain , because jews and turks , and heathens deny it . is the form of baptism plainly contained in scripture , to baptize in the name of the father , of the son , and of the holy ghost ? and yet many of the ancient hereticks , who corrupted the doctrine of the trinity ; would not use this form , which is as good an argument , that this form is not plain , as that the doctrine of the trinity is not : and indeed , if one be plain , the other must be , unless we will say , that we are baptized in the name , that is , into the faith and worship of creatures . the paper . and i think the assembling those councils we receive as general , shews that their opposers were considerable . answer . how considerable ? for numbers , or interest , or zeal , or authority ? they were inferior upon all these accounts to the general enemies of the christian faith , and why should not the number of infidels be as good an argument against christianity , as the number of hereticks against any one article of the christian faith ? but this is a fatal instance to the popish , as well as the protestant resolution of faith , and somewhat worse ; for the scriptures never complied with hereticks , but the pretended visible judge did , when the pope of rome subscribed the arian confession . but what course did these nicene fathers take to confute the heresie of arius ; did they not alledge the authority of the scriptures for it ? consult their writings , and see what their reasons are ; and when such a venerable council thought the scriptures clear and plain in this point , is the dissent of hereticks a greater argument , that they are not plain , than the determination of such a council , that they are ? that this was the constant doctrine of the catholick church from the time of the apostles , was a good confirmation that they expounded scripture right ; but had it been possible that there should have been a traditional article of faith , which the scripture said nothing of , meer unscriptural tradition could be no sufficient foundation of faith , and that for this reason , because we could not be sure what the original of such a tradition was for the writings of the evangelists and apostles give us the most certain account what their faith was , and how ancient soever any other doctrine may be , we have no reason to think it came from the apostles , if there be nothing of it in the scriptures . the paper . and that those good fathers did not think , after their witnessing out of scripture and tradition the belief handed down to them from father to son , that the christians had so much as a liberty of examining after them : since they positively anathematized all those that did not receive their decrees , for which if they had no authority , the primitive fathers were the greatest tyrants in the world to refuse the blessed means of salvation to those , that for ought appeared were as sincere as themselves , and the generality of dissenters made scripture their rule , as well as we do . this i do not alledge , that i know of any truly general council we reject , but this appears to me , that in the best of times there was thought a power left in the church without appeal to every mans reason ; and the guides of the church did not think a man safe , though he to the best of his understanding did expound scripture , if he did not follow the sense of the church . answer . this paragraph is designed to prove , that there is a power in general councils to determine controversies of faith without appeal to every mans reason ; and that the fathers assembled in those first councils did believe they had such a power , that when once they had determined what the true faith was , no man might examin after them . now whatever the fathers of the council believed of themselves , it is plain other men did not believe it . the hereticks whom they condemned , did not acquiesce in the authority of the council ; which yet they would certainly have done , had it been the general belief of christians in that age , that the decrees of general councils were final and conclusive , to be believed by all men , and to be examined by none : for the most obstinate hereticks could never have out-faced such a prejudice as this . after the council of nice , the fathers did appeal to mens private reason , if writing books in justification of the doctrine of the trinity be such an appeal , as is evident from the writings of athanasius , hilary , s. augustine , and others . nay , it is strange there should be so many other councils convened about the arian controversie after the decision of the nicene fathers , if that had put an end to all farther disputes and appeals ; which is a good argument that the christians did not then think that the authority of a council was so sacred , that no man must question it , when succeeding councils examined , and many times reversed the decrees of former councils ; nay , that councils , which were not general , should make bold with the decrees of general councils , which is but a degree removed from every man's private reason . but the council anathematized all those that did not receive their decrees ; and does this prove that they denied all christians a liberty of examining after them ? might they not declare such doctrines to be damnable heresies , and reject such men out of their communion , without believing their decrees to be so infallible and sacred , that no man must examin them ? do not the protestant churches do this without pretending to such an absolute authority over mens faith ? a fallible man , who is certainly assured that any doctrine is a damnable heresie , may declare it to be so ; and if he have any such authority in the church , he may cast such men out of communion ; and this is all that an anathema signifies , and all this may be done , and yet men dispute on , and judge for themselves ; and therefore to denounce an anathema , does not prove that he that does it , has such an infallible and uncontroulable authority , as must silence all disputes , and captivate mens reasons and understandings to his dictates . as for that passage , that the guides of the church did not then think a man safe , though he to the best of his understanding did expound scripture , if he did not follow the sense of the church , it has something of truth , but a great deal of sophistry in it . it is so far true , that a man , who embraces damnable errors is not safe , how firmly soever he be perswaded of the truth of them , and that it is very hazardous to contradict the sense , not of any council , which may be a pack't conventicle of hereticks , nor of any particular age of the church , which may be very ignorant , or very corrupt , but of the universal church in all places and ages ; but in this sense it is nothing to the present purpose : and if the meaning be , as it seems to be , that it is dangerous for a man to use his own reason and judgment in opposition to the decrees of councils , it may sometimes be so , and sometimes not , as the council is ; and whatever the event be , every man must judge of that ; it may prove dangerous to a man to use his reason , if he do not use it right ; but yet there is no help for it , but every man must use his reason , or act like a fool. but possibly it will be asked , what authority then do we allow to councils ? and i shall very freely speak my mind of it . 1. in cases that are doubtful , the judgment of so many wise and learned and pious men from all parts of the christian church , is a very probable argument of the truth of their decrees ; and no modest man will openly oppose what they determine ; unless it appears that there was something of faction and interest at the bottom , or that the reasons whereby they were over-ruled , were so weak or ludicrous , as to render their judgments contemptible : for if the opinion of one learned man be so considerable , much more is the deliberate judgment of so many great and good men . secondly , the authority of ancient councils is very considerable , as they were credible witnesses of the apostles doctrine and practice , and the constant faith of the church in the preceding ages ; which is a mighty satisfaction to find by these venerable records , that what we now believe , was the faith of the church in the best and purest ages ; before it was divided by schisms and factions , or corrupted with ease or liberty , or wanton disputes . thirdly , general or national councils have authority to determine what doctrines shall be publickly professed and taught in their churches , and be made the articles of church communion , as it must necessarily be , if there be any authority in the church . for it is fit that the faith of the church should be one , and those who have the government of the church , must have the care of the faith. but then this authority does not oblige any man to believe as the church believes , and to receive all such decrees without examination ; but only if we will live in communion with such a church , we must own the faith of that church , for she will allow none to communicate with her , who do not . now if the faith and worship of such a church be pure and orthodox , the church is in the right in requiring obedience and conformity to her decrees and constitutions , and those who refuse it , must answer it both to god and men ; if her faith be corrupt , she abuses her power in imposing it on christians , and no man is bound to believe what is false , because the church defines it to be true . if you ask whose judgment ought to take place , the judgment of the church , or of every private christian ? i answer , the judgment of the church of necessity must take place as to external government , to determine what shall be professed and practised in her communion ; and no private christian has any thing to do in these matters ; but when the question is , what is right or wrong , true or false , in what we may obey , and in what not ? here every private christian , who will not believe without understanding , nor follow his guides blindfold , must judge for himself , and it is as much as his soul is worth to judge right : for if he reject the faith and the communion of the church without a just and necessary cause , he is a heretick and a schismatick , liable to the censures of the church in this world , and to the vengeance of god in the next . if he reject an erroneous and corrupt communion , he incurs the censures of the church , which in most christian kingdoms are attended with some temporal inconveniences ; and if he imbrace it , he is in danger of a future judgment : for if the blind lead the blind , they shall both fall into the dith . these are the proper limits of all human authority , both in church and state ; below this there is no authority , and above it , it is not human authority ; for a blind obedience can be due to none but god , and he himself seldom exacts it . if we will grant governours and subjects to be men , who have the use of their own reason and judgment , it is impossible to state the case of authority and subjection otherwise than thus ; that the faith and judgment of governours , influences and directs their government , and gives laws of faith and manners to subjects ; and the private judgments of subjects direct them how far they are to believe and obey their governors , and god himself judges between them , and by his providence prevents or over-rules all those disorders which may happen either in church or state in this world , and rewards or punishes both governours and subjects according to their deserts in the next . and this supresedes all farther disputes about some hard cases , or the sincerity or insincerity of governours or subjects ; for every man must of necessity judge for himself , and god will govern and judge us all ; which there could be no pretence for , if we had not the free exercise of our reason in the government of our selves . the paper . but i know'tis urged , the church of england is guided by antiquity for the interpretation of scripture ; but every one knows that there is great difficulty in that too even for scholars , at least i am told so ; for no church admits of all that is ancient , for several heresies are so ; and since we say , number makes nothing for truth , and that all men may err , and that there is no certain mark by visible succession to find out which are true believers , in this confusion the church of england must be very fortunate , not to retain too much , as the arians and macedonians , &c. say we do , or too little , as the romanists say . answer . the church of england indeed has regard to the doctrine of the primitive church in expounding scripture ; not that she fetches all her expositions from ancient writers , but that she takes care not to expound scripture in contradiction to the ancient faith of the church contained in the ancient creeds ; and it requires no great skill in antiquity to know what this faith is which we repeat every day in the apostles creed ; and this is a good argument that we expound scripture right , when the sense we give of it , is what the words and reason of the text import , and agrees with the faith of the first and purest ages of the church . had we no ancient records , we could find out the true sense of scripture in all necessary points of faith ; but the traditionary doctrine of the church , where the tradition is plain and clear , and therefore easie to be known , is a great confirmation of those interpretations we give of scripture in conformity to the ancient belief , and confutes all the evasions and criticisms of hereticks . for when the words of scripture may with some art be expounded to different senses , either to justifie some new or ancient heresies , or the catholick faith , we need not doubt but that is the true sense , which agrees with the uniform belief of the primitive church , who were the best judges what the faith of the apostles was , by whom the scriptures were written ; and though there were indeed very ancient heresies , yet nothing is plainer in ecclesiastical history than the distinction between those ancient heresies and the catholick faith , and therefore scholars cannot easily mistake them ; and as for those who are unlearned , that short and ancient summary of the catholick faith , contained in the apostles creed , and expounded by the nicene fathers in their creed , which is in every bodies hands , and part of our daily or weekly service , is security enough against all fundamental mistakes . the christians of the church of england have a very plain and easie resolution of their faith. as for the positive articles of faith , we have the ancient creeds , which have been received in all ages of the christian church from the times of the apostles ; and which the most perverse hereticks cannot deny to have been the catholick faith ; and yet we do not believe these meerly upon the authority of tradition , but because we find all these doctrines plainly taught in scripture ; and for this the meanest christian need not depend wholly upon the authority of his guides , but has liberty to examine their expositions , and the reasons of them , which are so plain and convincing in the great and fundamental articles of our faith , that an honest man , who meets with a skilful guide , may satisfie himself about it , and see with his own eyes . now what greater assurance can we have in this case , than the harmony and consent of scripture and tradition , which confirm and justifie each other ? the apostles no doubt preached and writ the same things , and it is a good argument , that is an uncorrupt tradition , which agrees with the doctrine of the scripture , and that that is a true exposition of scripture , which agrees with the ancient formularies of faith , delivered down to us by an unquestionable tradition from the first ages of the church , as for negative articles , about which is our only controversie with the church of rome , since nothing can be an article of faith , but what christ or his apostles have taught , we think it sufficient to reject all such doctrines , as are not plainly and expresly taught in scripture , and this the meanest christian with the help of a guide may understand . for [ as in reason it must be , when men will prove that to be in the scripture which is not ] the scripture proofs which are urged by the most learned doctors of the roman communion , for their peculiar doctrines , which we reject , are so apparently unconcluding , that it requires very little skill to confute them . and though this were reason enough of it self to reject any doctrine which arrogates the authority and necessity of an article of faith , that the scripture does not teach it , yet in most cases we can shew , and that to the conviction of the meanest understanding , which is honest and unprejudiced , that such doctrines are either in express words , or by plain and necessary consequence , rejected and condemned in scripture , which is somewhat more than not to be taught there ; because it is certain no church can have authority to teach what the scripture condemns . and then as for authority , we appeal to the best authority of the christian church , the three first ages after the apostles , who are the most credible witnesses ( which is all the authority they can have ) of the apostolick doctrine and practice , and can plainly prove from those venerable records , that the doctrines and practices in dispute between us and the church of rome , were either never taught , or actually condemned by those primitive fathers . and though in other cases it is a hard thing to prove a negative , it is not so here , because the proof lies all on the positive side . for those , who will teach such doctrines and practices ought to prove them , for without such a proof they are to be rejected on course ; and therefore if we can confute their proofs , we need do no more ; and this is a very easie task , especially with reference to the first three centuries ; for since they themselves are now ashamed of the counterfeit dionysius , their decretal epistles , and such like spurious writings , the wisest of them pretend to very few testimonies from the first writers , and those which they do alledge are such lame ones , as need very little confutation . these are the protestant grounds of faith , as it is professed in the church of england , and there is but one material objection against the certainty of this way . that our dissenters pretend to scripture as well as we , and so most hereticks have always done ; and as for antiquity , the church of rome makes a greater noise with it than we do , and how then can a plain and unlearned man chuse safely in such variety of judgments and opinions ? now the force of this argument consists in this , that because some men mistake , no man can be in the right ; or because some men may confidently believe they are in the right , when they are in the wrong , therefore no man can be sure that he is in the right ; which pretence would be laughed at in all other cases , excepting religion , and here i am sure it deserves to be so . there is a vast difference between confidence of perswasion , and certainty of knowledge ; the prejudices of education , the authority of guides , the byass of interest , and such like fallacious principles may make men very confident , when they know little or nothing about the matter , or men may reason falsly , and think themselves very confident , as a man in a dream does ; but can no man be certain he is awake , because some men very confidently think themselves awake , when they are in a dream ? the greatest part of the world pronounce a hasty judgment , before they are well awake , before they have considered the matter throughly , and weighed every circumstance of it ; and a man who has but half considered a thing , may with very good reason think himself certain so far , and yet may be grosly mistaken , because there is another half which he has not considered . every man is sensible of this when he corrects a mistake , for he discovers something which he had not thought on before , which makes him alter his judgment about it ; and therefore though some men are confident and yet mistaken , it does not hence follow , that no man can be certain when he reasons right ; for truth lies so easie in a mans mind , who has throughly considered things , and has such a native brightness and lustre in it , that he can no more doubt of it , than whether the sun be up when he sees its light . but let us consider this objection particularly , with reference both to scripture and antiquity . 1. it is objected , that hereticks pretended the authority of scripture , as well as the orthodox , and our dissenters as well as the church of england . but what then ? is the scripture of no use , because some men use it ill ? is it not possible to find out the true sense of scripture , because some men put a false sense on it ? can these hereticks be confuted out of the scripture , or not ? if not , why do we charge them with heresie ? if they may , how are such heresies , being fathered on the scriptures , an argument against studying the scriptures , and relying on their authority ? for we cannot confute heresies by the scripture , unless we can understand the scriptures ; and if we may find out the true sense of scripture , notwithstanding that hereticks put a wrong sense on it , then we may be as certain , that we understand the scriptures aright , as we are , that others do misunderstand them . but besides this : though hereticks pretend to expound scripture , yet they contradict the faith of the primitive church , and therefore their case differs vastly from the case of the church of england , whose faith is founded both on scripture and apostolick tradition , as i observed before . and as for our dissenters , our dispute with them is not about articles of faith , but the external modes and circumstances of worship , or the government and discipline of the church ; and the question between us is , whether we must use no external circumstances of worship , but what are prescribed in scripture ; or , whether the constant practice of the church from the days of the apostles be not the best comment on scripture as to the external government of it ? and this , i think , is so baffled a cause , that the romanists are hard put to it when they use that argument . secondly , as for antiquity , the church of rome makes great boasts of it , but they are very vain ones ; and who can help mens pretending to antiquity , when it is apparently against them ? no man indeed can be a competent judge of this , but those who are skilled in antiquity , and have examined their pretences ; but there are some considerations which lye obvious to every man , and may serve to direct the unlearned what judgment to make in this matter . 1. for had true antiquity been on their side , what need had they of spurious and counterfeit authors to make some appearance of antiquity with ? this has been the great artifice of the church of rome , though they begin now to be ashamed of it , since the learned reformers have discovered the cheat. who pleases may see some account of this in an english book , entituled roman forgeries ; and this is reason enough to suspect their pretences to antiquity ; for no man takes sanctuary in falshood , who has truth on his side . 2. another evidence of this is their corrupting ancient authors , and because they can find nothing in them to their purpose , to insert something which is ; but the plainest and honestest confession of this matter is their index expurgatorius , which corrects the fathers , and orders the leaving out of such passages as make against them ; now when they are forced to leave out and put into the fathers , it is very suspicious that they are convinced , the fathers are not on their side . 3. where they make the loudest cry of antiquity , the scripture is either against them , or says nothing for them ; and though we allow the ancient practice of the church in matters of discipline and government , to be a good pattern for us to follow in such particulars as are not expressed in scripture , if they comply with the general rules and directions of scripture ; yet we do not think antiquity it self to be a sufficient justification of any doctrines of faith , or new acts of worship , which either the scripture condemns , or does not teach ; and this is a manifest difference between the pretences of the church of england , and the church of rome , to antiquity . the church of england justifies her doctrines and practices , both from scripture and antiquity , which is as sure a foundation as we can possibly have ; the church of rome alledges antiquity ( such as it is ) to prove such doctrines and practices , as the scripture either condemns , or knows nothing of . now we think the scriptures have the greatest antiquity , and are a perfect rule of faith and manners and that no other antiquity can controul the authority of the scriptures . as for instance : suppose the church of rome could prove the worship of images , praying to saints and angels , prayers in an unknown tongue , and cummunion in one kind , &c. to have been anciently practised in the church ( though this they are never able to prove ) yet what is this to the purpose , when the scripture expresly condemns the vvorship of images , and giving religious vvorship to any other being , but to god only , and by their own confession says nothing of the vvorship of saints ; and that st. paul disputes designedly against prayers in an unknown tongue ; and that our saviour instituted his supper in both kinds , and commanded them to drink of the consecrated cup , as well as to eat the bread. though i have a great reverence for antiquity , yet if st. paul in his days pronounced an anathema against angels themselves , who should preach any other gospel , we may safely renounce the authority of any church , that shall contradict the express commands and institutions of christ. to conclude this argument : were antiquity our only guide and rule in matters of faith and worship , i readily grant it would be a very uncertain rule ▪ and such as neither the learned , nor the unlearned , could build their faith on ; for there have been great variety of opinions and practices in other ages of the church , especially since the fourth century ( from which the church of rome principally date their antiquity ) as well as in our own ; which shews , what an uncertain foundation the church of rome has for her faith , as for all those doctrines and practices wherein she differs from us , which have no foundation in scripture , and at best a very uncertain one in very late antiquity : but this does not concern us , who prefer scripture antiquity before all other , and own no antiquity in contradiction to the scripture , which is the rule and foundation of our faith ; and by this we know , that we neither retain too much nor too little , because we teach neither more nor less than what the scripture teaches . the paper . but 't is replied , the church of england gives leave even to women to examine the truth of what they teach ; but certainly this is a complement , they being incapable of examination , neither indeed are statesmen , lawyers , the busie , nor the stupidly ignorant . for if we will be judges our selves of these matters , what life or capacity is sufficient ? for in justice if i examine , i ought to hear all the several pretenders to the interpretation of scripture , who make it their rule of faith , so to examine those texts that make against us , as well as those for us , and the several expositors . for in affairs of much less importance people are thought foolish and partial , let one party tell his story to a seeming demonstration , not to preserve another ear for the other side , before he determines , if he must judge at all . answer . the lightness of this expression of complementing , does not savour of a serious mind in matters of such vast importance . did our saviour then complement his hearers , when he commanded them to search the scriptures ; for he had women , and very busie people who heard his sermons ? the poor and the ignorant , and the despised people , publicans and sinners received the gospel , which does not so much require great leisure and capacity for study , as an honest teachable mind ; and i confess , i think it a great reproach to the gospel of our saviour to make it so much an art and a mystery , that none but great scholars can understand it . scholars indeed have made an art , and a meer disputing art of it ; and hereticks , who have corrupted the gospel , have endeavoured by perverse comments to make plain places obscure ; and the church of rome has more countenanced this pretence than any other church in the world , to frighten people from reading that book , which is the most dangerous book that ever was written against popery . and after all their talk of the obscurity of scripture , their denying the people the free use of it , is a plain confession , that they think it too plain against themselves , so plain that every ordinary christian would be able to see it . but if so very few people are able to judge of the disputes in religion , what course shall women and other persons , whom the paper makes such incompetent judges , take ? suppose they have been educated in the communion of the church of england , and are now assaulted by popish priests to go over to the church of rome , must they make this change with reason , or without it ? must they judge for themselves , or forsake one church and chuse another without judgment ? or can women , or busie , or ignorant people more easily find out the true church and the infallible judge , than they can read in scripture , that they must worship none but god ; that they must not worship images and pictures ; that they must pray to god in a known tongue , and celebrate the supper of our lord by drinking of the cup , as well as by eating the bread ? whoever ventures to forsake the communion of a church , wherein he was baptized and educated , i am sure ought to be able to judge , whether he be or no ; and those who confess they are not able to judge , ought to be kept where they are ; for it is safer to continue in a church without judgment , than to forsake it without reason and judgment . in the first case , the providence of god in our birth and education will make some apology for our involuntary mistakes ; but if we wantonly leave one church and go to another , without being able to judge of either , the act is wholly our own choice , and if we leave a better for a worse , we must take what follows ; and therefore this is the most improper argument in the world to be used by one , who is wavering between two churches ; for if he must not use his own private judgment , i cannot guess how he should either chuse or refuse . those who challenge a liberty of judging for themselves , which is the undoubted right of all reasonable creatures , may change as they see reason , and at their own peril if they chuse wrong ; but those who disclaim all right and capacity of judging , must continue as they are , and take their chance , for they may as well chuse their faith as their guide , whom they will in all things believe . but still the force of the objection is not answered , that he who will judge , must judge upon the whole matter , and therefore must be able to know and answer whatever is said to the contrary ; which the greatest number of men , as well as women , are not able to do ; but if this be true , the greatest numbers of men as well as women must never believe there is a god , or that christ came from god to declare his will to the world ; for there are very few of them that ever heard , or are able to answer the tenth part of the arguments of atheists and infidels against the being of a god , and the christian religion ; and yet it is ridiculous to talk of authority , or a judge of controversies in these matters ; for we must first believe there is a god , and that christ came from god , before we can believe that they have appointed a judge of controversies . so that we must either say , that common people , who have not time nor abilities to understand and answer all the objections which are made against the existence of a god , can have no good reason to believe there is a god ; or we must grant , that men may have sufficient reason to believe some things , without being able to answer all possible objections which are made against them . the plain account of this matter is this : that there is such a degree of evidence , arguments so plain and clear and convincing , that the mind may safely acquiesce in them , without examining or answering all possible objections which may be started . every man finds this in himself , there are many things which he can never be made to doubt of , though it may be he has but one plain argument to prove them : though the philosopher disputed very subtilly against the possibility of motion , he could perswade none of his scholars that motion was impossible , because they saw themselves and every thing else move every day ; which was a sufficient confutation of all the arguments that can be brought against motion . if i have any one unanswerable argument to prove that a thing is , or that it is not , this is a sufficient foundation for my faith , though i cannot answer all objections against it : for there are no objections of any force against a plain and positive proof , but such as weaken the proof it self , and they indeed must be considered , but all other collateral difficulties may be rejected ; for if i can prove that a thing is , no other difficulties about the nature , notion , or operations of such a being can prove that it is not . as for instance : we have a great many positive proofs that there is a god , especially from the visible effects of his power and wisdom in making the world ; now if this be a good argument , and nothing can be said against it , which can move a considering man , then we may firmly believe there is a god , though there may be a great many difficulties objected against the notion of a god , what he is , and how he made the world , &c. which do not prove that there is no god , but that we do not perfectly comprehend him . and yet this is generally the case , that where there is one plain and evident proof for or against any thing , there is no plain and evident proof on the other side ; for then indeed we should be in a hard case , could there be plain positive proofs for both sides of the question ▪ it will be of use to shew this more particularly , how men of very ordinary abilities may arrive to a very great certainty in religion , without being able to dispute the point , or to answer all possible objections ; and the best way to explain this to the meanest understanding , is to give some particular instances of it . it is a great dispute between us and the church of rome ▪ whether the sacramental bread and wine be transubstantiated into the natural flesh and blood of christ , which i think a plain man , who will believe his senses , may determine without disputing ; for he has the best evidence that he possibly can have for any thing , that the consecrated bread and wine is still bread and wine , not flesh and blood ; for all his senses tell him so ; and he who will suffer himself to be reasoned out of his senses , deserves to be deceived ; and very absurdly complains of want of evidence and certainty , when he rejects the most certain evidence that god can give him . in matters of sense the restimony of our senses is certainly the best evidence , and every man who has his eyes in his head , can see whether it be bread and wine or not ; and therefore this alone is sufficient to create . certainty in defiance of all objections to the contrary . thus the second commandment , which forbids the worship of all images without any restriction or qualification , is a plain and express proof against image-worship ; for whatever apologies may be made for the worship of images , here is an express law against it , in such plain terms , as require great art and sophistry to evade them , but no art to understand them ; now there being a positive law against the worship of images , and no law either in the old or new testament to give the least allowance to any kind of image-worship , any man , who will believe according to evidence must condemn image-worship , whatever other unscriptural arguments or authorities may be alledged for it : and i know no need there is of any dispute in the case , if men will be determined by a divine law. thus if there be a supream infallible head of the church , he must be appointed by christ , and that in such plain words , that every body may know who he is , and what his authority is ; but christ has done no such thing , and therefore there is none ; and this alone is evidence enough to satisfie the meanest man in this matter without disputing . for if christ hath appointed no supream infallible judge , i am sure all the arguments in the world cannot make one : this is so plain and evident , that a man , who will be convinc'd by reason , cannot resist it ; for though no pretence of usefulness or necessity can prove that there is such a judge , yet that christ has appointed no such judge , evidently proves that there is none ; for he cannot be unless he is evidently appointed by christ ; and yet he is not evidently appointed , unless it be in such plain words , as admit of no reasonable dispute . so that this whole controversie about the supream head of the church , and an infallible judge , issues in this one point , whether christ hath appointed such a head and judge ? and there is but one way to prove it , viz. by shewing where and when christ has done this ; and this the meanest man without disputing may judge of ; for if no such thing plainly appear , the want of evidence for it is all the evidence we need to have against it . and thus it is in most of the disputes between us and the church of rome , especially where the people are most concerned , they are reduced to this one plain question , whether any such thing was instituted by christ ? because without such an institution they can have no vertue in them ; and whether they be instituted or not , the most unlearned man , who can read the bible , at least with the help of a guide , may satisfie himself . as for instance , whether the sacrament of the lord's supper be a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead ? whether the laity are not as much bound to drink of the sacramental cup as to eat of the bread ? whether it be lawful to pray to saints departed , and to make them our advocates and intercessors with god ? whether we must pray to god in a language which we do , or do not understand , &c. i say nothing can justifie these things , but an institution ; and when no such institution appears , it is a vain thing to attempt any other way to prove the lawfulness or usefulness of them ; especially , if besides the want of such a positive institution , we have plain evidence against them , and such as every man may understand . when the scripture tells us , that christ has by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified , hebr. 9. 25 , 26. & 10. 14 ▪ this is a direct proof against the sacrifice of the mass , wherein he is offered ten thousand times every day . when christ is the priest as well as the sacrifice , and can be offered by none but himself , how comes he to be offered by a mass priest , unless he as well as the bread and wine , be transubstantiated into christ ? it is certain , there can be no such thing as the popish sacrifice of the mass , unless the bread and wine be transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ , and we are as certain as our senses can make us , that there is no transubstantiation . as for the half-communion , it is confessed that christ did institute his last supper in both kinds , and commanded them all to drink of the cup : and this may satisfie any man , who does not believe that the church of rome has authority to repeal the institutions of christ , and to forbid what he commanded . and when st. paul assures us , that there is but one mediator between god and man , the man christ jesus , one would think this evidence enough against the mediation of saints and angels , when they cannot shew one word for it . for as for their distinction between mediators of redemption and pure intercession , they cannot shew it in scripture , where our redeemer is our only advocate : and when christ himself enforces and ratifies that command of the law , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve ; this is a plain argument against the invocation of saints , since they have nothing for it . and when there is no authority in scripture for praying in an unknown tongue , one would think that the absurdity of the practice , and the authority of st. paul , who expresly condemns it , were evidence enough against it . so that though men may be at the needless expence of a great deal of learning in these controversies , yet in truth there is no learning required to understand them , the meanest man may judge for himself ; for the controversie turns upon so plain a point , and there is so plain evidence in the case , that an honest man may have abundant evidence and satisfaction , though he do not understand one word of all the learning which is lost in such disputes . the paper . in short , i think there is but evidence or authority to move us to believe . answer . this is certainly true , if it be rightly understood ; that is , if by evidence is meant the evidence of sense and reason , and by authority , the authority of scripture , which is the authority of god , who spake by moses and the prophets in the old testament , and by christ and his apostles in the new , and the authority of the primitive church , as credible witnesses of the apostolick doctrine and practice ; in this sense we grant that our faith must be founded both upon evidence and authority , and this is the true protestant resolution of faith ; and then the only fault of this proposition is , that evidence and authority are opposed to each other , whereas they must always go together in a true rational faith. but if by evidence be meant all the arguments whereby we can prove the truth of any thing , whether from sense or reason , or scripture , or the testimony of antiquity , and by authority be meant the authority of a visible judge of controversies , as it is understood in this paper , then at best this is a very precarious proposition , without the least shadow of truth , that either evidence or authority must move us to believe ; that is , that our faith must be resolved either into evidence , or the authority of a visible judge . for how is this proved , that when there wants evidence for our faith , we must believe upon the authority of a visible judge ? it seems to me a more natural consequence , that where there wants evidence , we must not believe at all . if it had been first proved , that god had appointed a visible judge to direct those who cannot judge for themselves , there had been some pretence for saying , that we must believe either upon evidence , or upon the authority of a judge ; but without proving this first , i would desire any man to prove to me , that i am bound to believe what i have no evidence for , or which is all one , no such evidence , as i can understand ; and if i be not bound to believe without evidence , how can the want of evidence prove that there must be a visible judge , into whose authority i must resolve my faith ? the paper . evidence to the generality of people is impossible . but i have already proved that this is not impossible , but the meanest man , with the help of a learned and faithful guide , may understand the scriptures in all things necessary for a christian to know . but suppose at present , that the generality of people cannot do this , yet can learned men do it ? and one would think , if there be any evidence , at least learned men may understand it ; for that which is not evident , neither to the learned nor to the unlearned , i fear is no evidence at all ; unless there be such a kind of evidence , as is evident to no body ; and yet the church of rome has brought things to a fine pass , if she must be forced to deny , that we have any evidence for our religion . now if there be any evidence for our religion , and learned men may understand it , then at least learned men may judge for themselves , and not depend upon the authority of any other judge ; and thus there is no need , nay there can be no use of a visible judge for the learned part of the world ; for to say that learned men have evidence to ground their faith on , and yet must not believe according to evidence , but authority , is to say , that men have eyes , but must not use them to see their own way , but must follow a guide blindfold . and yet if learned men be allowed to see , and judge for themselves , a judge of controversies will signifie very little ; for it is learned men who start difficulties and manage disputes , and are the authors and patrons of heresies ; and if these learned men , who may and must judge for themselves , differ from each other , and from the judge of controversies , what remedy is there ? nay , if learned men must judge for themselves according to the evidence they have of things , and not be over-ruled by authority without evidence , there can be no visible judge of controversies ; for an authority , which may be contradicted ( as it may be , if learned men must judge for themselves ) can be no authority either with the learned or unlearned ; for the unlearned will have no great reverence for that authority which the learned may contradict . and therefore whoever will have a judge of controversies , must not lay the necessity of having such a judge meerly upon the ignorance of the multitude , for this does not prove that learned men must have such a judge ; nay , it proves that learned men need no such judge , if ignorance only make him necessary ; and if there be not a judge for learned men , there can be no judge of controversies ; for there are more disputes among the learned than the ignorant . the ignorance of the people is only made a pretence to deceive ignorant people , but is no good reason for a visible judge ; for there can be no visible judge , unless he judge for the learned , as well as the unlearned ; and if learned men must not judge for themselves , it is then a ridiculous thing to talk of any other evidence than the authority of the judge ; for what does evidence signifie if no man must use it ? nay , upon these principles it is a ridiculous thing to distinguish between learned and unlearned men in matters of religion . to what purpose is it to read and study the scriptures , fathers , and councils , when they must not exercise their own reason or judgment about them ? what priviledge have the learned above the unlearned , when they must know , and believe no more than their judge will let them ? the paper . and we are discouraged from the quiet way of submission to the clergies authority , by your telling us , that no assembly of men have power on earth to bind the conscience . answer . how comes submission to the clergies authority in here ? for is every priest the judge into whose authority we must resolve our faith ? this indeed is the last resolution of faith in the church of rome , for the priest is the immediate guide of every mans faith and conscience ; and after all the talk of a visible judge , the people know nothing more what he teaches , than what their priest tells them ▪ who it may be himself knows little of the matter . and i cannot see what greater security this gives the people of the roman communion , than what our people have , who have generally as wise and learned and honest guides as they , to say nothing more . but who ever said , that no assembly of men have power on earth to bind the conscience ? we do acknowledge that the church has power to make laws to bind the conscience ; for whatever laws she makes for the edification and good government of christian people , which contradict no law of god , and are agreeable to the general rules of the gospel , do bind the conscience . nay , in matters of faith , the authority of the church is so sacred , that all christians are bound in conscience quietly to submit to her decisions , where there is not plain evidence against them : but we say indeed , that no man , nor assembly of men , have such authority as to oblige us to believe all their dictates and decrees without examination , much less contrary to the evidence of sense , reason , and scripture , and the judgment and practice of the first ages of the church , and therefore we do not require that men should believe meerly upon the authority of their teachers , without understanding why they do so . but this i hope is no discouragement to any men to submit to the instructions of their guides , and to learn from them what they are to believe , and why ; and this will make them wiser men , and more understanding christians , than to rely wholly on their authority . the paper . for authority , that of the church of rome is infinitely greater , who , it is to be feared , at least has an appearance of succession and visibility , and who pretends , that god has left in that church such means , so happy and so easie to attain to the certainty of the truth , that our very divines wish , in this confusion of things , god had so ordered it for certainty and union . answer . this is a strange paragraph , that only a fear of an appearance of succession and visibility , and her own pretence that god has made her the visible judge of controversies , should render the authority of the church of rome infinitely greater than of any other church , which are very little things to give so great an authority . but we will readily grant , that the church of rome has been a visible church in a constant succession of bishops and pastors , from the apostles days till now ; what then ? how does this give her a greater authority than other churches , which have as visible a succession as she ? the greek church has been a visible church , and preserved her succession from the apostles till now ; the church of england is as visible , and has as good a succession as the church of rome ; how then does succession and visibility give the church of rome a greater authority than the greek church , or the church of england ? it is a mighty weak foundation for the authority of a judge of controversies ( which is the matter in question ) that such a church has a visible succession from the apostles . a judge of controversies , who shall oblige all men to believe his determinations , must be infallible ; unless we will say , that god has obliged us , without examination , to believe a judge who may err , which cannot be , unless we can suppose that god may oblige us to believe a lye , for thus it may happen , if we are always obliged to believe a judge , who may sometimes err , as all fallible creatures may : which shews , what a poor shift it is which some late writers have used , ( and which this paper , which speaks not one word of infallibility , seems to imitate ) to set aside the dispute about the infallibility of the church , which they can make nothing of , and to insist only on the authority of the church to determine controversies , as a visible judge ; for that only obliges men either to renounce the communion of such a church , or to submit to her determinations , not at all adventures to believe as the church believes , as i shewed before ; and therefore this does not concern the dispute about the resolution of faith. now if the judge of controversies must be infallible , how does a visible succession from the apostles prove any church to be infallible ? this is no natural effect , as the romanists themselves grant ; for then the successors in all the apostolical chairs must be infallible , since all the apostles were as infallible as st. peter ; whereas they will allow this only to the chair of st. peter , as a peculiar prerogative granted to him by christ ▪ so that it is not succession or visibility which proves the church of rome to be the infallible judge of controversies , which is the thing this paper insists on , but they must return to the good old arguments of tu es petrus , & pasce oves , which i perceive the author of this paper was ashamed of ; and therefore i shall not take a needless trouble to confute them . if indeed they could prove a visible succession of doctrine and worship , as well as bishops , from the apostles , that they believed and practised neither more nor less through all the several ages of the church to this day , than what st. peter taught them , though this would not make them the judge of controversies , yet they would be good witnesses of the apostolical faith , and there would be great reason to enquire , what their faith and worship is : but their meer succession to the apostles does not prove that they have neither diminished nor added to the faith of the apostles ; for there is no natural necessity that those who succeed should always be of the mind of their predecessors ; and we have plain evidence , that the church of rome has in several ages made new and strange additions to the christian faith , and their succession of bishops without a succession of faith and worship , is little worth . and yet it is much stranger still , that the church of romes pretence to the authority of a judge , should be made a reason to believe that she has this authority . what advantage has confidence above modesty over weak minds ! the church of england might pretend this with as much reason as the church of rome , but she disowning infallibility loses all claim to it , and the church of rome pretending to infallibility , it seems , gains a right to it by possession and usurpation . but the argument , such as it is , seems to be this , that the divines of the church of england wish in this confusion of things , that there were a judge of controversies , and therefore by their own confession , a judge is very useful and necessary , and therefore there is such a judge , and no other church pretending to that authority , but the church of rome , therefore she alone is that judge : which is such a chain of consequences , as hang together by magick , for they have no natural connexion . if we did think a judge of controversies useful , does it hence follow that god has appointed such a judge , when there is no appearance of any such thing ? or if god had appointed such a judge , does the church of romes pretending to be that judge , when she can shew no commission for it , prove that she is so ? but the truth is , whatever divines they be ( if there be any such ) who wish for such a judge to unite the whole christian church in faith and worship , take very wrong measures of things . and because the true understanding of this is the most effectual way to end this controversie , i shall discourse particularly of it . 1. first then i observe , that an infallible judge of controversies , whom we are bound in all cases to believe , is inconsistent with the constitution of human nature . man is a reasonable creature , and it is natural to a reasonable creature to understand and judge for himself , and therefore to submit to any mans judgment , how infallible soever he be presumed to be , without understanding and judging for our selves , is an unnatural imposition upon mankind ; this destroys human nature , and transforms a man , who is a knowing and intelligent creature , into a sensless , though infallible machin , which moves by external direction , not from an inward principle of knowledge and life . to know , and to follow a guide without any knowledge or judgment of our own , are two very different things , the first is the understanding of a man , the other a sort of knowledge without understanding . for though i had an entire system of true propositions , which i must exercise no act of reason and judgment about , but only receive them as the dictates of an infallible judge ; this is not human knowledge , this is no perfection of human understanding ; no man is a jot the wiser or more knowing for all this , no more than he would be who could repeat all the propositions in euclid , and believe them to be all true upon the authority of his master , but knows not how to demonstrate any one of them , which is to understand nothing about them . now i can never believe , that god will destroy human nature , by suspending all the acts of reason and judgment , to make men infallible ; which is a certain way indeed to prevent error , to let men know and judge of nothing , that they may not mistake ; but for my part i value knowledge so much , that i had rather venture some mistakes , than forfeit my understanding . if my faith must be resolved wholly into the authority of an infallible judge , though i may think i understand some things , yet i must not believe for that reason , for then i must believe nothing but what i do understand , and see a reason for , which makes every man his own judge ; but i must believe my judge with , or without understanding , without the exercise of my own reason and judgment which may make us good catholicks , but does also unman us . but you 'l say , are we not bound to believe infallible teachers , whom we know to be infallible ? and has not god in several ages given such teachers to the world , moses and the prophets , christ and his apostles ? and must we not resign up our understandings to them ? and does this unman us ? why then may we not resign up our understandings to an infallible judge now , as we ought to have done had we lived in the days of christ and his apostles , and any other infallible teachers ? now for answer to this consider . secondly , that no infallible teacher can wholly supersede the exercise of our own reason and judgment . for though the immediate authority of god must and ought in all cases to over-rule us , and is the best and most rational account of our faith , for nothing is more reasonable than to believe god , who is eternal truth ; yet when any man pretends to teach by gods authority , we must in the first place judge of his authority , and not believe every one , who pretends to come from god , which resolves the very reason of our faith into our own private judgment , and therefore by this rule we must at least use our own judgment in the choice of our judge , which in our present case will infer the use of our own reason and judgment as to all the material disputes in religion , and make such a judge needless , when we have found him : of which more presently . nay , secondly , vve must judge of the doctrine of such a teacher by sense and reason , which are the natural principles of knowledge ; for let a man pretend never so much to a divine authority , if he preach any thing contrary to the sense and reason of mankind , we are not to believe him , no not though he should work miracles . for we must believe nothing comes from god which is contrary to sense and reason , which are the natural notices god has given us of things ; and as god cannot contradict himself , so we can never be surer that any man speaks from god , than we are of what sense and reason teaches ; and if the church of rome would but suffer us to judge thus far , we should have an infallible demonstration against her infallibility . however this shews , that the most infallible teacher cannot destroy our natural liberty of judging , for we must judge of his doctrine by sense and reason , and see that it contradict neither , which are the only natural principles of knowledge we have ; which is therefore to exercise all the reason and judgment which god has given us . and , thirdly , though we must receive all divine and supernatural truths upon the authority of the revealer , yet we must own our own reason and judgment to understand the revelation ; which cannot possibly be otherwise . for whoever it be that speaks to us , whether god by an immediate voice from heaven , or a prophet inspired by god , we have no way to understand what is said , but by our own natural faculties , and therefore must judge of the sense of what is said , just as we do at other times when any man speaks to us . and if we were not present to hear the prophet speak , but have his revelations delivered to us in writing , we must take the same course to understand such a divine book , as we do any other human writing ; if there be any difficulty in it , we must seek for some body to help us to understand it , but still we must understand for our selves , for no body else can understand for us , and if we must understand , we must judge for our selves too . this is all that we demand or desire , a liberty to understand and judge what god would have us believe and do ; and this the most infallible teacher cannot deprive us of no more than he can oblige us to see and hear with other mens eyes and ears , when god has given us eyes and ears of our own . and fourthly , where there is a standing revelation , we must then judge of the doctrine of all succeeding prophets , how infallible soever they be , by its conformity to the preceding revelation . we must never suppose , that god can contradict himself , and therefore though he may improve a former revelation by new and more perfect discoveries , yet he can never contradict it ; and hence it follows , that no true prophet can contradict a true revelation ; but though a power of miracles may give authority to a new prophet to expound a former revelation , and to improve it , yet we must be well satisfied , that the doctrine of this new prophet be agreeable to the old revelation ; which makes us judges of the sense both of the old and the new revelation : for it is impossible we can understand their agreement , unless we can judge of the sense of both . this was the case of christ and his apostles , when they appeared in the world. the law of moses , and the writings of the prophets were the standing revelation , which god had given to the jewish nation , whereby they were to try all prophets . to the law and to the testimony , if they speak not according to this word , it is because there is no light in them , isaiah 8. 20. and therefore though christ wrought more and greater miracles than ever moses did , this alone had not been a sufficient reason to believe him , had not his person answered the types and predictions of the law , and his doctrine been not the destruction , but the improvement and perfection of the mosaical dispensation . to this trial he submitted himself and his doctrine , appeals to moses and the prophets , requires them to search the scriptures , for they are they which testifie of me , john 5. 39. and after his resurrection from the dead , which one would have thought had been sufficient of it self to have confirmed his divine authority , yet he proves from scripture , that thus christ ought to suffer , and to enter into his glory , and beginning at moses and all the prophets , he expounded unto them ( the two disciples going to emaus ) the things concerning himself , luke 24. 26 , 27. and this course the apostles took in their sermons . st. peter did not only testifie to the jews , as an eye-witness , that christ was risen from the dead , but proves , that david himself had prophesied of this , acts 2. 22 , &c. thus st. paul disputed with the jews at rome , to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of god , perswading them concerning jesus , both out of the law of moses , and out of the prophets from morning till evening , acts 28. 23. thus his epistle to the romans is one entire dispute about the obligation of the law , and justification by faith in christ , from the types and predictions of the law it self . so that christ and his apostles were certainly as infallible teachers , as everwere in the vvorld , yet they did not bear men down meerly by their infallible authority , but appealed to the scriptures , and to every mans own judgment of them , and god had ordered it so , that it could not be otherwise ; for he had given them a standing revelation , whereby they were to judge of all new prophets , whatever they were ; but if they must have relied on the bare word of such prophets , whom they were to try by this revelation , for the sense and interpretation of it , this had been the same thing as to take their own word without any trial . now if christ himself never pretended to any such authority , that all men should believe him upon his own word , without examining his doctrine by the scripture , or exercising their own reason and judgment , can we think , that he should give any such authority to st. peter ? nay , when it is evident , that st. peter never had any such authority , and never could exercise it , how can st. peters successors have that in his right , which he never had nor could have himself ? for though he was an infallible teacher , yet every man had a liberty to examine what he taught , and to judge of it by its conformity to the law and the prophets . but you i say , could not christ appoint an infallible judge of controversies in his church to decide all disputes , and to prevent heresies and schisms ? that christ has not done this , i shall take for granted , till i see some better proofs of it than i have yet met with ; and i have some reason to think such a judge could not be appointed , whom we should be obliged to rely on with an implicit faith without examination , or any use of our own reason and judgment ▪ and that is , because it was impracticable to appoint a judge , upon whose bare authority we are bound to believe the truth of christianity it self ; christ and his apostles did not assume to themselves to be such judges in their days , for there lay an appeal from them to moses and the prophets , as you have already heard , and so there does to this day ; and if i must not take any mans word for the truth of the christian religion , i must not take his word neither for the truth of any doctrine in christianity . if i may to this day examine the gospel by the law and the prophets , as the jews did in our saviours days , then i must judge for my self too as they did , and not believe any pretence of infallibility against my own sense and reason . i cannot compare the doctrine of the law and the gospel , unless i understand them both , and i can understand and judge only with my own understanding ; and if i must have done thus , though i had lived in our saviours days , surely i must do so now , whatever infallible teachers there may be in the world ; which i think is a demonstration , that there neither is nor can be any such infallible judge , whom i am bound to believe purely upon his own authority . but it may be objected , that this proves too much , and undermines even the protestant resolution of faith into the authority of christ and his apostles , and the writings of the new testament as an infallible rule of christian faith and manners . for it seems , though we pretend to own their infallibility , yet we must examine their doctrine by the law and not believe them to be infallible , till we have set in judgment on their doctrine , and approved it as agreeable to a more infallible rule ; and thus we believe their infallibility , because we like their doctrine ; not believe their doctrine , because they are infallible . now there is so much truth in this objection , that i cannot believe that christ and his apostles are teachers come from god , unless i be satisfied that they teach nothing contrary to any former revelation , which god has made of his will ; for god cannot contradict himself , and therefore whoever contradicts what god has before taught , can be no true prophet . and therefore though miracles alone were sufficient to give authority to moses , who was the first prophet , by whom god made a publick revelation of his will , yet miracles alone were not sufficient to give authority to any succeeding prophets , but their doctrine also must be examined by its conformity to the law ; for though miracles gave them authority to make new revelations , yet not to contradict the old . so that to examine the doctrine of christ and his apostles by the law , so far as to see that they do not contradict it , is no more than to examine , whether they be true prophets or not , as all men ought to do before they believe any pretenders to prophecy ; but when it appears that they do not contradict the law , then that power of working miracles , wherewith they are endowed , obliges us to believe then in every thing else upon their own authority . and thus we own christ and his apostles to be infallible teachers , ( and consequently receive the writings of the new testament as an infallible rule of christian faith ) because they were men endowed with supernatural powers , and did not in their preaching contradict any former revelation of gods will. and this is all that we do , or need affirm , to destroy the pretences of an infallible judge ; for if i must still judge for my self , whether the doctrine of the gospel do not contradict the law , then i must judge for my self , both of the sense of the law and the gospel , or else i cannot judge , whether they agree or disagree ; and therefore there can be no infallible judge , to whom i must submit my own reason and judgment in this inquiry , for that were to own their infallibility , before i know whether they are infallible or not . though i must believe whatever an infallible judge teaches , yet i must not believe him till i know him to be infallible ; and i should think no pretender to infallibility should exempt himself from such a trial , as all prophets after moses , even christ and his apostles themselves submitted to ; that is , to have their doctrine tried by a standing revelation . now suppose the pope , or church of rome to set up for this infallible judicature ; before i can own their infallibility , i must at least examine , whether what they teach do not contradict the law and the prophets ; for thus i may and must examine the gospel it self , and if in any one thing they plainly and directly contradict the law , i have nothing more to do with their infallibility ; for no man can be infallible , who mistakes in any one thing . the church of rome then teaches , that we may give religious worship to saints and angels , and images . having the law of moses in my hand , i turn to it , and according to the best of my understanding i find this worship expresly forbid in the first and second commandments . no , say they , this is your mistake , we are the infallible judges , and you must not trust your own understanding , but take the sense of the church in it . by your favour gentleman , say i , you are a little too hasty with your infallibility ; when i am satisfied you are infallible , i will trust you , but i am now inquiring whether you are infallible or not , and therefore as yet we are upon even ground , and i must trust my own judgment till i find one more infallible . now , i say , you contradict the first and second commandments , and therefore are not infallible , and you would prove , that you do not contradict these commandments from your pretended infallibility , which is the thing yet in question . christ and his apostles permitted men to judge for themselves , whether they contradicted the law and the prophets , and therefore suffered them to judge of the sense of the law too ; and so must you do also , unless you pretend an exemption from all trial and examination , which christ and his apostles never pretended to . this shews , that even to this day no pretence of infallibility can exempt men from having their doctrine tried by the law and the prophets ; for the gospel it self may still be thus tried , and therefore there can be no such infallible judge as has any authority to oblige us to believe any sense they put upon the law contrary to our own sense and reason ; for then such a judge as this could not be tried by the law : for if he alone has authority to interpret the law , no body can try him but himself . and this plain instance i have given of their contradicting the first and second commandments , utterly overthrows their infallibility , till they can prove , not by their pretended infallibility , but by plain reason and argument , that they do not contradict them . and we desire no more than to set aside their plea of infallibility , and we will reason the case with them when they please . and besides this , by a parity of reason this argument reaches much farther : for if the doctrine of christ and his apostles must be tried by the law and the prophets , because no man can have any authority against a standing revelation ; then by the same reason , whoever should now set up for an infallible guide , his doctrines must be examined by the writings of the evangelists and apostles , which is now an infallible rule to us . and if the doctrine of christ and his apostles might be examined by the law and the prophets , for the very same reason the doctrine of all succeeding bishops must be tried by the writings of the evangelists and apostles ; for they are as much a standing revelation to the christian church , as the law and the prophets were to the jews . nay indeed , there is more reason now to examine the doctrine of all teachers by the writings of the new testament , than there was under the jewish dispensation to examine them by the old ; because the new testament is the last and most perfect revelation of god's will , and we must expect and receive no more ; for s. paul pronounces an anathema against angels themselves , should they preach any other gospel , gal. 1. 8 , 9. whereas the law it self gave expectations of a more excellent prophet than moses , and of a more perfect revelation ; and therefore as they were to receive no prophet who contradicted the law of moses , so we must receive none who preach any thing else , than what christ and his apostles have taught . now if the new testament be all that , and more than that to us , which the old testament was to the jews , then we must have the same liberty of judging under the new testament , which the jews had under the old : for there can be no more danger in our judging of the sense of the gospel , and examining the doctrines of all men by it , than there was in allowing this liberty to the jews , we have the same natural right to it which the jews had ; a right , not owing to a positive institution , but to the reason and necessity of the thing . but to set aside this dispute about the possibility of such an infallible judge of controversies , this very consideration proves , that christ never intended it ; viz. that he has given us the gospel in writing as a standing rule of faith and manners , and has appointed an order of men to study the scripture themselves , and to instruct others in the true sense and interpretation of it . 1. because he has given us the gospel in writing , which is now to us a standing rule of faith and worship , as the law and the prophets was to the jews . now the use of a written law is for every body to understand it , and direct their faith and manners by it . this was the use the jews ▪ were required to make of the old testament , and certainly the new testament was writ for the same end , or else i know not why it was writ : if then we must learn from the scriptures what we are to believe and practise , this inevitably proves that our saviours intention was , that we should judge for our selves ; for no man can learn any thing from a writing , unless he be allowed to understand it , and judge of the sense and meaning of it : now is not this a plain proof , that christ never intended such a judge of controversies , whom we must believe with an implicite faith ? if i must receive my faith upon the authority of a judge , then there is no need of a rule which i must , and can make no use of ; if i must follow my rule , there is no room left for a judge , for i must judge for my self : to resolve my faith into the authority of a rule and of a judge , are as inconsistent as judging and not judging , and therefore christ could not appoint both ways , because they contradict each other ; one requires the exercise of my own reason and judgment , and the other forbids it ; and therefore since christ has given us a written rule , we may reasonably conclude he has appointed no judge . for though a law , and a judge to execute that law , are very consistent in civil government , where the sentence of a judge does not oblige mens faith , but only authoritatively determine a difference , yet they are two very contrary , and therefore inconsistent resolutions of faith. secondly , as christ has given us a rule , so he has appointed an order of men to study this rule themselves , and to instruct other christians in the meaning of it , which is an argument he intended we should understand it . for why should we be taught the scripture , but that we may understand it ; and to what end should we understand it , but to make it our rule ? to teach and instruct , and to determine as a judge , are two very different things ; the first reserves to us a liberty of judging ; the second determines us to believe the dictates of our judge . now what need of both these ? if christ hath appointed a judge , whom we must in all things believe , what need of teachers to instruct men in the knowledge of the scriptures ? if the scriptures have no sense , but what the judge gives them , what an impertinent trouble is it to study the scriptures ? who can interpret them , but this infallible judge ? and how then can there be so many teachers , if there be but one judge ? or , if the scriptures may be understood , and may be taught , what use is there of a judge , unless it be to unteach what he has not a mind to ? and then he may make all other teachers useless when he pleases . nay , if the greatest apostles were no more than teachers , where is the judge ? and yet this is the only commission christ gave to all the apostles , and to peter among the rest , to teach those things which he had commanded them . the charge christ gives to peter is , to feed his sheep , and his lambs , which is the same st. paul lays on the elders of ephesus , take heed unto your selves , and to all the flock over which the holy ghost hath made you overseers , to feed the church of god , which he hath purchased with his own blood , acts 20. 28. that is , to instruct and teach them ; which is the reason st. paul assigns for those different orders of men in the church . he gave some apostles , and some prophets , and some evangelists , and some pastors and teachers , for the perfecting of the saints , for the work of the ministry , for the edifying of the body of christ , till we all come in the unity of the faith , and of the knowledge of the son of god , to a perfect man , unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ , ephes. 4. 11 , 12 , 13. here is no judge of controversies mentioned among all these , though he had been worth them all , and indeed had made all the other useless , if there had been any such office. but that which i observe is , that the work of an apostle was to instruct men in the faith , to teach them knowledge and understanding , what they are to believe , and why ; which is very inconsistent with the office of a judge . for he who instructs men , helps them to understand and judge for themselves ; but a judge only imposes upon the faith and understanding of men without any liberty of judging . if we must not understand our religion , nor use our understanding in judging between truth and error , there can be no use for teachers , and therefore that christ has appointed men to instruct his church , is a proof that he intended they should believe with their understandings ; and if all the apostles , even st. peter himself had no other commission but to teach , then their authority could not extend farther than their teaching ; that is , they could not oblige men to believe more than they could make them understand , the reason of . well , but if christ hath not appointed a judge of controversies , what certainty can we have of our religion ? and what care has christ taken of the unity of the church ? these are two points which must be considered , and if we can give a fair account of them without a judge of controversies , there will be so little need of such a judge , that there will be no great reason to contend about him . first , as for certainty ; why cannot we be certain of our religion , as well as of other matters , without an infallible judge ? does any man want an infallible judge to make him certain of the sense of a plain law , or any other intelligible writing ? to understand the difference between true and false reasoning ? to know what kind of evidence he may rely on as to matters of fact , which were done in a remote country , or before he was born ? now , if we can be certain of any thing without an infallible judge , then certainty does not depend upon infallibility , because we can be certain without it : certainty of knowledge depends upon the certainty of evidence . what we have certain evidence for , we may be certain of ; and what we have not certain evidence for , we can never be certain of . to depend upon authority , though it be supposed infallible , is but one sort of evidence , and one kind of certainty , viz. the certainty of authority ; and therefore if there be other kinds of evidence and certainty for our religion , besides the authority of an infallible judge , then we may be certain still , though there were no infallible judge : for where there are more means of certainty than one , the taking away one does not destroy all certainty ; now i would fain see that man , who will venture to say , that we have no possible way to be certain of the truth of christianity , or what christ and his apostles taught , but only the testimony of an infallible judge ; for then there is no way left to make men christians , unless they will own an infallible judge , before they believe christianity , which will argue great good nature in them . well! but suppose there were other possible ways to attain a certainty in religion , yet there is none so easie , none so certain as an infallible judge ; which delivers us from tedious inquiries , and doubtful disputes , and makes all men orthodox whether they will or no : now for this very reason i reject an infallible judge , because it is very plain christ never intended such a degree of evidence as this . faith is a christian grace and vertue , and therefore must be an act of the will , as well as of the understanding , which supposes that the evidence is not irresistible ; for it is no vertue to believe that the sun shines when we see it . such evidence as forces an assent , is inconsistent with the nature of faith , considered as a vertue , which is a free and voluntary assent , upon such evidence as is sufficient to satisfie an honest man , but not to compel an obstinate infidel or heretick to believe . of this nature is that evidence we have for the truth of christianity . miracles alone , as i observed before , did not prove jesus to be the messias or christ , for then all men , who saw his miracles , must have believed him , as they did moses ; but besides this , they were to inquire whether his person answered the characters the prophets had given of the messias , and whether his doctrine were reconcileable with their law ; and here the passions and prejudices , and lusts and interests of men might interpose , and corrupt and byass their judgments , and whether they would believe , or would not believe , did very much depend upon the temper and disposition of their minds . hence our saviour attributes the infidelity of the scribes and pharisees to their pride and covetousness , and such like evil causes , and requires an honest and teachable mind to prepare and dispose men to receive the gospel . such he calls his sheep ; ye believe not , because ye are not of my sheep , as i said unto you , my sheep hear my voice , and i know them , and they follow me , john 10. 26 , 27. now if this be all the evidence he has afforded the world of his own being the messias , which is the very foundation of the christian religion , the superstructure cannot be more firm and certain than the foundation is , and therefore the same kind of evidence which christ thought sufficient to prove himself to be the messias , must be sufficient also for all the ends of religion . christ has no disciples but sincere honest men , and therefore has given us such a degree of evidence and certainty , as may be a trial of our honesty . it is of no concernment , whether bad men be infidels or hereticks ; and then if there be sufficient evidence and certainty to satisfie honest men , it is enough , and there is abundant evidence for this purpose without an infallible judge , and therefore there can be no need of him . and besides this , our saviour has promised the assistance of his spirit , not only to work faith in all well disposed minds , but to enlighten their understandings , and to guide them in the diligent use of those means he has prescribed to find out truth ; which though it does not make them absolutely infallible , which there is no need of to carry men to heaven , yet it preserves them from all great and fatal mistakes . now i would desire any man to tell me , what need there had been of the internal illuminations of the spirit to direct us in our inquiries after truth , if christ had provided such an external infallible means as a judge of controversies . and though honest men are not infallible , yet they have this security as to their speculative mistakes , which have no ill influence upon their lives ; that the mercies of god do as well extend to the infirmities of our understanding , as of our wills. for if an involuntary ignorance will be some excuse even to bad men , to lessen their punishment , much more may we presume it will excuse good men. to demand such a degree of evidence and certainty , as god has not thought fit to give us , does great mischief to religion ; for this makes some men atheists , and others infidels . the infidel thinks , that seeing there is not evidence enough for the christian religion to force an assent , therefore they are not bound to believe it ; the church of rome owns this , that there is not sufficient certainty without an infallible judge ; and hence they argue ; that there must be an infallible judge , and that the pope , or church of rome , is that judge . now let the infidel and the romanist dispute it out , which of these two is the best consequence ; that since we cannot be certain of our religion , whether we should wholly reject it , or set up a judge of controversies ; and in my opinion the infidel seems to have the better of it ; for it is a natural and immediate consequence not to believe what we are not certain of , but i can see no connexion in the world between the want of certainty , and the necessity of an infallible judge ; something to be sure must come between to unite them together , and the least we can think of is this ; that it is necessary we should be certain in matters of religion , and that there is no way to make us certain , but an infallible judge ; and therefore , since there is no certainty in religion without such a judge , we must grant that there is one . but now if this be granted , that there wants evidence to make christianity certain , how do they prove , that it is necessary we should be certain of it ? which signifies , that it is necessary we should be certain of that , which is not certain ; and methinks it wants a little proof too , that a judge of controversies is the only possible way to make men certain . i would advise all papists not to press this argument of the uncertainty of religion too far , lest when they come to consider it throughly , it make them infidels . but if men will be but reasonable , what greater certainty can they desire than we have ; the revelation of the will of god , contained in a plain and intelligible writing , which all honest and diligent inquirers , at least with the help of a guide , may understand in all things necessary to salvation ; the promise of the divine spirit to enlighten our minds to understand the scriptures , and to perswade us of the reason and certainty of our faith , and the mercies of god to pardon involuntary mistakes . secondly , the next pretence for an infallible judge is unity . for we see by sad experience , that while every man judges for himself , the christian church is divided into sects and parties , who first differ in their judgment of things , and then separate from each others communion ; and thus it necessarily must and will be , till all submit to one sovereign authority ▪ and unite in one visible head. and therefore since it is evident , that christ intended that all his disciples should live in unity with each other , which he so strictly enjoyns , and so passionately recommends ; we must conclude , that he has appointed some effectual means to end all controversies , and to unite them in one communion , which can be no other than an infallible and governing head. now in answer to this i considēr , 1. that a supreme visible head , as suppose the pope of rome , is not necessary and essential to the unity of the church ; for if all christian churches lived in communion with each other , they would be one church , though they were all equal , without owning the supremacy of one over the rest . and therefore that christ instituted but one church , and requires all the several parts of it to live in communion with each other , does not prove the necessity of one visible head , because they may be one without such a head , and it is easie to prove , that this is all the unity christ intended ; but of this in answer to the following papers . 2. though christ has made unity necessary with the necessity of duty , it does not hence follow , that he has appointed infallible and necessary means of unity . i suppose all men will grant , that christ has made holiness as necessary as unity , and yet he has appointed no necessary and infallible means to keep men from sin ; but we see the state of the church suffers as much by the wickedness , as by the divisions of her members ; unity is a necessary duty , and so is holiness , but the practice of both is the object of our own choice and liberty ; and if the commands and exhortations of the gospel , and the hopes and fears of another world , with the assistances of the divine grace , will not make men do their duty , i know of nothing else that can ; and i do not see , how christ is more concerned for the unity , than for the holiness of his church . 3. for , thirdly , i think it a great mistake , to attribute all diversities of opinions to want of evidence , and all divisions to diversities of opinions ; for it is plain , that the lusts and interests of men have a great hand in both , or else both heresies and schisms are more innocent things than i took them to be . all the world cannot preserve men , who have any interest to serve by it , from being hereticks ; for interest will make men teach heresies without believing them , or believe them without reason ; and interest and faction will divide the church , where the faith is the same , of which the donatists of old are a sad example . and there is a present and sensible example of this , which the romanists must own ; and yet if they own it , it utterly destroys all their pretences to infallibility and supremacy , as such certain and infallible remedies for heresie and schism . for they must say , as they do , that christ has vested st. peter and his successors , the popes of rome , with the supremacy of the church ; here then is their infallible cure of schism : how then come all those schisms that are in the church ? for there are a good number of them , notwithstanding the popes supremacy , and some more for that reason ; has not christ appointed an head of unity ? yes ; but other bishops and churches won't submit to him ▪ how ? not to christs vicar ? how comes this to pass ? why , they dispute his authority : and has not christ plainly given him this authority ? yes ; but they won't see it : but is this inculpable ignorance , or pride and faction ? if the first , then they must grant , there wants certain evidence for this infallible head , and this they must not say ; if the second , then the vices of men will make the institution of a supreme head as ineffectual to prevent schisms , as the commands of our saviour are ; and it argues a good degree of assurance in the church of rome , to pretend the necessity of an infallible head and judge of controversies , to prevent heresies and schisms , when though they say , that christ has appointed such a head and judge , yet the experience of the world for sixteen hundred years , tells us , that there are never the fewer heresies nor schisms for it ; by which it appears , that this is not an infallible remedy against them . well! but it would be so , if all men would submit to the authority of this infallible judge : very right ! and so any other way would do , in which all men would agree , for then i guess they would be all of a mind ; but this gives no advantage to an infallible judge above any other means of union , and therefore the necessity of unity does not prove the necessity of an infallible judge . for if the romanists be in the right , that christ did appoint such a judge , and such a judge be such an infallible means of unity , we should have had no dispute about it at this day ; and therefore they must be out in one , either christ has appointed no such judge , or this cannot prevent schisms in the church . 4. fourthly , there is an easie and effectual way of curing church divisions without a judge of controversies , nay , without making all men of a mind in every thing ; which must never be expected in this world : and that is , not to make the necessary terms of communion streighter and narrower than christ has made them ; nothing but what is plainly revealed in scripture , and is essential to christian faith and worship . for such matters most christians agree in , and though they may have some private opinions of their own , this ought not to divide communions , while they do not impose them upon the faith of others , nor introduce any new and strange worship into the christian church . as for example : the church of england believes and practices whatever was thought necessary in the apostles days , and for some ages after ; and there is little or no dispute about these matters between us and the church of rome , so that we could to this day , without a judge of controversies , maintain communion with the church of rome upon the same terms that the apostolick churches maintained communion with each other , for we both agree in all things which are necessary and essential to church communion . so that the schism between us and the church of rome is not for want of a judge of controversies , for without owning such a judge , we agree in all that is necessary , in all that christ and his apostles required to make us members of the christian church . but this will not satisfie the church of rome , which will receive no other churches into her communion , without owning her soveraign and supream authority , nor without believing many doctrines manifestly absurd in themselves , and never taught in the best and purest ages of the church ; nor without joyning in such a worship , which they themselves dare not say is necessary ( for they do not pretend that for their praying to saints , and worshipping images , and prayers in an unknown tongue ) and which we think is sinful . if these things were removed , we could gladly communicate with them upon true catholick principles . there is no need of a judge , but only to determine those controversies , which she her self has made in contradiction to the primitive faith of christians ; and therefore i cannot but commend her policy , that she will allow no body to be judge of these disputes but her self . would all men submit to the church of rome , it would certainly restore peace and unity to the church , but to the great prejudice of truth , and hazard of mens souls , and we must not purchase a meer external unity at this rate . those men over-value unity , who part with truth for it ; for certainly the unity of the church is not more considerable than the purity of its faith and worship . the paper . these reasons make me think a visible judge absolutely necessary . answer . what i have already discoursed , i hope , may occasion some new and different thoughts of this matter ; but since certainty is the great and prevailing argument , let us turn the tables , and see what certainty a roman catholick has . his faith is resolved into the authority of a visible and infallible judge . this i confess bids very fair , for he that follows an infallible guide cannot err ; but whoever considers this matter carefully , will find all this talk of infallibility dwindle into nothing . for , first , suppose there be an infallible judge , before we can with certainty and assurance rely on him , we must certainly know who he is ; for it is the same thing to have no infallible judge , and not to know where to find him . and this is a difficulty which those persons little consider , who please . themselves so much with the fancy of infallibility . for , 1. papists themselves are not agreed about this matter . some will have the pope to be infallible , as peters successor , and in his right . others , the church assembled in a general council ; others , neither pope nor council distinctly and separately considered , but a council confirmed by the pope : others , none of all this , but tradition is infallible . infallibility they all agree to , but know not where this infallibility is seated . now what shall a doubting protestant do , who has a mind to be as infallible as any of them , did he know where to find this infallibility ? may he not as easily choose his own religion , and what church he will live in communion with , as which of these infallible judges to follow ? which soever of these he rejects ; he has a considerable party of the church of rome on his side ; the only difference is , that he is so far satisfied with their reasons against each other , that he rejects them all ; and he has good reason for it ; for if god had intended to appoint a judge to end all disputes , certainly he would have done this so manifestly , that there should have been no dispute who this judge is : for methinks a doubtful and disputable judge is not a very proper person to end all disputes . 2. nay , according to the doctrine of the roman divines , it is not possible to prove either that there is such a judge , or who this judge is . for if there be such a judge , he must be appointed by christ , and then we must look for his commission in the gospel ; and yet the church of rome will not allow us to know what the gospel is , or what is the sense and interpretation of it , but from the infallible judge . and thus it is impossible to find out either the judge or the scriptures , because we have no place to begin at . if we begin with the judge , we are a little too hasty , because we have not yet found him ; and if we begin with the scriptures , that is as bad , because we cannot understand them before we have found the judge ; so that we must take one of them for granted without any proof , and by that find out the other , and that is neither better nor worse , than to take them both for granted , which is an admirable foundation for infallibility , at all adventures to choose an infallible judge , and then to believe him at all adventures ! so that though men , who have always been brought up in the belief of an infallible judge , may in time grow very confident of it , and take it for a first principle , which needs no proof ; yet i wonder how any protestant , who has been taught otherwise , and if he acts wisely and like an honest man , cannot believe it , till it is proved to him , can ever entertain such a thought ; for let his adversary be never so subtil , if he resolves to believe nothing but what he sees proved , he may maintain his ground against him . as to represent this briefly in a dialogue between a papist and a protestant . papist . i pity your condition , sir , to see you live at such uncertainties for your religion , and obstinately refuse to consult that living oracle and infallible judge , whom god hath placed in his church , to decide all controversies in faith and worship . protest . sir , i thank you for your charity ; and though i do not find my self so uncertain , as i perceive you think i am , yet i should be glad of such an infallible guide as you talk of , if i knew where to find him . pap. he is to be found in the church of rome ; for that is the church which is the pillar and ground of truth ; there is st. peter's chair , whom christ made the supream governour of his church , whom he commanded to feed his lambs and his sheep ; that rock on whom christ promised to build his church , and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it ; and therefore in communion with this church , and in obedience to the supream pastor of it , you cannot err . prot. but pray , how shall i be sure of this ? pap. do you ask that now , when i have referred you to such plain texts of scripture for the proof of it ? prot. will you allow me then to interpret these texts according to my own private judgment ? and why then may i not use my judgment in other matters ; for i think all the articles of my creed , are as plain in scripture , as that the pope or church of rome is the supream infallible judge ; and indeed if i must stand to my own judgment in this matter , i can find no such thing in these texts you have alledged . pap. your own judgment ! no by no means , this causes all the heresies in the world , that men will presume to judge for themselves . prot. what course must i take then ? pap. you must stand to the judgment of the church , which cannot err ; and whatever hereticks say , she will tell you , that these ▪ texts prove the churches infallibility . prot. hold sir , what is it we are to prove ? pap. that the church is infallible . prot. and this i must prove from scripture . pap. yes . prot. and must not rely on my own judgment neither for the sense of scripture , but on the interpretation of the church . pap. right ! this is the true catholick way . prot. that is , i must take the churches word that she is infallible . pap. no , you must believe the scripture , which says so . prot. but i must believe the scripture , not because i understand this to be the sense of it , but because the church so expounds it . pap. right ! for hereticks expound it otherwise . prot. and what is this then but to take the churches word for her own infallibility ? what difference is there between taking the churches word at the first or second rebound ? to believe it , because she says it her self ; or to believe it because she makes the scripture say it ? and therefore if this be all you have to say , i must e'en keep where i am , and rather content my self without an infallible judge , than please my self with a meer imagination of infallibility without any foundation to rely on . thirdly , and therefore the most learned advocates of the church of rome are forced to grant , that we have no infallible assurance of infallibility ; for we cannot be infallibly certain which the true church is . the only way they pretend to find out the true church , is by marks and notes of a church , which they say indeed have a moral certainty , though they are not infallible : for according to their principles , they must not allow of any infallibility without the sentence and definition of an infallible judge , for then protestants may set up for infallibility without a judge of controversies ; and therefore since there can be no infallible judge to determine who is the judge of controversies , they must content themselves in this matter with moral certainty ; and this brings them to an even level with poor fallible protestants . they deal very hardly with us , if they will not allow that we may have at least as much certainty of the authority of scripture , and the true sense and interpretation of it , as they can have of the notes of the true church , which must be owned for the infallible judge ; and if they be modest , and understand the weakness of their own cause , they ought to be very thankful to us , if we will allow them as much ; and may not we then be as infallible as they ? for indeed it is impossible that any moral certainty should grow up into infallibility . as for instance : no man can be more certain of the decisions of an infallible judge , than he is of his infallibility ; and therefore if he have not an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the judge , he can't have an infallible certainty that he defines infallibly : and thus the whole faith of a papist , after all their brags of infallibility , is resolved into moral certainty ; just as the faith of a protestant is ; only not with so much reason . let us take any one article of our faith , wherein papists and protestants agree , and see how much greater assurance papists have of it than protestants : as suppose that jesus christ is the eternal son of god. a protestant believes this , because he has all the evidence that we can have for any thing of that nature ; that the scriptures of the new testament were writ by inspired men , and that the words of scripture in their most plain and obvious acceptation signifie this , and therefore that this is the doctrine of christ and his apostles , who were infallible teachers : so that the last resolution of our faith is into the infallibility of christ and his apostles , which we have all the evidence of which sense and reason can give us . on the other hand ; a papist believes that christ is the eternal son of god , because the church , which is infallible , teaches so ; and he finds out the true church by some notes and marks of a church , which he thinks morally certain ; and when he has found the true church , concludes her to be infallible without more ado . now if the infallibility of christ and his apostles , be as good a reason of faith as the infallibility of the church or pope of rome , and if we have as good evidence that the gospel was writ by inspired men , and that such words are contained in the gospel , as prove christ to be the son of god , as they have of their marks and notes whereby they find out the true church , then we have to the full as much certainty and infallibility as they have . they have but a moral evidence at best of the infallibility of their church , and therefore are but morally certain what their church teaches right ; and therefore if we have as much certainty as they have ( and god forbid we should have no more ) our faith is built upon as sure a foundation as theirs , without making a noise with infallibility , which at last dwindles into some arbitrary notes and marks of a church . and yet fourthly , not to trouble our selves at present with all the notes and marks which cardinal bellarmine and others give of a true church , there is one mark , without which it is impossible we should be certain which is the true church , and that is , that she professes the true faith and worship of christ. for this is essential to the church , and there can be no church without it : all other marks may deceive us ; for whatever other marks there be , if there be not the true faith and worship of christ , there cannot be the true church ; and therefore when the state of the church , as it is at this day , is broken and divided into different and opposite communions , whoever will find out the true church , must examine her doctrine and worship . bellarmine himself makes the holiness of doctrine one essential mark of the true church , and yet truth is antecedent to holiness , and equally essential now this is such a mark of an infallible church , as makes her infallibility useless , when we have found her . for we must understand the true religion before we can know the true church , and can be no more certain , which is the true church , than we are which is the true religion ; and therefore cannot resolve our faith into the authority of the church , because we can know the true church only by the true faith , and therefore must have some other means of finding out the true faith antecedent to the churches authority ; for that which is a mark to know something else by , must be first known it self . so that whereas the churches authority is thought so compendious a way to make men infallibly certain of their religion , and to deliver them from those uncertain disputes that are in the world , we cannot be certain which the true church is on whose authority we must rely , till we have examined that diversity of opinions which divide the christian church , and have satisfied our selves on which side the truth lies ; and when we have done this , it is too late to appeal to a judge , unless we will undo all we had done before , and then we shall be to seek again which is the true church . and what advantages then has the papist above the protestant in the point of certainty ? when they cannot know which is that church which they may safely trust , without examining the truth of her religion , and judging for themselves , just as we do . we are concerned indeed to know which is the true catholick church , not that we must receive our faith upon her authority ; for in order of nature we must know the true faith , before we can know the true church , but because we are bound to live in communion with the true catholick church of christ. fifthly , and yet if they could find the church without all this trouble , and protestant uncertainty , wherever they place their infallibility , whether in the pope or council , according to their own principles , they cannot have so much as a moral certainty of it . as for the pope , though for arguments sake we should grant a true pope to be infallible , yet it is impossible that any man can be certain , that there is a true pope . for the church of rome teaches , that the intention of the priest is necessary to the sacrament ; that though he perform all the external part of it , yet if he do not intend to apply the sacrament to such persons , it is not applied . now according to these principles , who can tell whether this present pope were ever baptized , or ordained priest or bishop ; for if the priests or bishops that did this did not intend to do it , he is so far from being a true pope , that he is no christian. nay , if the priests and bishops which baptized and ordained him , did intend to apply the sacraments to him , yet if those who baptized and ordained them did not intend to do it , then they were no christians nor bishops themselves , and therefore could not confer orders on him , and so upwards still , which reduces the matter to the greatest uncertainty in the world ; for how is it possible to know any mans private intention , when neither words nor actions shall be allowed a sufficient declaration of it : and besides this , if a pope be simoniacally promoted , or ordained by a simoniacal pope , here is an invalidity in his orders , and then what becomes of his infallibility ? nay , what shall we say of that long papal schism , when there were three popes together , john 23. gregory 12. and benedict 13. who were all deposed by the council of constance , and martin 5. chose ? was there never a true pope among all the three ? if there were , what authority then had the council to depose them all , and chuse a fourth ? and who knows to this day from whence the succeeding popes have derived their succession ? which may very much call the popedom and infallibility into question . and then as for councils , which consist of bishops , there is the same incertainty about them , whether they be true bishops or not , as there is about the pope ; and besides this , there are so many disputes , what makes a general council when it is regularly called , and when they act conciliaritèr , in such a manner as a council ought to act , to procure the infallible directions of the spirit , and to give authority to their decrees , that if women and busie people cannot understand the scriptures , and the reasons of their faith , i am sure they are much less able to understand what councils they may safely rely on . but suppose we did know who this infallible judge is , whether pope or council , and this judge should give us an infallible interpretation of scripture , and an infallible decision of all controversies in religion , which the church of rome never could be perswaded to do yet , and i believe never will , witness those many fierce disputes which are among men of their own communion ; and i think no man is ever the more infallible for a judge , who will not exercise his infallibility ; yet if this judge should infallibly determine all the controversies in religion , we must either hear it from his own mouth , or receive it in writing , or take it upon the report of others . as for the first of these , there is not one in the world at this day , that was present at the debates of any general council , or heard them pronounce their decrees and definitions , and i believe as few ever heard the pope determine any question ex cathedrâ , which what it means , either they do not well understand , or have no mind to tell us . as for writing ; when we see the decrees of a council written , we can have only a moral assurance that these are the decrees of the council ; and when we have them , it may be they are much more obscure , and subject to as many different interpretations as the scriptures are , that we can have no better assurance what the sense of the council , than what the sense of the scripture is ; as experience tells us it is in the council of trent , which the roman doctors differ as much about , as protestants do about the sense of scripture ; and though the pope of rome be made the judge of the sense of councils , yet if he will not determine it , what are we the better ? if one pope approves cardinal bellarmin's exposition of the council , and another m. de meaux , though directly opposite to each other , as we see at this day , how shall we ever come to an infallible certainty what the council has determined ? has not a protestant , who studies the scripture , and uses the best reason and judgment he has to understand it , as much certainty and infallibility as this comes to ? and yet how few are there , that have time or learning to read the councils , which is a little more difficult than to read the scriptures in the vulgar tongue ; and all these men must trust entirely to the honesty of their priest , who , if he be honest , may be very ignorant , and yet the last resolution of the peoples infallibility is into the honesty and skill of their priests ; for how infallible soever the pope or council be , they know no more of the matter than what their priests tell them , which is such an infallibility as the meanest protestant has no reason to envy . this i think is sufficient to shew , how vain all this talk of infallibility is in the church of rome : though protestants own themselves to be fallible creatures , yet they are too wise to change their moral certainty for the popish infallibility . had the church of rome as good evidence for their faith as the church of england , it might admit of a dispute , whether they should reject both , or cast lots which to chuse ; but thanks be to god , there is no comparison between them , and while we feel our selves certain , let who will boast they are infallible . an answer to some other arguments contained in the papers . having thus largely considered the main support of the roman cause at this day , viz. the pretence of an infallible judge of controversies , the remaining arguments will be more briefly answered , which i shall set down in order as i find them . the paper . i don't know , supposing the roman errors not damnable , how the reformers can justifie themselves ; and if they were so , i can't make it agree with the promises of the gates of hell never prevailing , &c. except there were some other church in which purity of faith was preserved ; which if there were , i wonder for unities sake so much commanded in scripture , we did not joyn with that pure church . answer . in answer to this short paragraph , there are several things to be considered : 1. whether the errors of the church of rome be damnable . 2. if they be not damnable , what authority had the church of england to reform them . 3. if they be damnable , how does christ keep his promise to his church , that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . 4. concerning the purity of faith in other churches , and our union with them . 1. as for the first , whether the church of rome be guilty of damnable errors : if by damnable errors be meant such errors as put men into a state of damnation , this i dare not say : for this would out do the church of rome herself in uncharitableness , to assert that all the churches in the roman communion , and every member of them as such , are in a state of damnation . but if by damnable errors be meant such errors as are very dangerous to mens souls , and will greatly hazard their salvation , or such errors as involve a sin in them , as being a direct breach of some divine law , and so are damnable as every sin is damnable ; in this sense we do say that the church of rome is guilty of damnable errors . for to name no other at present , we do affirm and prove too , that the worship of saints and angels and images are express violations of the first and second commandments , and therefore are great sins against god. now if you inquire , what the difference is between being guilty of damnable sins , and being in a state of damnation , the answer is plain and easy : for a state of damnation is such a state wherein , if a man commit damning sins , he has no right and title to pardon , forgiveness , and salvation , though he repent of all his known and unknown sins . this is the condition of all those who are not received into the christian church by faith and baptism ; for the christian church only is a state of salvation ; for there is no other name given under heaven , whereby men can be saved , but only the name of christ. so that those who are out of the church and gospel covenant , are not only guilty of damning sins , but are in a state of damnation , for they have no covenant-right to pardon and salvation . but those who believe in christ , and are in covenant with him by baptism , though they may be guilty of damning sins , yet they are not in a state of damnation , because they have a right to pardon upon their repentance ; and this is the condition of the church of rome ; they profess the true faith of christ , and are in covenant with him by baptism , and therefore though they may be guilty of damning errors , yet they are in a state of salvation , that is , they are not excluded from the covenant of grace ; and therefore the members of that communion , who live vertuous lives , and heartily repent of all their known and unknown sins , may find mercy with god. thus st. paul tells us of those who hold the foundation , that is , faith in christ jesus , that if they build hay and stubble upon this foundation , that is , false and erroneous doctrines and worship , such a man shall suffer loss in that his work shall be burnt , yet he himself shall be saved , yet so as by fire , 1 cor. 3. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. where fire cannot refer to the fire of purgatory , because it is the fire of the day of judgment , which is called the day that shall be revealed by fire , vers . 13. and the works which shall be burnt , is the hay and stubble which is built on the foundation ; that is , those erroneous doctrines or corrupt worship which men retain together with the faith of christ ; these works shall be burnt , that is , condemned in that day which is revealed by fire , which consumes those works , as fire does hay and stubble : and as for the persons themselves , the apostle tells us that they shall suffer loss , that they shall be saved , but so as by fire . where to suffer loss is opposed to receiving a reward ; if a man's work abide , he shall receive a reward ; if a man's work be burnt , he shall suffer loss ; which plainly signifies , that such erroenous christians shall not receive such a reward as is prepared for sound and orthodox believers : and that phrase , to be saved , but so as by fire , at least signifies , that at the day of judgment such men shall very difficultly escape burning with their works , though they shall be finally saved by their faith in christ. but whatever be the meaning of some particular phrases in this obscure text , so much is very plain in it ; that men who build hay and stubble upon the foundation , i. e. who believe in christ , though with a mixture of many vain and hurtful superstitions , shall yet , if their lives be holy and vertuous , be saved by the faith of christ , though with some loss and hazard ; which makes the case of honest men , who live in very corrupt communions , not perfectly hopeless . and in this sense it is that we grant , that salvation may be had in the church of rome ; though this is no reason for any man to choose the communion of a corrupt church , because there is a possibility of salvation in it . however , this shews what a great mistake this paper is guilty of , where it is said , that the best christians in the church of rome , which believe such damnable doctrines , can be saved only by ignorance , which most protestant divines believe the pagans themselves may be . for though invincible ignorance is an equal excuse for pagans and christians , yet when this excuse is allowed , pagans have not such a right to salvation as christians have . ignorance may excuse , but cannot save . it is only faith in christ saves us , which corrupt christians have , and pagans have not , which is an essential difference . secondly , suppose the errors of the church were not damnable , why might not the church of england reform such errors as are not damnable ? suppose they only obscure the glory of christ's mediation , and are dangerous temptations to sin , or hinder the edification of the church , or betray men to false notions of god and of religion , though they are not in themselves damnable , why may not such errors as these be reformed ? if the church of rome were convinced that she were guilty of such errors , ought she not to reform her self ? and is not every church in duty bound to preserve her faith and worship as pure and uncorrupt as she can ? and why then is not the church of england bound to do so ? if indeed the church of rome had a supream power over the church of england , that nothing could be done without her approbation and order , then we would grant , that in case of tolerable errors , such a dependent church could not reform it self , without the consent of its superiour ; as no private christian can reform the church wherein he lives , without the consent of the governours of it . but we say , that every national church has the supream independent power within herself , and therefore may correct any abuses and corruptions which are crept into her communion , without asking leave of the bishop of rome , or any other church in the world ; and this justifies the reformation of the church of england , if she reformed nothing but what was erroneous , though the errors were not damnable ; for all errors ought to be reformed when they are known , if the reformers have just authority to do it ; and such errors as are damnable , will justifie any man to reform himself , and all that he can convince of such errors ; for every man has authority to save his soul. thirdly , if the church of rome be guilty of damnable errors , how does christ perform his promise to his church , that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ? now the difficulty of this objection consists only in the sound of those phrases , the gates of hell ; by which some understand , that the devil shall never be able to corrupt the faith of the church , for if he can do that , then say they , he prevails against the church . but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie only destruction ; for hades is properly the state of dead men , who are laid under-ground , and appear no more in this world ; and therefore when our saviour promises , that the gates of hades shall not prevail against his church , the meaning is , that there shall always be a church in the world , professing that faith which here peter had professed , and whereon christ promised to build his church , viz. that jesus christ is the son of the living god. and such a church there has been in the world ever since ; and the church of rome it self , notwithstanding all the corruptions that are in it , is such a church . but that the church may be over-run with great and damning errors , is evident from st. paul's prediction of the apostacy of the later days , when the man of sin shall be revealed , the son of perdition , who as god , sitteth in the temple of god , shewing himself that he is god , 2 thess. 2. 3 , 4. for whosoever this man of sin is , he sits in the temple of god , that is , in the true church of christ ; and while the man of sin sits in the church , we need not doubt , but he brings some damning errors with him ; and yet it is the temple of god , even when the man of sin sits there . fourthly , as for the last thing mentioned , it is sufficiently known , that there were a great many christian churches in the world , at the time of the reformation , who did not own the usurpations of the church of rome ; and though they might have errors of their own , yet not of such fatal consequence : but if all the christian world had been equally corrupted at that time , it had been the same thing to us ; for corruptions ought to be reformed , and we had authority to reform our selves . and as for joyning in communion with other pure churches , we do so ; we own all pure churches , nay , are ready to communicate with churches which have some corruptions in their constitution , if they be tolerable , and do not render their communion sinful , which is all the obligation we have to communicate with any church : for if by communion they mean , that we should have put our selves under the government and authority of any other church , ( which is the sense of communion in the church of rome , which thinks no church in communion with her without submitting to her authority ) we beg their pardon for that ; we will communicate with other churches , as friends and equals and brethren , but not as subjects . secondly , the next argument for a visible judge , which the paper insists on , is , that without such a judge , we cannot know that every particular book of scripture is canonical . and here are a great many objections started against the authority and certainty of the canon , which much more become scepticks and infidels , than christians of any communion . i do not think them worth transcribing , for this argument may be answered without answering these objections , which the church of rome is as much concerned to answer , as we . for those who originally made these objections , will not be put off with the authority of a judge , without a rational solution of these difficulties ; and those , who grant , that there is no other answer can be given to them , but to resolve the credit of the canon into the authority of a judge without any other reason , give up the cause of christianity to infidels , who despise the vain pretences of such a judge . if we cannot know what is canonical scripture without a judge , how shall we know whether there be a judge ? for there is no way to know this but by the scriptures ; if there be no such judge appointed in scripture , we have no reason to own him , and if we cannot tell what scripture is without a judge , how shall we find the judge by the scriptures ? and though the objection be made only against some particular books of scripture , yet in truth it equally lies against the whole canon . for if we can know any one particular book of scripture without a judge , why not the rest ? no! some of them have been doubted of right ! by some churches , who did not know them , till they were satisfied by those churches , which kept those sacred records , that they were true and genuine . but the question is , whether a book , which has been doubted of , when that doubt is removed , have not as certain authority as the rest . if it could not then , and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine , why is it received ? what obligation are we under to own it ? if any books , which we call canonical , were still doubtful , it is more natural and reasonable to reject them , than to set up a judge without any authority , to give authority to them . for whether any book of scripture be canonical is matter of fact , and the doctors of the church of rome themselves do not extend infallibility to matters of fact ; and then by their own confession , there can be no infallible judge of the canon of scripture , but we must content our selves with such moral certainty as may be had . and if catholick tradition be so uncertain , that we cannot learn the canon of scripture from it , what becomes of the authority of all their unwritten traditions , which they so much boast of ? thus some men , if they can but make a shew of saying any thing , never attend to consequences , nor consider whether their objections do not make as much against themselves , and common christianity , as against protestants . thirdly , the last argument is , that the author of the paper can't make those articles of the nicene creed , one holy catholick apostolick church , the communion of saints , agree with the protestant religion . here is a little blunder in calling this the nicene creed , though easily pardonable ; for it is a jumble of the apostles and nicene creed together . the holy catholick church , the communion of saints , is in the apostles creed ; one catholick apostolick church , the nicene creed . and why does not this agree with the protestant religion ? for we profess to believe both these creeds as sincerely , as the church of rome . no! how can they be one , who disagree by adding in faith , or diminishing from it , who do not communicate together in prayer or sacraments , when they are not agreed in the essential things , how are they one ? right ! churches which differ in essentials are not one , but i hope there are few churches do that ; i am sure they can never prove , that we deny any essential and fundamental article of faith. if this proves any thing , it proves , that all the separate communions of christendom are not one church ; and what then ? how is the church of england more concerned in this , than the church of rome ? can't we believe one church in the creed , as well as the church of rome , notwithstanding all the divisions of christendom ? do the meer divisions of christendom prove the church of rome to be that one church , or that the church of england is no member of this one church in the creed ? the church is but one , from the first planting of it by the apostles to the end of the world , and the church of rome , as well as we , must own , that it is but one church , notwithstanding the several divisions that have been in it in the first ages of the church as well as now ; and therefore the unity and communion of the church must not be estimated by any one age of the church ; but the apostolick age must be the standard of catholick unity and communion , as it is of the catholick faith. suppose all the churches of the world at this day were in communion with the church of rome , excepting the church of england . why then , you 'l say , it would be plain the church of england were separated from the whole church of christ , and from catholick communion . right ! from the church of this age , but the whole church of this age is but a very little part of the catholick church , where it is sound and orthodox ; for i hope they will allow the apostolick churches , and the churches of the three first ages , to be the best and purest parts of the one catholick church , and that we must still maintain communion with them ; if then the church of england were separated from all the churches of this age , yet if she be in communion with the apostolick and primitive churches she is in catholick commun on still , if the apostles themselves were in catholick communion . to know then , whether the church of england be a true catholick church , and in catholick communion , we are not so much concerned to enquire what churches she communicates with now , as whether she be in the apostolick communion , which is the fountain and original of catholick communion . now if the constitution of the church of england be such as to doctrine , worship , and government , that the apostles themselves would have owned our communion , had we been in their days ; how do we come to be schismaticks now , and out of catholick communion ? for if catholick communion be the communion of the whole catholick church , from the times of christ and his apostles to the end of the world , which is but one church ; and the apostolick churches are the true measure and standard of true catholick communion , then those churches , which to this day are in communion with the apostles , are in true catholick communion . and this test we will stand by , though i would not advise the church of rome to do so . let us consider , whether the apostles would have rejected our communion for those reasons , for which the church of rome now rejects us ? would st. paul have rejected our communion , because we will not worship god in an unknown tongue ? which he himself forbids , 1 cor. 14. because we will not worship saints and angels , and images ? which the romanists confess , was neither commanded nor practised in those days , and which we say was forbid then , and understood to be so by all christians . for not owning the supremacy of peter , when st. paul himself withstood him as much , as we do the pope of rome , and upon a much less occasion , gal. 2. 11. &c. and the african churches long after , in the days of st. cyprian , and by his authority , forbad all appeals to the bishop or church of rome . in a word , would the doctrine of transubstantiation , the sacrifice of the mass , indulgences , purgatory , communion in one kind , private and solitary masses , and the like , have been thought a just reason in the apostles days to deny communion to all those churches , which reject them ? the church of england is in communion with all those churches from the apostles days till now , who never owned nor imposed those doctrines and practices , for which we now separate from the church of rome , as necessary terms of communion , which upon inquiry will be found a much more catholick communion than that of the church of rome ; for we communicate with more ages , and with more churches than they do . the church of rome , as now constituted in all its parts and proportions , is no older than the council of trent , which is some time since luther ; that we may with more reason ask them , where their church was before the council of trent ? then they ask us , where our church was before luther ? we find our church in its doctrine , worship , and government , in the apostles days ; but their church was not made all at a time , but one age brought in one corruption , another another . some aspiring popes began the encroachments upon the liberties of other churches , and others kept the ground their predecessors had got , and as they had opportunity made new conquests , and thus by degrees it grew up into a papal omnipotency . some thinking monks started some uncouth opinions , which were tossed about for a while in disputes , and if they were such as might be of use to advance the power of the pope , or of the priest , they began to be countenanced at rome , and that made honest men cautious of opposing ; and then they grew up into received doctrines , and when it was ripe for that purpose , they were dubbed articles of faith ; and at length were digested into method and order , refined and polished , and received their last authority from the pack'd conventicle of trent . and will any man call this catholick communion , the dividing terms of which were wholly unknown to the best and purest ages of the church , crept in by degrees in several later ages , and never received its accomplishment and perfection till since the reformation it self , and is now already in the wane , and almost expounded into protestant heresie ( at least so they would perswade us ) by the bp. of meaux , and our modern representers . however this shews , how among all the divisions of christendom , we can prove our selves to be a catholick church , and in catholick communion , which is all that we at present are concerned for , and let the church of rome do as much for herself , if she can . upon these principles she now rejects us , it is plain , she must have denied communion to the apostolick churches , and i am sure they would have denied communion to her ; and what is become then of her catholick communion , which shuts out the apostles and apostolick churches ? the paper . and , how in the communion of saints ? for that which i think makes a corporation become a body of men , is the obligation imposed on those who live in that corporation , to be subject to the peculiar laws and government there established for even of those that make scripture their rule of all those churches . answer . i suppose the latter part of this is either false or hastily writ : if the meaning be , that the whole christian church in such a corporation as is under the same individual government , or one governing head , who must give laws to the whole church ; this we utterly deny , and it ought to have been proved . christ at first committed the planting and governing his church to twelve apostles , who , as st. cyprian affirms , had all equal power and authority , though christ named peter only in bestowing the apostolical power , not to give peter any superiority over the rest , but only to signifie , that unity and harmony of consent , which ought to be among them in exercising the apostolical power , that they were all to act as one man. the apostles left their power to the bishops of the several churches , who had the immediate inspection , and soveraign power over their own churches , as the same father frequently asserts , but yet were to govern their several churches with mutual advice and consent . so that the unity of particular churches consists in their obedience and subjection to their bishop , and in the communion of all the members of it in all acts of worship and discipline ; and those who separate from the external and visible communion of the church wherein they live , without necessary and unavoidable reasons , are schismaticks , who cut themselves off from the body of christ. the communion of the catholick church consists not in the subjection of one church to another , but in the profession of the same faith , and in the agreement and concord of their bishops , in owning each others churches , and maintaining communion with them upon catholick principles , and governing their churches , as far as is expedient , by common rules of worship and discipline . this then being the constitution of the catholick church , let us briefly consider what it is that unites particular churches in catholick communion . 1. every particular church which professes the true faith of christ , is part of the catholick church , and by virtue of this catholick faith is so far in communion with the whole catholick church ; and thus we own the church of rome her self to be part of the catholick church ; for she professes the true faith of christ , though with a great mixture of dangerous errors . 2. the communion of particular churches does not consist in using the same liturgies , or external rites of worship , if their worship be a true christian worship , and agreeable to the general laws of the gospel ; for every church has authority within her self to direct and model her own worship ; and therefore if there were no fault in it , yet the church of england is not bound to receive her liturgies and worship from the church of rome , but may use her own without being charged with schism for doing so . 3. every catholick church is bound to receive each others members to communion , when they come among them , which makes them all but one church , one society & body , the members of which have a mutual right and interest in each other ; and therefore it is a principle of catholick communion , not to adhere so stiffly to the rites and usages of our own particular churches , as not to communicate with other churches , who use different rites from our own , if they be innocent . thus far all things are plain and easie ; but the difficulty is , how we shall maintain communion with those churches , which teach very erroneous doctrines , or use very corrupt and suspected kinds of worship . and therefore , fourthly , how corrupt soever any church be , if she still retains the true faith of christ , we must own her for a christian church , though a corrupt one , which is one degree of communion with her , to own her of the same body with our selves , though as a sick or rotten member . this was the charge against the novatians and donatists , not only that they had set up a distinct and separate communion , but that they unchurched the catholick church , and therefore re-baptized those who had been baptized in the catholick communion , as if they had been infidels before . so that if there be any true church in the world besides the church of rome , the church of rome must necessarily be schismatical , because she unchurches all other churches but her self , and therefore can have no degree of communion with them , as with christian churches ; whereas we own the church of rome her self to be a true , though a very corrupt church , and therefore maintain some degree of communion with her . fifthly , for it is evident , that if any particular church do teach any erroneous doctrines , we must not maintain communion with her in her errors : for no man is bound to believe that which is false . but then we must distinguish between errors ; for a church may be guilty of some speculative errors , which may do no great hurt to common christianity , and then we may very safely communicate with that church , if they do not impose on us the belief of those errors ; which few churches do , but upon their own immediate members , excepting the church of rome . as for instance ; the lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation is as false and groundless , though not altogether as absurd as the popish doctrine of transubstantiation ; but yet i would make no scruple of communicating with a lutheran church , where i may do it without professing my belief of consubstantiation ; and upon these principles the lutheran and calvinist churches may communicate together , keeping their private opinions to themselves without imposing them upon each other . but if any church which professes some speculative errors , will not admit us to communion without professing the same errors , we must own them for true churches still , and profess our readiness to communicate with them in all acts of worship , if we may be allowed to do it without owning their errors ; and this makes us in communion with that church , and that we do not actually communicate is none of our fault , but the fault of those who deny it . if the errors be such as are not meerly speculative , but corrupt their worship , then indeed we must not only disclaim their errors , but we must not joyn in those acts of worship , which are corrupted by them ; as the popish mass is by the doctrine of transubstantiation . if their worship be partly pure , and partly corrupt , then notwithstanding their corruptions we must be ready to joyn with them in all those acts of worship , which are not corrupted . if their worship be generally corrupt , as it is in the church of rome , by their latin service , and mass , and ave-maries , and frequent addresses to saints and angels in those very litanies , wherein they pray to god and christ , we must wholly abstain ; but admonish and pray for them as brethren , and exercise all other acts of christian communion , if they will admit of any . by this we see , that there are several degrees of communion between distinct particular churches , and therefore it does not presently follow , that because churches divide communion in acts of worship , they do not belong to the same body . the true catholick faith , whatever errors and corruptions they are guilty of , makes them so far catholick churches , and while we own them members of the same body , to which we our selves belong , though we do not communicate in their errors and corruptions , we are still in communion with them ; and upon these principles , notwithstanding all the divisions of christians , there is but one church still , to which all churches belong , who profess the true faith of christ , unless any exclude themselves from this catholick unity , by wholly excluding others . secondly , the next inquiry in the paper is , how the church can be called holy , if for so many hundred years , as our church teaches in the homily against idolatry , the whole church of rome has been guilty of idolatry ? this being the whole of the argument , i shall not transcribe the words . now suppose the church of rome were the whole church , and had for some centuries been guilty of idolatry in the worship of saints and images , and the virgin mary ; yet they belong to the holy church , just as they belong to the church ; by retaining the true faith of christ , they are a true church , though the many errors they have added , make them a very corrupt church : and thus by professing the holy faith , and owning the great principles and doctrines of holiness , they are a holy church , though their holiness may be far from being perfect , intire , and uncorrupt , as well as their faith. when holiness is attributed to the visible church , it cannot signifie internal holiness and sanctification , for good and bad men are intermixt in the church ; and if the church must be holy in this sense , all the members of it must be impeccable as well as infallible . but holiness signifies either their state or their profession . that they are in covenant with god , and so his holy and peculiar people , as the jews were under the mosaical covenant , who are therefore upon this account often called a holy nation , even when they were guilty of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf , and had few visible marks of holiness in their lives ; and for the same reason the christian church , which now succeeds into the priviledges of the jewish synagogue , are called saints , the elect and chosen people of god , to signifie that now god owns none for his people , but those who are admitted into the christian covenant . and in this sense no church can cease to be a holy church , without ceasing to be a church . but then the christian church is holy by profession too , and that in a more eminent manner than the jewish church , because she professes a more perfect holiness ; and whatever church teaches the holy commands of our saviour , and requires and professes obedience to them , is so far a holy church by profession , though she may teach other things , which she may think holy , but indeed are not so . if holiness signifie an external and visible relation to god , and the profession of a holy religion , then that society which professes the true faith of christ , and holiness of life , so as to continue a covenant relation to christ , is in this sense a holy church , whatever corruptions she is guilty of , either in faith or practice , which do not un-church her . thirdly , as for what remains in the paper , it has been answered already upon other occasions . schism we confess is a damning sin , and thank god that we are not guilty of it . we cast off the roman yoke , which christ never laid upon us , and to deliver our selves from the unjust usurpations of foreign churches is no schism , no more than it is rebellion to oppose the invasions of a foreign prince . we reformed our own communion , and that is no schism , for we had full authority to do it ; and our reformation is such , that they may communicate with us , though we cannot communicate with them , for there is nothing sinful in our communion ; and whatever they pretend , they can never prove that there is any thing wanting in it , necessary to salvation ; and when we deny communion to no church that will communicate with us ; and require no sinful terms of communion , which can justifie a separation from us , let them tell me , wherein our schism consists . the paper . i can't think those glorious promises sufficiently fulfilled , of the holy spirits leading them into all truth , and abiding with them , and that for ever . answer . pray , why not ? that promise of leading them into all truth , was made to the apostles , and was fulfilled in them , and extended to no others in that degree of infallibility ; as is evident from the manner how the spirit was to lead them into all truth , viz. by bringing to their remembrance all things which christ had said to them , which can belong only to those persons , who heard the sermons and discourses of christ himself . for though a man may be taught what he never knew before , yet he cannot be said to remember what he never heard before . but when it is added , that this spirit of truth shall abide with them for ever , that for ever must be appropriated to the apostles , as it relates to an infallible direction ; and their for ever , signifies no longer than they lived ; for if it must be extended to all the successors of the apostles , then there must be as many infallible judges as there are successors to all the apostles , in the several churches founded by them , which will not serve the designs of the church of rome . as for what follows about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church ; i have already given an account of that ; for the gates of hell never prevail , while there is a church , which professes the faith which st. peter then professed , that jesus christ is the son of the living god , which the church of rome her self has done in her greatest corruptions , excepting pope liberius his subscription to the arian confession . and whereas the paper concludes with a desire to know how the church of england is catholick and apostolick , the answer is very plain ; because her doctrine , worship , and discipline is catholick and apostolick . the conclusion . an address to wavering protestants , shewing what little reason they have to think of any change of their religion . what i have now discoursed in answer to these papers , seems to me so very clear and plain , that i should not much question its good effect , even upon honest papists , would they impartially read and consider it , much more upon wavering protestants , if it be only some scruples , not interest , which sways them . but the better to fix such people , and that in the modern fashionable way , without disputing all the points in controversie , i shall desire them to consider , how much more certainty and safety they have in communion with the church of england , than they can have by going over to the church of rome . and i think this is home to the purpose ; it being the same argument , wherewith the roman priests endeavour to pervert our people ; and which is the principal design of these papers . 1. first then i observe , that all the positive articles of the protestant faith are owned and believed in the church of rome ; we do not believe all that they believe , but yet they believe all that we do ; for our faith is contained in the ancient creeds , the apostles , the nicene , and the athanasian creeds , which the church of rome owns , as well as we . and though we do not build our certainty on the authority of the church of rome , but on the express revelations of scripture , which contain all the articles of our faith , and is as much certainty as we desire ; yet methinks even a modest romanist should blush to charge our faith with uncertainty , when our faith , as far as it reaches , is the same with theirs . surely they must grant , that in these matters , which we all consent in , our faith is true and orthodox ; they must grant , that the last resolution of our faith into the authority of christ and his apostles , is sound and orthodox also ; for thus they resolve their own faith : they must grant that the universal consent of the church in all ages , not excluding the church of rome it self , as a part of the catholick church , is the best external testimony of the christian faith. now when we believe the same things which the church of rome does , upon the authority of christ and his apostles , whose doctrine is contained in the writings of the new testament , and expounded by the general faith of the christian church in all ages , what appearance of uncertainty can be charged on such a faith ? we reject indeed the infallible authority of the present church of rome ; but what then ? will not a true orthodox faith save us , unless we believe in christ upon the authority of a particular church , which had no being , when christianity was first planted in the world ? but i think , i need not insist on this ; for i cannot believe that any member of the church of england goes over to the church of rome , because he cannot believe his creed in the church of england . but then i would desire them to consider what that uncertainty is which they complain of in the church of england ; for if the positive faith of the church of england is certain , as it must be , if the faith of the church of rome , as to these matters , be certain , why do they leave us for want of certainty , which is now the popular argument to seduce men from our communion ? if they think , we do not believe enough , let them say so , and make that the cause of their departure from us ; but if , as far as our faith goes , we have certain and evident reasons of our faith , how does our faith come to be uncertain ? as for those particular doctrines , which are in dispute between us and the church of rome , we grant we have no certainty of them ; nay , more than that , we say no man can be certain of them , how confident soever he is ; for they are founded neither on reason nor scripture , nor any good authority , ( for we do not take the authority of the present church of rome to be good authority ) and if this be all they mean by our uncertainty , that we have no certainty for the worship of saints and images and relicks , for transubstantiation , and the adoration of the host , for prayers in an unknown tongue , for masses for the living and the dead ; for a judicial absolution , and those new sacraments they have introduced into the church , we readily grant it ; but think this a very strange reason for protestants to desert our communion , because we have no certainty of things , which we believe to be false . we do not only confess , that we can find no certainty for these things , but we assert that we have positive and certain evidence against them ; and those who have a mind to believe such doctrines as these , must go over to the church of rome to enlarge and improve their faith , for we shall never believe them . but if they can be contented with the faith which the scriptures teach , and which the primitive church professed , we have as much evidence and certainty for that , as the church of rome her self has ; and how they can better themselves by going over to the church of rome , as to these points , i cannot tell , since we believe as orthodoxly as they . secondly , as for those doctrines and practices which we reject , because we have no evidence for them , but only the authority of the church of rome , which is no evidence to us , because it is not evident it self , we think our selves much safer in rejecting , than we could be in owning them ; and that for this plain reason , that though we should be mistaken in rejecting such doctrines ( as we are very certain we are not ) yet they are such mistakes , as do no injury to common christianity , no dishonour to our common saviour , and therefore cannot be dangerous to our souls ; whereas if the doctrines and practices of the church of rome be , as we say they are , innovations and corruptions of christianity , they are very dangerous and fatal corruptions . as to shew this in some few instances . what injury is it to christianity , not to believe the infallibility of the pope or council , while we believe christ and his apostles to be infallible , which is infallibility enough to direct the christian church ? for while we adhere to what they taught , we can neither believe too little nor too much ; but if we believe the infallibility of the pope , we are bound to stand to his authority , and to receive all his dictates without examination , and how dangerous is this , if he should prove not to be infallible , for then he may lead us into damnable errors , and we have no way to get out of them . while we own the supremacy of our saviour , who is the head of his church , and of all principalities and powers , and the authority of bishops and pastors to govern the church under christ ; what does the church suffer by denying the supremacy of the pope , when soveraign princes and bishops may govern their several churches , as well or better without him ? this indeed destroys the papal monarchy ; but christ is king still , and the church is never the worse church , because it is not an universal monarchy , which christ never intended it should be . but if we give the supremacy to the pope , and he has no right to it by christ's institution , this is an invasion upon the right of all the christian bishops in the world , makes it impossible for them to govern or reform their own churches , whatever occasion there be , without leave from the pope , which very thing has hindred the reformation of the church of rome it self these last ages , when it has been so earnestly pressed both by christian princes and bishops of that communion ; witness the managemént of affairs in the council of trent . nay , this is an invasion on the rights of soveraign princes , to set a superior over them in their own dominions , who can command their subjects with a more sacred authority ; and how fatal this may prove to princes , and what a snare and temptation to subjects , some examples of former ages may satisfie us . suppose we should be mistaken about the lawfulness of praying to saints , the church of rome her self does not pretend , that it is necessary to do it , and therefore we want nothing necessary to salvation by not doing it ; and certainly our saviour cannot think it any injury to his mediation , that we so wholly rely upon his intercession , that we desire no other advocates , and that we are so jealous of his glory , that we will not admit the most glorious saints to the least partnership with him ; and this will make him our advocate in deed , when he sees we will have no other : but if he be our only mediator and advocate by god's appointment , and his own purchase , let those who unnecessarily apply themselves to so many other mediators , consider how our only mediator will like it . suppose it were lawful to worship god or christ by images , which we think expresly forbid by the second commandment ; yet will they say , that it is an affront or injury to god and our saviour , to worship him without images ? if that lovely idea we have of god in our minds ; if the remembrance of what christ has done and suffered for us , make us truly and sincerely , and passionately devout , what need have we of an image , which is pretended only to be a help to devotion , and therefore of no use to those , who can be devout without it ? but he who considers what god's jealousie means , must needs think it dangerous to worship the images of god and christ , and the saints , for fear they should be forbid by the second commandment , which all the wit of man can never prove that they are not . though latin prayers were lawful in english congregations , who do not understand them , yet is it unlawful to pray in english ? is it any dishonour to god , any injury to religion , that men pray with their understandings ? if true worship begins in the mind , and our understandings must govern our affections , i should fear , that to pray without understanding what i prayed , would not be accepted by that god , who is the father of spirits , and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth . if we believe , that christs once offering himself upon the cross , was a sufficient sacrifice , propitiation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world , what injury do we to the sacrifice of christ , though we do not believe , that he is offered again every day in ten thousand masses ? if we believe , that in the supper of our lord we eat the sacramental body , and drink the sacramental blood of christ , which by his own institution do as really and effectually convey to us all the benefits of his death and passion , as if we could eat his natural flesh , and drink his blood , what injury does the church suffer by denying transubstantiation ? and if when we approach his holy table , we worship christ in heaven , sitting on the right hand of god , is not this as true an honour to our saviour , as to worship him under the species of bread ? but if transubstantiation be false , what a hazard does that man run , who worships a piece of bread , which the most learned romanists themselves grant to be idolatry . if we believe , that christ alone has a judicial power to forgive sins , and that the church has a ministerial authority , to take in or shut out of the church , which is the only state of pardon and salvation , and therefore is a ministerial remitting or retaining of sins , and sufficient to all the ends of ecclesiastical authority , is not this as much pardon and forgiveness as any christian has need of , though we deny , that the priest has a judicial or pretorian authority to forgive sins , which is not compatible to any creature ? for what can any man desire more , han to be put into a state of pardon and forgiveness in this world , and to be finally acquitted and absolved in the next ? but if the priest have no such judicial authority to forgive sins , what a fatal mistake is it for men to rely on such an ineffectual absolution ? what a miserable surprize will it be , for those who thought themselves pardoned by the priest to be condemned by christ ? though we deny such a place as purgatory , is not the fear of hell as good an argument to bring men to repentance ? or does it lessen the mercies of god , or the hope of sinners , to say , that god remits all future punishments , when he remits the sin ? but if the hopes of expiating their sins in purgatory , and of being prayed out of it , should embolden any man in sin , what a disappointment would it be to find their purgatory to be hell ? this is sufficient to shew , that we can suffer nothing by denying such doctrines as these , unless the causless anathema's of the church of rome can damn us ; but the hazard is so vastly great on the other side , the mistake will prove so fatal , if they be in a mistake , that nothing less than an infallible certainty can justifie the prudence of such a choice , and therefore it is not fit for such ▪ fallible creatures , as we own our selves to be , to venture on them . we are safe as we are , and we think it best to keep our selves so , though we had no other reason for it , but that it is good to be safe . thirdly , safe i say we are in rejecting these doctrines , unless they can prove , that by rejecting them we want something necessary to salvation . there are two things especially , wherein the romanists think they have the advantage of us , and for the sake of which some protestants are perswaded to forsake the communion of the church of england , for that of rome . that they eat the natural flesh of christ in the sacrament , and receive a judicial pardon of all their sins by the absolution of the priest ; which we confess we do not . now suppose it were necessary to salvation to eat the natural flesh of christ , and that christ would not forgive any man , who was not before forgiven by the priest , yet if these be the institutions of christ , we have them as well as they ; and no man need go out of the church of england for them . if the words of consecration , this is my body , do by the institution of christ transubstantiate the bread into the natural flesh of christ , these words must have the same effect , when pronounced by a priest of the church of england , as of the church of rome . and therefore if this were the intention of our saviour to give us his natural flesh to eat , we do eat it as much as they ; for we eat the consecrated elements , which are , whatever christ intended to make them by the words of consecration . for our not believing transubstantiation cannot hinder the virtue of consecration , if christ have so appointed it ; for the institutions of our saviour do not change their nature with mens opinions about them . thus penitents in the church of england may confess their sins to a priest , if they please , and receive absolution ; and if by the institution of our saviour , this is a judicial absolution , then they have it , and need not go to the church of rome for it . there are but two objections , that i know of , that can be made against this ; either that we have no true priests and bishops in the church of england , and therefore we have no consecration of the elements ; or that the intention of the priest is necessary to consecration , and nothing more is done , than what the priest intends to do ; and therefore no priest can transubstantiate , but he who intends to transubstantiate . 1. as for the first of these ; if there be no true priests and bishops in the church of england , there are none in the church of rome ; for our bishops and priests derive their succession from those bishops , who received orders in the communion of the church of rome , and therefore have as good orders as they could give , and as they themselves had ; and if we have as true bishops and priests as the church of rome , we must have as perfect sacraments as they also . 2. as for the intention of the priest ; that in the church of rome signifies no more , than to intend to do what the church does ; and why is not intending to do what christ does , as good and perfect an intention as this ? and thus we all intend to do what christ did ; which is all the intention that can be necessary to consecration , unless the private opinion of the priest can alter the nature of the institution . but the truth is , if the church of rome depends upon the intention of the priest for consecration , no papist can ever be sure that the bread is consecrated , and then to be sure it is not transubstantiated ; and therefore , i think , they may compound this business , and allow us transubstantiation , if we will allow it them . we want it not indeed , and care not for it ; but those who lay so much stress upon it , need not forsake the communion of the church of england for that reason ; at least have no reason to say , that we want any thing necessary to salvation . let us but observe the institution of our saviour , and we need not fear , but we shall receive all the spiritual blessings , which christ intended to convey to us in that sacrament ; which those can never be sure of , who do not observe the institution , but receive only a part of the lord's supper instead of the whole . were these things well considered , i perswade my self , no man would see any cause to forsake the communion of the church of england , where he has all things necessary to salvation , without oppressing his faith with doctrines hard to be believed , or endangering his soul by doubtful and suspicious practices at best . the index . the authority of a visible judge of no use in converting jews or pagans . 2 faith not resolved into the authority of a visible judge in the time of christ and his apostles . 3 though some passages in scripture are difficult , others are plain . 4 in what sense the scripture is plain . 5 whether the doctrine of the trinity be plainly revealed in scripture . 6 whether general councils have a power to determine matters of faith without appeal to every mans reason . 8 , 9 what authority we allow to councils . 10 , 11 the use of antiquity in expounding scripture . 12 the church of englands way of resolving of faith. 14 , 15 hereticks pretences to scripture no argument of the uncertainty of this way . 15 , 16 the church of romes pretences to antiquity . 16 , 17 what course people must take , who are not able to judge of the controversies in religion . 19. &c. the ignorance of common people only a pretence , not a reason for a judge of controversies . 26 , 27 a visible succession from the apostles no mark of an infallible church . 29 arguments against an infallible judge . 32 , 33 proofs that christ never intended to set up such a judge . 39 certainty in religion may be had without an infallible judge . 42 what evidence required in faith. 43 concerning the unity of the church . 46 an inquiry what certainty a papist can have . 5● whether the church of rome be guilty of damnable errors . 60 whether the church of england had authority to reform errors which are not damnable . 62 what is meant by the gates of hell not prevailing against the church . 63 whether we cannot know what books of scripture are canonical without a visible judge . 64 in what sense the church is one . 65 the apostolick churches the standard of catholick unity and communion . 67 what catholick communion is . 69 , 70 in what sense the church is called holy. 72 the church of england not guilty of schism . 73 that there is greater safety in communion with the church of england , than of the church of rome . 75 to the end . the end . a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england, and the church of rome being a vindication of several protestant doctrines, in answer to a late pamphlet intituled, protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 261 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 83 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59894 wing s3365 estc r22233 12685478 ocm 12685478 65754 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59894) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 65754) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 878:20) a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england, and the church of rome being a vindication of several protestant doctrines, in answer to a late pamphlet intituled, protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [10], 150, [4] p. printed for richard chiswell ..., london : 1687. reproduction of original in huntington library. attributed to william sherlock. cf. nuc pre-1956. table of contents: p. [3]-[10] errata: p. [10] advertisement: p. [1]-[4] at end. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. church of england -doctrines. protestancy destitute of scripture proofs. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-04 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur . junii 4. 1687. hen. maurice rr mo in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris . a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england , and the church of rome . being a vindication of several protestant doctrines , in answer to a late pamphlet intituled , protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . the contents . the state of the controversie . how far protestants demand scripture-proofs for all doctrines of religion . page 2 protestants do not reject all doctrines , which are not contained in express words of scripture . 3 but yet require express scripture-proofs for all necessary articles of faith , and therefore demand a scripture-proof for the new trent-articles , the belief of which is made necessary to salvation . 4 the silence of scripture sufficient to reject any doctrine as unscriptural . 5 concerning negative and affirmative articles , and the requester's blunder about them . 6 a review of the several protestant tenets , for which he demands a scripture-proof . i. whether the scripture be clear in all necessaries to every sober inquirer . the scripture proofs of it vindicated . 8 protestants do not reject the authority of church-guides , and the difference between a protestant and a popish guide . 10 ii. concerning the spiritual iurisdiction of the secular prince 11 iii. concerning iustification by faith alone . that justifying faith is a persuasion , that we are justified , is not the doctrine of the church of england . 12 , 13 iv. concerning the substance of bread and wine after consecration . whether these words , this is my body , can be literally understood . 14 , 15 v. concerning christ's presence in the eucharist . 16 what there is besides substance and efficacy belonging to our saviour's body and blood. 17 the difference between the vertues and efficacy of an institution , and the powers of nature . ibid. sacramental signs and symbols as effectual to all the purposes of a sacrament , as christ's natural flesh and blood could be . 18 , 19 what a sacrament of the lord's body means , and how distinguished from his natural flesh and blood. 20 how the communion of christ's body and blood in the eucharist differs from the meer influences of his grace . ibid. vi. concerning the adoration of christ in the eucharist , whether it be idolatry . to adore christ is not idolatry , to adore bread and wine is . 21 whether the eucharist be nothing else but christ ; and to adore the eucharist be only to adore christ. 22 vii . concerning communion in both kinds . the words of institution a plain scripture-proof of the necessity of it . 24 , 25 viii . whether chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated : this proved not to be the doctrine of the church of england . 26 the article concerning the marriage of priests , in edw. vi. and queen elizabeths reign , considered . 27 , 28 ix . whether all christian excellencies are commanded . 29 that gospel exhortations include a command . ibid. that the heights and perfections of vertue are commanded , and in what sense . 30 when you have done that is commanded you , say we are unprofitable servants , proved to be a plain confutation of the doctrine of supererogation . 33 the meaning of this question , whether all christian excellencies are commanded in scripture , and to what purpose it serves in the church of rome . 34 the meritorious works of the church of rome are not commanded by god , nor are they any christian excellencies . such as the monkish vows of poverty , coelibacy , and absolute obedience to superiors . 36 this showed particularly of the vow of poverty . ibid. and coelibacy . 37 and monkish obedience . ibid. & 38 x. whether every seul as soon as expired is conveyed to heav●n or hell. 39 concerning dives and lazarus , and s. paul's desire to be dissolved , and to be with christ. ibid. the doctrine of the council of trent concerning purgatory . 42 this more particularly explained from cardinal bellarmine . 43 , 44 the design of it to acquaint our people , what proofs they must demand for purgatory . 45 a middle state between death and iudgment , which is neither heaven nor hell , does not prove a popish purgatory . ibid. the primitive fathers did believe a middle state . 46 the difference between this and a popish purgatory . as , 1. that this they affirmed of all separate souls , that none were received into heaven before the resurrection . but purgatory is not for all souls , but for these only , who have not satisfied for their sins . 47 2. they affirm this separate state , not to be a state of punishment , as the popish purgatory is , but of ioy and felicity . 48 3. this is an unalterable state till the day of iudgment , and therefore no popish purgatory , out of which souls may be redeemed with prayers and alms. 50 the purgatory fire which the fathers speak of , does not prove a popish purgatory . 51 1. because that is not till the day of iudgment . s. austin's opinion of purgatory fire explained , and proved very different from the popish purgatory . 52 , &c. 2. all men , excepting christ himself , were to pass through the last fire , but the popish purgatory is not for all . 56 3. the popish purgatory fire is not for purgation ; but the fire at the day of iudgment , according to the ancient fathers , is . 57 origen's notion of a purgatory fire . 58 4. there is no redemption out of this fire by the prayers and alms of the living . which is upon all accounts the most comfortable thing in a popish purgatory . 60 the ancient practice of praying for souls departed , does not prove a popish purgatory . 61 the original of this practice of praying for the dead . ibid. and 62 the state of the controversies between aërius and epiphanius . 63 , &c. for what reasons the ancient christians prayed for the dead . 64 , &c. s. austin's account of the reasons of praying for the dead different from what the fathers before him gave 67 the custom of praying to the saints , which was then introduced , the occasion of this change . ibid. s. austin first made three distinctions of souls departed . ibid. and yet the popish purgatory cannot be proved from s. austin . 68 s. chrysostom's opinion of this matter different from s. austin's . 71 , &c. xi . concerning the intercessions of the saints in heaven for us . 74 the distinction between a mediator of redemption and intercession . 75 no sense in that distinction between a mediator of redemption and intercession . 77 this distinction contrary to the analogy both of the old and new testament . 78 the difference between the vertue of the sacrifice , the prayers of the people , and the intercession of the priest. 79 the difference between the prayers of good men for themselves and one another , and the intercession of a mediator . 81 to flie to the aid of saints in heaven derogates from the intercession of christ. 83 praying to saints in heaven more injurious to god , than to a mediator . 84 xii . concerning the worship paid to the cross and images . 86 whether the worship they pay to the cross and images , be no more than what we give to the bible . ibid. the reasons why some protestants have charged the worship of images with idolatry . 88 no alterations made in the law against worshipping images in the new testament . 92 the reasons of the second commandment , moral and eternal . 93 no material temple , much less an image allowed under the gospel . 95 the primitive church always understood the worship of images to be forbid under the gospel . 99 xiii . whether the pope be antichrist , and whether this be taught in the homilies of the church of england . ibid. xiv . concerning prayers and divine offices in the vulgar tongue . 101 the self-contradictions of this author . 102 whether s. paul in 1 cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue , not the setled forms of divine offices . 104 all the apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions . 105 as 1. that it is contrary to the edification of the church . ib. 2. that it contradicts the natural end and use of speech . 106 3. that it is contrary to the nature of prayer and religious worship , which must be a reasonable service . 107 whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship . 108 whether the people understand their prayers , though they are in latin , which they do not understand . 112 xv. concerning schism and separation . 114 separation from the errors of the church of rome is not a separation from the catholick church . 116 renouncing the supremacy of the bishop of rome no schism . ibid. such a supremacy not essential to catholick unity . 117 concerning the ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour churches and bishops into one body . ibid. in what cases a particular church may break off from such a body . 118 the popes supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general council . ibid. the church of england not originally subject to the bishop of rome as the western patriarch . 121 the difference between schism from the catholick church , and the breach of ecclesiastical communion . 122 to reform errors and corruptions in faith and worship can never , be a fault . 125 that the church of england does not separate from all other christian societies . 126 concerning communion in the eucharist and other religious assemblies . 129 what church we joyned in communion with , when we forsook the communion of the church of rome . 130 what church we made the pattern of our reformation . 131 in what sense the church of rome her self was the pattern of our reformation . 132 xvi . concerning the defection and apostasie of the clergy of the catholick church , and the reformation of the laity . 134 whether the whole clergy were against the reformation . 135 the popish clergy in the reign of king henry the eighth did own the king's supremacy and wrote for it . 136 , &c. we do not assert , that the church of rome has apostatized from fundamental truth and holiness . 138 whether all kind of idolatry be an apostasie from fundamental truth and holiness . 139 the nature of that argument to prove , that a thing is not , because it cannot be , when there is all other possible evidence to prove , that it is . 140 as that the church of rome has not erred , because she cannot err . 141 , &c. if the reformation be good , there can want no authority to reform . 147 the supreme authority of any nation has a regular authority to declare , what shall be the established religion of that nation , which is all that we attribute to kings and parliaments in such matters . 250 errata . pag. 53. l. 4. for now r. non . p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows . p. 14● . l. 14. dele upon . some faults there are in pointing , which i must leave to the reader to correct . a vindication of several protestant doctrines : being an answer to a late pamphlet entituled , protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs . that i have taken so little an occasion to write so big a book , i hope the reader upon his perusal will pardon . there is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our roman adversaries in this matter ; they can answer great books in two or three sheets , if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all , which they begin to be weary of : we answer two or three sheets in large books ; but then we have very different ends in writing too ; they to make a show of saying somewhat , to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils ; we , not only to answer our adversaries , which might be done in very few words , but , to instruct our people , which requires a more particular explication of the reasons of things . but i shall make no apology for my book , till i hear that it wants it ; for it may be some may think it , as much too little , as others too big . he begins very regularly with the state of the controversie between us , to prove sixteen protestant tenets ( as he calls them ) by plain scripture ; scriptures , but so plain to us , for their doctrines , as they require to be yielded them by the catholique church for hers . what will be thought plain by them , is a very hard matter to guess , when it seems , the second commandment it self is not thought by them a plain scripture-proof against image-worship , and i despair of ever finding a plainer proof in scripture for or against any thing . but i told him in answer to his request ( p. 17. ) that we desire no other proofs from them , but what we are ready to give , either the express words of scripture , or plain and evident consequence , or the silence of scripture , to prove that any doctrine is not in it . and though they may reasonably demand of us , what we demand of them , yet they cannot reasonably demand more : and whether i have not done him justice in this way , shall be examined again under the several articles of his request . in the next paragraph he mightily despises the answer , and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice , and expected , if not more pertinent , yet at least more plausible replies to follow , and i can assure him , that he was very ill advised , that he did not despise and expect on ; for his reply has given some credit and authority to that answer , and has now produced a book , which if he be wise , he will despise too ; though i hope it will convince him , that protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence , which i do not find them much inclined to at present . but let us consider the state of the question . in answer to the request to prove some protestant tenets by plain scripture , i told him this was a false representation of our doctrine ; for though we do make the scripture the rule of our faith , yet we do not pretend to own no doctrine , but what is contained in the express words of scripture . our church teaches us , art. 6. that holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man , that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . where our church distinguishes between what is read in the scripture , that is , contained in express words there , and what may be proved thereby , that is , by plain and necessary consequence , from what is expresly taught in scripture ; and yet confines such proof as this only to articles of faith , or what is thought requisite or necessary to salvation . and the true reason of this is , that the church of england teaches the sufficiency of the holy scriptures to salvation , which is the very title of this article , and therefore all things necessary to be believed to salvation must be contained in express words in scripture , or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence ; which shows , that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from scripture , but what we teach for an article of faith , or as necessary to salvation . this is the reason , why we demand a scripture-proof from the church of rome for the new articles of the trent faith ; for if the belief of them be necessary to salvation , as they say they are , then either the scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation , or they are bound to show , where these doctrines are contained in scripture . for this reason the church of england , which owns the sufficiency of the scripture to salvation , rejects all those doctrines , which the church of rome without any proof from scripture teaches as necessary to salvation ; and this we think reason enough to reject them , that they are not contained in scripture , which contains all things necessary to salvation . now our author , and some of his size , who don 't see half a consequence before them , think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their doctrines , which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them : that is to say , as we demand of them a scripture-proof , that there is such a place as purgatory , they think , they may as reasonably demand of us a scripture-proof , that there is no such place as purgatory ; just with as much reason as if one should tell me , that by the laws of england every man is bound to marry at twenty years old , and when i desire him to show me the law which makes this necessary , he should answer , though he cannot show such a law , yet it may be necessary , unless i can show him a law which expresly declares , that it is not necessary : whereas nothing is necessary , but what the law makes so ; and if the law has not made it necessary , there is no need of any law to declare , that it is not necessary . thus the protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of scriptures to salvation , requires us to produce a plain scripture-proof for every thing , which we believe necessary to salvation ; but it does not require a scripture-proof , that that is not necessary to salvation , which the scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to salvation : for if the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation , it is a sufficient proof , that such doctrines are not necessary to salvation , which are not contained in the scriptures : unless we think , that the scripture must before-hand confute all possible heresies , which might arise in the church , and tell us particularly in all points , what we must not believe , as well as what we must . this i observed was the case , as to those articles of the church of england , which are opposed to the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome , that they are negative articles , and a negative article only rejects such doctrines from being articles of faith , as are not contained in scripture , and it is ridiculous to demand a plain scripture-proof , that such a doctrine is not in scripture . we believe it is not there , because we cannot find it there , and those who pretend it is there , cannot show it there ; which is proof enough , and all that the subject is capable of . this is what our author attempts an answer to in the preceding paragraph , and first , he says , that those of the thirty nine articles , which are opposed to catholick religion ( so he calls the popish corruptions of christianity ) contain affirmative propositions , or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives . what then ? is the dispute about the terms wherein the article is conceived , whether they be negative or affirmative ? or about the reason , why it is either affirmed or denied , viz. that such a doctrine is not taught in scripture ? for this is all i meant by a negative article , that we deny such a doctrine to be contained in scripture . now suppose i should say , there is no such place as purgatory , which is a negative proposition , or that purgatory is a late and fond invention , which is affirmative , what difference is there between them ? when they both resolve into this , that purgatory is not taught in scripture ; and therefore the question is still the same , whether the article be expressed affirmatively or negatively , and no man can be bound to prove by plain and express scripture , that purgatory is not taught in scripture . well! but though for a negative , or every non-assent or suspence of assent , a reason may not be given or required , yet for belief , for a solemn profession , subscription and swearing of that belief ( whether it be of negatives or affirmatives ) a reason may be assigned and required . what glorious and triumphant nonsence is here ? how does a negative article and non-assent come to be the same thing ? for we protestants use to give our assent to negative articles : and why are not men bound to give a reason of their non-assent , as well as of their assent ? and how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent , than they are of their bare non-assent ? and who ever dreamt , that men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent , and of their profession of non-assent ? and lastly , what is all this to the purpose of demanding express proofs of scripture , that such doctrines , as suppose purgatory , or the invocation of saints , &c. are not taught in scripture ? and why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent , or declared and professed denial of such doctrines , that it does not appear , that they are taught in scripture ? but the request , he says , proposed only affirmatives ; and they have been considered and answered already , and his defence shall be considered again without any fencing or tergiversation . but the thirty nine articles not only declare , that the opposite affirmatives are not in scripture ( for they may not be there , and yet be true ) ( but if they be not there , we cannot know they are true , much less can they be articles of faith , and necessary to salvation ) but also that they are rather , and plainly repugnant to scripture ; this i confess does require a scripture-proof , that a doctrine is not only not in the scripture , but repugnant to it ; but then a plain and evident consequence from something else , which is taught in scripture , is all the proof , which can be expected in such cases , and this we are ready to give , when our author shall demand it . and now would not any one wonder , how from these premises he concludes , that he has shewn protestants obliged to give scripture-reasons for their belief of negatives ; that is , if he will speak to the purpose , that we are obliged to prove from plain and express texts of scripture , that those doctrines which we reject as unscriptural , are not contained in scripture ; we must prove from scripture , that that is not in scripture , which we say is not in it ; which may be done indeed by a negative argument , from the silence of scripture about it , but is not capable of a direct and positive proof . let us now take a review of his several protestant doctrines , for which he demands a scripture-proof , and see wherein the answer was defective . i. scripture is clear in all necessaries to every sober inquirer . in answer to this i observed , that every plain text of scripture proved its own plainness , and that as it needs no other proof , no more than we need a proof , that the sun shines , when we see it ; so if we did not find it plain , no other argument or testimony could prove it to be plain : but this he takes no notice of , but only endeavours to weaken two scripture testimonies , which , i said , do by a very easie and natural consequence prove the plainness of scripture ; for if the word of god be a light unto our feet , and a lamp unto our paths , then it must be clear , if light be clear , psalm 119. 105. if it be able to make men wise unto salvation , 2 tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to salvation : to which he answers , that these texts do not reach the proposition to be proved : for if the word were a light to the prophet david ' s feet , if all scripture be given , that the man of god may be perfect , yet a perspicuity of scripture in all necessaries to every sober inquirer , cannot be deduced thence , except every sober inquirer be a prophet , or a man of god , or at least subject to such : as if none but prophets or apostles could understand the scripture ? but i thought light had been visible to all men , that have eyes in their heads : and i am sure the same prophet tells us , that the law of the lord is perfect , converting the soul , the testimony of the lord is sure , making wise the simple : the statutes of the lord are right , rejoycing the heart , the commandment of the lord is pure , enlightning the eyes , psalm . 19. 7 , 8. is this spoken only of prophets too ? are there no other souls to be converted , no other simple people to be made wise , no other hearts to be rejoyced , no other eyes to be enlightned , but only theirs ? and when s. paul tells timothy , from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation ( which was the place i cited ) does this prove , that none but a man of god ( for which he exchanges it , though that is not in the 15. but 17. verse ) can understand the scriptures , when it seems , timothy understood them , when he was a child ? however thus much he must grant in his own way , that the scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to salvation ; for otherwise a man of god , the pastors and teachers of the church , could not understand them , if they be not so plain , that they may be understood ; and if the scriptures be plain and intelligible in themselves , then he must grant , that at least all men of parts , and learning , and industry , who are sober and honest inquirers , may understand them as well as divines , unless he will say , that divines understand them not by the use of their reason and wise consideration , but by inspiration and prophecy ; and then it is not the scripture , but the inspired interpretation of it , which makes men wise unto salvation . at least he must grant , that the scriptures can make any other man of god perfect , as well as the pope ; for this is not spoke of s. peter and his successors only , but of timothy , and any other man of god ; and therefore there is no need , that all other bishops and pastors should depend on the pope , as an infallible oracle . nay if the scriptures are able to make the man of god perfect in the discharge of his ministry , of which s. paul here speaks , for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness , then the people also , who are to be taught , may be made to understand the scriptures , the doctrines , reproofs , and instructions of it ; for as the scripture is the teachers rule , so it is his authority too ; and if the people cannot be taught to understand the scriptures in things necessary to salvation , they cannot know , that such things are in scripture ; which destroys the divine authority of the preacher . for what he teaches without scripture , can only have his own authority , or the authority of other men like himself : and yet no man can tell , whether what he teaches be in the scripture , who cannot in some measure understand the scripture himself ; and if a divine faith must be founded upon the authority of scripture , which is the only divine authority we now have ; and no man can believe upon the authority of scripture , who cannot understand it ; then it is as necessary , that all things necessary to salvation should be so plain in scripture , that all persons at least with the help of a guide , should understand them ; as it is , that all , even the meanest men , should know all things necessary to their salvation . for it is a scandal to the protestant profession to say , that we reject the authority of church guides , which we own as well as the church of rome ; only with this difference , that the church of rome will have men believe their guides without reason or understanding ; we have guides not merely to dictate to us , but to teach us to understand . as the masters in other arts and sciences do ; who explain the reasons of things to their scholars , till they attain to a great mastery and perfection of knowledge themselves : and if by the help of such a teaching , not an imposing , guide , men may understand the scripture in all things necessary to salvation , then the scripture is plain and intelligible , though an unlearned man cannot understand it without a guide ; as mathematical demonstrations are certainly plain , if any thing be plain , though unskilful men cannot understand them without a master ; but that is clear and plain in it self , which can be explained to every ordinary apprehension ; and such we assert the scriptures to be in all necessaries . learned men can by their own studies and inquiries understand the true sense of them ; and the unlearned can be taught to understand them ; and this is the use we make of our guides , not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding ; but to inform our judgments , that we may be able to see and understand for our selves . thus our saviour taught his disciples , he opened their understandings , that they might understand the scriptures ; thus the apostles and primitive doctors instructed the world , by expounding the scriptures to them , which does not signifie merely to tell them , what the sense of scripture is , and requiring them to believe it ; but showing them out of the scriptures , that this is , and must be , the true sense of it ; and we need not fear , that protestancy should suffer any thing from such guides as these , though the church of rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them . ii. the secular prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under god. here , he says , i behave my self , as if i were under apprehensions , and durst neither own nor reject this tenet , and yet in my answer , i expresly show , what the church of england means by the kings supremacy in ecclesiastical causes ; which signifies no more than that the king is supreme in his own dominions , and therefore there is no power , neither secular nor ecclesiastick , above him ; for if there were , he were not supreme . and this i said might be proved from rom. 13. 1. let every soul be subject to the higher powers : to which he answers , that this proves more than i grant . it proves ministring the word and sacraments to belong to the higher powers . how so ? yes this it does , unless ministring the word and sacraments be not a soul affair , be no act of power . learnedly observed ! because every soul must be subject to the higher powers , therefore the king has all power in soul-affairs , and therefore of ministring the word and sacraments : but if every soul only signifie every man ( without excepting the pope himself ) then i suppose all ecclesiasticks as well as secular persons are included in it ; and if all must be subject to the king , then the king is supreme over all ; but things are at a low ebb in the church of rome , when such silly quibbles must pass for arguments . iii. iustification by faith alone ( viz. a persuasion that we are justified ) is a wholsome doctrine . in answer to this i denied , that our church teaches , that justifying faith is a persuasion , that we are justified . he grants , that some of the church of england have condemned it ( p. 4. ) but yet he may as justly charge us with it , as we charge the church of rome with doctrines contrary to their general councils , and constant profession ; and we grant he may , for if such things be done , they are very unjust both in him and us ; we deny , that we do any such thing , and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation ; let him do as much for himself if he can . but cranmer was of this mind , by whom the articles were devised ; but how does that appear ? and if he were , what is that to us , when there is no such thing in our articles ? will he allow the council of trent to be expounded according to the private opinions of every bishop , that was in it ? the antinomians plead the doctrine of the eleventh article , as the parent of their irreligion , and so they do the scriptures : and what then ? will he hence infer , that the scriptures countenance antinomianism , because they alledge scripture for it ? and why then must this be charged upon our articles ? though what some may have done , i cannot tell , but antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our articles . but the strictest adherers to the primitive reformers in doctrine ( the puritans ) assert this solifidian parenthesis , as the genuine and literal sense of iustification by faith alone , and of the eleventh article : why the puritans the strictest adherers to the primitive reformers in doctrine ? but we need not ask a reason of his sayings , who understands nothing about what he speaks : for the puritans did not and do not believe , that justifying faith is a persuasion , that we are justified , but they place justifying faith in an act of recumbency on christ for salvation , and dispute vehemently against his notion of it . but , he says , i might have given them a text asserting , what i confess our church teaches , viz. that justification by faith only is a wholesome doctrine , and very full of comfort , which intimates no necessity of repentance to iustification , none of the sacraments . yes it does , and of good works too , as the conditions of our justification , though not as the meritorious causes of it ; for all this our church comprehends in the notion of a living faith , which alone justifies ; and then i suppose as many texts as there are , which attribute our justification to faith , so many proofs there are , that justification by faith alone , as opposed to all meritorious works , is a wholesome doctrine , and very full of comfort . iv. the substance of bread and wine remains after , what it was before , sacerdotal consecration . here he takes no notice of any one word , which i returned in answer : the sum of which is , that the material substance before and after consecration is the same , that is , that they are bread and wine still , but by vertue of christ's institution , after consecration they are not mere bread and wine , but a sacrament of our redemption by christ's death , and to such as rightly and worthily , and by faith receive the same , the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of christ , as our church teaches : and this i proved must be the sense of the words of institution , this is my body , and urged such arguments for it in short , as he durst not name again , much less pretend to answer ; but instead of that he endeavours to prove ( p. 5. ) that the words of institution , this is my body literally understood , do expresly prove , that the substance of bread does not remain at all after consecration : for the eucharist is christ's body and blood , which if substantially bread and wine , it cannot really be . a change less than that of the substance of the elements , is insufficient to render them really and truly , what the text says they are , after consecration . but did not i give him my reasons , why these words could not be understood literally of the natural body and blood of christ ? and is it enough then for him to say , that in a literal sense , they must signifie a substantial change of the bread and wine into christ's natural body and blood , without answering , what i urged against it ? and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so : for if this refers to the bread , which our saviour took , and blessed and brake , ( and it can refer to nothing else ) then the literal sense of the words is , this bread is my body ; and if bread be the body of christ , then the substance of the bread cannot be changed , for bread cannot be the body of christ , if it be not bread. let him choose , which he will , either this signifies this bread , or it does not : if it does , then the bread cannot be substantially changed ; for the bread is the body of christ , and therefore is bread still , is bread and the body of christ too ; if it does not , then how does he prove , that the words of consecration in a literal sense , transubstantiate the bread into the body of christ ? for this does not signifie the bread , and therefore this is my body cannot signifie , that the substance of bread is transubstantiated into christ's body . i wonder our author is not ashamed at this time of day to talk at this rate , after somany excellent books as have been written upon this argument ; to save my self any farther trouble , i shall direct my reader to the late dialogues about the trinity and transubstantiation , and the discourse of the holy eucharist in the two great points of the real presence and the adoration of the host ; where he will find abundant satisfaction also to the two next points , which follow . v. our lord's presence in the eucharist is merely gracious and influential , and if more , only to the faithful . in answer to this i shewed him , what we meant by christ's presence in the eucharist , that he is so present , that his body and blood , with all the benefits of his death and passion , are exhibited to worthy receivers , as much as he could have been had we eat his natural flesh and drank his blood , which is somewhat more than the mere influences of his grace : but , he saies , i assert our lords eucharistical presence not to be substantial , that is , i suppose , that the natural substance of his body is not there , and therefore that he is not corporally present ; and this indeed i do assert . therefore ( says he ) unless intirely absent , our lord must be present in the eucharist by grace and influence only : what is there besides substance and efficacy belonging to our saviour's body and blood ? no colour of scripture is produced for this zuinglian proposition . if he will allow no medium between christ's corporal and substantial presence , and his grace and influence ; since it is demonstrable , that he is not corporally present , we must in this sense allow , that he is present only by his grace and influence , as that is opposed to a corporal presence . and all men must allow this , who deny transubstantiation , or consubstantiation . but what is there besides substance and efficacy belonging to our saviour's body and blood ? i answer , there can be nothing naturally belonging to any body besides its substance , and natural vertues and powers , which he calls its efficacy ; but by institution there may ; and we take the sacrament of the lord's supper to be an institution , and therefore not to have a natural , but instituted vertue and efficacy . for the very notion of an institution is , that all the vertues and efficacy of it is not owing to nature , but to the will and appointment of god. whatever is a natural power , is no institution , no sacrament ; for the effect there is wholly owing to nature , not to god's appointment , which acts by a power and influence superior to nature . which , i think , is little less than a demonstration , that the natural body and blood of christ is not substantially present in the eucharist ; for whatever efficacy and vertue we attribute to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of christ , it is either a natural effect of this eating the body and drinking the blood of christ , or it is not . if it be , then it is no sacrament , which works not by the powers of nature , but of institution . if it be not , what need is there of christ's bodily presence in the sacrament ? when a sacramental body of christ , consecrated bread and wine , to represent and exhibit his broken body and his bloodshed for us , by vertue of an institution , may be as effectual to all the ends and purposes of a sacrament , as his natural body could be ; which can have no sacramental efficacy , but by vertue of an institution . the benefits we expect from this sacramental feeding on christ's body , is an interest in the merits of his death and passion , viz. the forgiveness of our sins , the communications of his grace and spirit , and a right to immortal life . now i would desire to know , whether these are the natural effects of a corporal eating christ's natural body ? he purchased all this for us indeed by his death and passion ; but is pardon of sin , which is god's free and gracious act , incorporated with christ's natural body ? and will a corporal eating of his body communicate it to us ? do the communications of grace and spiritual life flow from the body , or from the spirit of christ ? is it the contact of his body , that makes our bodies immortal , or the inhabitation of his spirit in us ? what is that efficacy then , which he attributes to christ's natural body , and supposes to be inherent in it ? a natural efficacy , such as can belong to human bodies , signifies nothing to the purposes of a sacrament , and there can be no other efficacy inherent in christ's natural body ; unless he will say , that pardon of sin , and spiritual grace , and a power of making other bodies immortal , are the inherent and essential properties of christ's body . but suppose it were so ; how can the mere presence of christ's natural body in the sacrament , which we neither see , nor touch , nor eat , communicate all these divine vertues to us ? for if it be by natural communication , it must be by contact ; for bodies have no other way of working upon each other ; and yet they will not allow , that we touch the body of christ , no more than that we see it ; or that we break it between our teeth , or chew it , or digest it in our stomachs , that is , they will not allow , that we naturally eat it ; and then how can it naturally communicate its vertues to us ? so that though the natural body of christ were present in the sacrament , those divine graces we expect from it , must be the effects of a sacramental institution , not of nature ; and therefore the natural presence of christ's body is of no use in the sacrament ; for god may as well annex all the benefits of his death and passion to the sacramental signs of his body and blood , as to his natural body ; and the power and efficacy of the institution will be the same either way . and when the natural presence of christ's body in the eucharist is so absolutely impossible , such a contradiction to the sense and reason of man kind , and of no use to the purposes of a sacrament , but what may as well be otherwise supplied ; and the sacramental eating of christ's body in efficacious signs is so easie and intelligible , and by the power of an institution equally effectual , and so agreeable to the nature of all other institutions and sacraments both of the old and new testament , what should incline men to expound those words of our saviour , this is my body , of his natural body , contrary to all the sacramental forms of speech used in scripture , did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions . to return then a more direct answer to our author's question , what there is besides substance and efficacy belonging to our saviour's body ? i answer , by nature there is nothing else , but by institution there is ; for there is the sacrament of the lord's body , which is neither the natural substance , nor the natural efficacy of his body , but a sacramental communion in the merits and efficacy of his death and passion , which is a spiritual eating the flesh and drinking the blood of christ. and since he wants scripture for this , i will give him a very piain text , 1 cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ. thus s. paul explains , what our saviour said , this is my body , and , this is my blood , by this is the communion of christ's body and blood : that is , that those , who by faith partake of the sacramental bread and wine , do communicate in the body and blood of christ. this is a different thing from the mere influences of his grace ; for it is our interest and communion in his sacrifice , which is the meritorious cause and spring of all divine influences and communications : we must be mystically and spiritually united to christ to have communion in the sacrifice of his body and blood , and then we receive the fresh supplies of grace from him , which are the purchase of his death , and the effect of our union to him ; and this communion with the body and blood of christ , we receive in the lord's supper , which is instituted by christ , for that very purpose , and therefore it is called the communion of the body and blood of christ ; because it is the sacrament of our union to him , whereby we communicate in his body and blood ; and if this be zuinglianism , i see no help for it , but we must be contented to be zuinglians . vi. adoration of the eucharist , ( i. e. of our saviour under the species of bread and wine ) is idolatry . i answered ; there was no such proposition as this taught in the church of england . we teach indeed , that bread and wine in the eucharist remains bread and wine after consecration , and that to adore bread and wine is idolatry . to adore our saviour is no idolatry , but to adore bread and wine for our saviour may be as much idolatry , as to worship the sun for god. instead of answering this he tells us , this blasphemous tenet is taught by our church , and which is a little worse , is practised by theirs . for the majority of our pretended bishops did vote for the test , and do all of them take it , and i hope will keep it too . that it is a canon of our general council , the parliament ; and therefore it is very good law , and that is all we desire for our religion from parliaments , and thank god that we have it ; and since they are a general council , may they insist upon their infallibility . but what is the matter with the test ? why , it declares our adoration of the eucharist ( which is the adoration of nothing but iesus christ ) to be idolatry . is the eucharist then nothing but jesus christ ? does the council of trent say so ? is this the doctrine of any of their schoolmen , canonists , or divines ? nay , will this author venture to say , that the eucharist is nothing but jesus christ himself ? which is speck and span new popery , if this be the doctrine of the church of rome . no! he does not , dares not , say , that the eucharist is nothing , but jesus christ ; but he says , that the adoration of the eucharist , is the adoration of nothing but iesus christ. but what palpable nonsence is this ; for if the eucharist be something , which is not jesus christ , then the adoration of the eucharist must be the adoration of something , which is not jesus christ. and yet though we should suppose the doctrine of transubstantiation to be true , yet the natural flesh and blood of christ , according to the doctrine of the council of trent , though it be present in the sacrament , is not the sacrament . for there can be no sacrament of the eucharist without the species of bread and wine : and yet the council of trent decrees , that the worship of latria , which is due to the true god , be given to this most holy sacrament : and that we might know , what they meant by the sacrament , they tell us , it is that , which is instituted by christ , to be received or eaten , which certainly is the species of bread and wine : for they being sensible , how absurd it is to worship , what we eat , to prevent this , they tell us , that it is nevertheless to be adored , because it is instituted to be received , or eaten . the reason indeed they give for it is , because christ is present in this sacrament ; but though the presence of christ be the reason of this adoration , yet the whole sacrament is the object , which is not merely the natural body and blood of christ , but the species of bread and wine , under which is contained the body and blood of christ ; and therefore to adore the sacrament is not to adore nothing but iesus christ , for the sacrament is somewhat more . but then if the doctrine of transubstantiation be false , they have no other object of their worship but bread and wine ; and thus the church of england believes , and thus our general council the parliament , which made the test , believed , and thus all men , who dare trust their own senses , and reason , believe ; and if it be blasphemy to teach , that the worship of bread and wine is idolatry , some of the m●st learned divines of the church of rome have been guilty of this blasphemy , and i should be glad to hear , what our authors opinion is of it . vii . all christians , whenever they communicate , are obliged to receive in both kinds . for this i urged the express words of institution , which do as expresly command us to drink of the cup , as to eat of the bread ; so that if there be any command in scripture to receive the bread , there is the same command to receive the cup : nay indeed as if our saviour had purposely intended to prevent this sacrilegious taking away of the cup from the people ; whereas in delivering the bread , he only says , take , eat ; when he blessed and delivered the cup , he expresly commanded ; drink ye . all of it . and i further argued from the nature of the eucharist , which as it was instituted in both kinds , so it is not a compleat sacrament without it : and yet our author rubs his forehead , and confidently tells his readers ; nor for this point can a scripture command be discovered in the answer . though the thirtieth article affirms , that both parts of the lords sacrament , by christ's ordinance and commandment , ought to be ministred to all christian men alike : what he means by this i cannot guess ; for if he will not allow an express institution , to be a scripture-proof ; i despair of ever finding a scripture-proof for any thing ; unless he can tell me , what proof there can be of an institution , but the words of institution : does this institution then contain a command to receive the eucharist ? if it does not , how does he prove , that all christians are bound to receive the eucharist ? if it does , then take , eat ; is a command to receive the bread : and by the same reason , drink ye all of this , is a command to all to receive the cup ; and both these being a part of the same feast , and commanded at the same time ; our church had reason to say , that both parts of the lord's sacrament , by christ's ordinance and commandment , ought to be administred to all christian men alike . the church of rome thinks the words of institution a plain and necessary command to consecrate in both kinds , without which they grant it is not a sacrament ; now what other command have they for consecrating , than we have for receiving in both kinds ? the words of institution are all that we have about this matter ; and let them give me reason , how the same words come to signifie consecration , but not receiving , in both kinds ? nay they grant that the priest who consecrates must receive as well as consecrate in both kinds ; and yet the institution is in the same form of words , without making any distinction between the priest and the people ; and how the same words should command the priest to receive in both kinds , and not the people , is somewhat mysterious . i am apt to think , that the fathers of the council of constance , who decreed the communion in one kind with a non obstante to our saviour's institution , did suspect , that there was a scripture-proof for communion in both kinds , or there had been no need to have made an exception to our saviour's institution , and to have set up the authority of the church against it . the church of rome allows , that it is lawful for the people to communicate in both kinds , and have reserved this authority of granting such a liberty to the pope , now how can it be lawful , unless christ has allowed it , and where has he allowed it , unless in the words of institution ; and they prove more than allowance , even a command ; if , drink ye all of this , be of the imperative mood . viii . chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated . this , i said , is no doctrine of our church , nor are protestants now concerned in it , though some of the monks and nuns at the beginning of the reformation were : and though i did not undertake a just defence of the marriages of such devoted persons , yet i offered several things in apology for them ; and said so much , that our author did not think fit to make any reply to it , but only answers to my denial , that this is a doctrine of our church : he says , this proposition is a doctrine of the answerers church , except his be not the same church with edward the sixths , or the thirty second article have another sense , than when composed by cranmer : for all bishops and priests then in the western church had deliberately vowed chastity , and the article says , it is lawful for them to marry , which certainly violates their vow . no scripture is alledged justifying a tenet , so impure , so persidious . thus by consequence he proves , that it is the doctrine of our church , that chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated ; because in k. edward the sixth and archbishop cranmer's days , it was the doctrine of this church , that the bishops and priests then in being , who had deliberately vowed chastity , might notwithstanding marry . but suppose this was not the doctrine in king edward's days , what becomes then of his consequence ? and yet this is the truth of the case . for the article then only taught , that bishops , priests , and deacons , are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage ; neither by god's law are they compelled to abstain from matrimony : but there is not one word , whether those , who were bishops and priests at that time , and were under the vow of coelibacy ( though every priest , as a priest , was not by the laws of this church , bound to undertake such a vow , though they were forbid by the canons to marry ) might marry or not . for though the article asserts , that they were not compelled by god's law , to abstain from matrimony ; yet it does not say , that they could not debar themselves this liberty by voluntary vows ; or that if they had done so , they might inoffensively break those vows , which is a very different question . indeed in queen elizabeths reign in the convocation held at london , 1562. this article is enlarged . bishops , priests , and deacons , are not commanded by god's law either to vow the estate of single life , or to abstain from marriage . therefore it is lawful also for them , as for all other christian men , to marry at their own discretion , as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness . but this article does not say , that those bishops and priests , who were entangled with a vow of coelibacy might lawfully marry , but only their being bishops and priests was no hindrance to their marriage : whether there was any other impediment , it concerned them to consider ; but these obligations of vows , which any of them were then under , being a personal thing ; the present decision of that controversie was not thought fit to be made an article of religion . so that though some particular persons were at that time concerned in this question , yet the doctrine of our church , never was concerned in it ; for there never was any synodical definition of it ; and therefore there is no need of producing scripture-proofs for it . but yet notwithstanding this , i am far from condemning those bishops and priests , and nuns , and friers , who did then marry ; for i am sure a chast marriage is more acceptable to god , than an impure coelibacy : and those abominations which were discovered at the dissolution of monasteries , were enough to make men abhor such vows of chastity , as he calls them : and i am very much of the opinion , that it were still better for priests to marry , than to debauch their penitents or converts . thus much for his impure and perfidious tenet . ix . all christian excellencies are commanded . this , i told him , i thought s. paul had determined , philip. 4. 8. whatsever things are true , whatsoever things are honest , &c. think on these things . for if these general expressions do not comprehend all christian excellencies , i know not what does . to this he answers , unless besides comprehending , it command them , that scripture will not prove the tenet . and the mode of expression ( that is , its being in the imperative mood , think on these things ) does not prove it to be a command , because it is common to an exhortation as well as precept . suppose this , then at least it may be a command , as well as an exhortation , and he can never prove , that it is not a command , and therefore can never confute any man , who says it is a command . but suppose it be an exhortation ; i thought that the exhortations of the gospel , had always included a command ; and i desire one instance of any exhortation in scripture , which relates to things necessarily good or evil , which does not include a command . indeed the stile of the gospel does not run in the form of laws , but of exhortatory commands , enforced with reasons and arguments to perswade ; and it is an effectual way to baffle all the precepts of the gospel , if such exhortations as are made in common to all christians , have not the force of a command . but i observed farther , that whatever virtues are commanded , we must always reckon , that the heights and perfections of those virtues are commanded , for god can command nothing less than a perfect vertue ; and if this be true , then all christian excellencies must be commanded ; unless they be such excellencies as are no vertues , which i fear may be the case . all christian virtues are commanded in scripture , without any bounds or limitations set to our duty ; and i always thought , that justice , and goodness , and charity , meekness and humility , temperance and chastity , the love of god and men , did signifie perfect virtues , and a perfect virtue must be perfect in degrees , as well as in its kind ; and the gospel is so far from limiting our duty , that it makes the divine nature it self our pattern and example . that we must be followers of god , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , imitators of god , like dear children . and that we must be perfect as our father , which is in heaven , is perfect ; which advances our duty to the utmost possible attainments in virtue . but then i added , that the attainment of the highest perfections in virtue is not made the necessary condition of our salvation . though a perfect virtue be commanded , yet for christ's sake a sincere , though imperfect , obedience shall be accepted . but the more perfect and excellent virtue shall have the more perfect and excellent reward ; which is reason enough for us to aspire after the greatest perfections . and yet those degrees of perfection , which we are bound to attain to , must bear some proportion to what we have received from god. for to whom much is given , of them shall be much required . which shows , that such attainments as bear proportion to our receipts , shall be exacted from us as a just debt ; which may make different degrees of virtue in different men matter of strict duty . this , our author says , imports , that proportion , not equality must be in our accounts to our abilities . this i do not well understand ; for an equal proportion is an equality . but this , he says , does not agree with this doctrine , that we must always reckon the heights and perfections of virtues are commanded . his reason for it is this : the account corresponds to our abilities ( so sure does the command ) but all abilities are not the same in all ; how then can god's commands be so to all , as they are , if he always enjoyns the heights and perfections of virtues ? the account , he says , corresponds with our abilities , and therefore the command must : but how does he prove this . god will accept of us , according to our abilities , which is an act of grace and favour , and owing to the merits and intercession of christ ; and therefore his commands too , which are the eternal and unalterable rules of righteousness , must be proportioned to our abilities : as if god might not in grace and mercy accept of less , than in justice he can require ; or as if it became a holy and perfect being to command less , than a perfect virtue . but all abilities are not the same , how then can god's commands be so to all ? that is , the same to all men. and are not his commands the same to all men ? do his commands differ , as mens abilities do ? how many several gospels , and several laws , then must we have ? and where do we find these several commands proportioned to mens several abilities ? we have but one gospel , that i know of , and the laws of it , are the same to all ; and it is necessary it should be so ; that all men may know , that they are bound to be as good as they can ; and not absolve themselves from any degrees of virtue , as above their abilities ; and therefore not commanded them by god : this is what god will do himself , when he comes to judge the world ; he will mercifully consider , whether men have done , what they could , and will accept of a little , when it is their best ; but we must know , that it is our duty to do all the good we can , and therefore that the law requires the most perfect virtue ; which will engage us to do our best , and use our utmost endeavours to , please god ; and then depend on his grace to accept our sincere endeavours instead of perfection . had i indeed said , that god had made the heights and perfections of virtue absolutely necessary to the salvation of all men , then he might have confuted me from our saviour's rule of proportion , to whom much is given , of them shall be much required : but this i expresly denied , that every man should be damned , who does not attain to the highest perfections . and expresly affirmed , that a sincere christian shall be saved , notwithstanding his many defects , but our reward shall be proportioned to our several degrees and attainments in virtue . that the most perfect virtue shall have the most excellent reward . and this is enough to confound the pretence of merit , and works of supererogation ; especially that sensless doctrine of one man's meriting for another ; which is the foundation of popish indulgences . for if the most perfect virtue be matter of duty , and under command , how is it possible , that any man can do more than his duty ? unless he can do something better than the best . and if our reward be proportioned to our best actions , what redundancy of merits can there be , when all the good we do , is so amply rewarded ? thus , i observed , our church confuted the popish doctrine of supererogation , from what our saviour tells his disciples , when ye have done all , that are commanded to you , say we are unprofitable servants . to this our author answers , if to supererogate did signifie ( with catholicks ) to profit god , then the fourteenth article ( condemning the teachers of works of supererogation , of arrogance and impiety ) had been solidly founded on , when you have done all that are commanded to you , say we are unprofitable servants . but we meaning no such thing , the article perverts scripture . this is an admirable answer , which does somewhat more than pervert , for it ridicules the text. for might not the disciples have answered our saviour , as this disputer does , we are not so silly , as to think , we can profit god , but yet we may supererogate , and deserve some thanks from him . it is true , god being infinitely happy and perfect in himself , we can make no addition to him , and therefore cannot in a strict sense profit him ; nor therefore could our saviour understand it in this sense ; but as that servant may be said to profit his master , and to deserve thanks , who does more than is his duty , so might we be said to be profitable servants , could we also supererogate , or do more than is our duty ; and here our saviour's argument lies ; that when we have done all that is commanded us , all the good , that we can possibly do , yet we must confess our selves unprofitable servants , because we have done nothing , but what was our duty : and if the apostles themselves did , and could do , no more than was their duty , i think our church might very well charge these teachers of works of supererogation with arrogance and impiety ; if to advance themselves above the apostles be arrogance , and to make god a debtor to them be impiety . but that our people may a little understand the weight and moment of this controversie , it will be necessary briefly to unriddle it . of what consequence the doctrine of purgatory is in the church of rome , is sufficiently known ; for a church , which can perswade people , that without her help , they must be damned for some hundred or thousand years ( for purgatory is nothing else but a temporal damnation , as hell is eternal , which is the only difference between them ) must needs have a great authority over all sorts of persons , who are conscious to themselves , that they do not live so innocently as to be out of danger of purgatory : but the doctrine of purgatory it self could do the church no service , had she not the power of indulgence to remit the pains of purgatory ; and yet indulgences are owing to the stock of merits , which the church has the keeping and disposal of ; and yet there can be no merits without some works of supererogation , and there can be no works of supererogation , if no man can do more than what is commanded , than what is his duty to do : for when we do no more than our duty , we must confess our selves to be unprofitable servants , as that is opposed to merit : for no man merits merely by doing his duty . and this occasions this dispute , whether all christian excellencies are commanded ; for if we can do no good thing , but what is commanded , there is no room left for merits nor works of supererogation ; and then there can be no stock of merits to be the fund of indulgences , and then purgatory will be so uncomfortable a doctrine , that no man will trust to it , but will think it his interest to live vertuously , that he may escape both hell and purgatory , and go to heaven when he dies ; and then the church of rome will lose her authority , and her gainful trade together . this is the plain state of the case ; and therefore to do the church of rome right , she principally attributes merit to such good works , as she calls them , which god has no where commanded ; but whether these be christian excellencies or no , would be considered . the monkish vows of poverty , coelibacy , and absolute obedience to their superiors , are thought a state of perfection and merit ; and if they be so , these are works of supererogation indeed , for they are no where commanded by god ; but i confess , i cannot understand the excellency of them , especially not as practised in the church of rome . it is an argument of a great and excellent mind to live above this world , and to despise all the charms and flatteries of it ; but what vertue it is to renounce the possession of any thing in this world , i cannot tell : it is in it self no vertue , that i know of , to be poor , and therefore it can be no vertue to choose poverty . the world was made for the use of man , and to use it well is an argument of vertue ; but merely to have nothing in the world is none : to bear want with a patient mind , and a quiet submission to the divine providence , is a vertue ; but to choose want is none : much less is it any vertue to renounce our private possessions , to live plentifully upon a common stock , and to be as intent in inriching a monastery , as any man can be to advance his private fortunes ; which is no great argument of a contempt of the world. and no more is it , to renounce all honest and industrious ways of living , as some do , and to turn imperious and godly beggars , and live deliciously on the spoils and superstition of the people . coelibacy it self is no vertue , for then marriage , which is the ordinance of god , and a popish sacrament , must be a vice. for there is no vertue , strictly so called , but is opposed to some vice ; and coelibacy is opposed to nothing but marriage : and therefore we must seek for the vertues of coelibacy , not merely in a vow against marriage , which is no vertue ; but as it signifies a great mortification to all bodily pleasures , and is a means to advance us to a more divine and heavenly state of mind : and every degree of vertue we attain to , shall receive a proportionable reward : and thus coelibacy , though it be not a state of perfection it self , yet may advance us to a more perfect state , and if we are the better men for it , we shall have the greater reward . but to vow coelibacy , and to burn with lust , and to practise all the impurities of the stews ; to renounce marriage , and to defile wives and virgins , and still to call this a more perfect state than marriage , is a work of supererogation indeed , but whether it be supererogating vertue or vice , god will judge ; who has forbid all uncleanness , and instituted marriage , not only for the propagation of mankind , but as a remedy against lust. to vow absolute obedience to any creature , without reserving to our selves a judgment , whether what he commands be good or evil , is so far from being a state of perfection , that it is an encroachment upon the divine prerogative , and gives such obedience to men , as is due only to god. this is expresly contrary to our saviour's precept , but call no man rabbi , for one is your master , even christ , and all ye are brethren . and call no man your father upon earth ; for one is your father , which is in heaven . neither be ye called masters ; for one is your master , even christ , matthew 23. 8 , 9 , 10. which does not oppose the use of these names in common speech ; but forbids us to ascribe such an authority to any man on earth , as is due only to god and christ : and if a vow of blind obedience does not make men our masters in this forbidden sense , i think nothing can . thus voluntary and unnecessary severities to the body , which serve no ends of mortification or devotion ; saying over a great number of ave maries , going in pilgrimage to ierusalem , or loretto , or to the shrine of any other powerful saints ; to give all our estates for saying masses for the dead ; to adore reliques and images , to kiss the pavement of such a church , or some cross drawn on it ; to say over some particular prayers , so many times a day , or to pray before such a particular altar ; and such like things , as by the liberality of popes , have so many thousand years indulgence for a reward , are indeed works of supererogation , because god has not commanded them , but i doubt are no christian excellencies . such things as these make men saints , and enrich the church with merits , and much good may do them with it . x. every soul as soon as expired is conveyed to heaven or hell. in answer to this , i told him , that the scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other world , but heaven and hell. and that this proposition , that every soul , as soon as expired , is conveyed to heaven or hell , is only an inference from this doctrine , that we know of no other place , they should go to after death , the scripture having not told us of any other . that our church , though she rejects purgatory , yet has not determined against an intermediate state , between death and judgment . though christ's parable of dives and lazarus , and s. paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with christ , look fairly towards proving that good men go to heaven , and bad men directly to hell , when they die . he takes notice only of this last passage of dives and lazarus and s. paul ; and says , that this would prove something , if three souls be all , or all souls expire in either dives ' s fitness for hell , or lazarus ' s and s. paul ' s for heaven . but he should have taken the whole proof together ; that there is no mention made in scripture of any other place of rewards or punishments in the next world , but heaven and hell ; and that whereever we have any account of the state of men after death , we either hear of them , in heaven or hell. as dives , when he died , was immediately tormented in hell , and lazarus was conveyed into abraham's bosom , and s. paul expected , when he died , to go immediately to heaven , and to be with christ : but we read of no man , who went to purgatory when he died : and what other proof can we have of this , but that heaven is promised to good men , and hell threatned against bad men ; and we have some examples of both recorded in scripture ; unless we expect the scripture should give us a compleat catalogue of all , who were saved or damned in those days . as for mens fitness for heaven or for hell , when they die ; i know not well , what he means by it . for men may be fit , as he calls it , for hell , who are not as wicked , as dives , and we all have reason to hope , that those may be fit for heaven , who are not so holy as st. paul was . though there are different degrees of vice and vertue , which may qualifie men for different degrees of rewards and punishments , yet as we read in scripture , but of two states in the other world , heaven and hell , so we read but of two distinctions of men in this world , the good and the bad , to whom these promises or threatnings belong . now every man , when he dies , must be one of these ; either a penitent or an impenitent sinner ; for the scripture knows no medium between them . if he be a penitent sinner , by the gracious terms of the gospel , he has a right to pardon of sin , and eternal life ; and why is not that man fit for heaven , who has a covenant-right to it ? and what should detain him in purgatory , who has an immediate right to heaven ? if he be an impenitent sinner , hell is his portion , and he must have it . but after all , this is no controversie between us , and the church of rome , whether every soul as soon as expired is conveyed to heaven or hell ; but whether those , who shall finally be saved must suffer the pains of purgatory in the other world , before they shall be received into heaven . our author has a mind to confound these two , and seems to think it proof enough , that there is a purgatory , if there be a middle state between death and judgment , which is neither heaven nor hell ; and possibly those , who do not understand this controversie , may be deceived with such pretences , and therefore it will be convenient briefly to state this matter . there have been , i confess , very different opinions among some of the fathers , about the state of souls departed , both before and since the resurrection of christ from the dead , as you shall hear more presently ; and there may be very different opinions about it still , and i believe will be among thoughtful and inquisitive men , and no great hurt done neither , while they are not made articles of faith , nor the foundation of some new and unscriptural worship . but that our people may not be imposed on with sham-proofs , which are nothing to the purpose ( as it is plain this author intended to do in this article ) it will be necessary plainly to represent the doctrine of the church of rome concerning purgatory , that they may know , what proofs to demand of it . now the council of trent determines no more , than that there is a purgatory , and that the souls , which are detained there , are helpt by the suffrages of the faithful , but principally by the most acceptable sacrifice of the altar : and commands the bishops diligently to take care , that the wholesome doctrine of purgatory delivered by the holy fathers and councils , be believed , held , taught , and preached , to christ's faithful people . the fathers of this council were very careful , not to determine , what purgatory is , what the punishments of it are , where the place of it is , but refer us to former fathers and councils for it : and therefore among the rest , i suppose , they mean the council of florence ; where this purgation is expresly affirmed to be by fire ; and to be a state of punishment . cardinal bellarmine , who wrote since the council of trent , understood fathers and councils , and the sense of the roman church , as well as any man , and therefore i shall briefly shew , what he thought of this matter . that bellarmine did believe , that souls departed were purged with fire , is abundantly evident from what he discourses , on 1 cor. 3. and from those testimonies of the fathers , which he abuses to this purpose . but for what end these punishments serve , is as considerable as purgatory fire it self ; and they , bellarmine tells us , are to expiate venial sins , or such mortal sins , whose guilt is pardoned , but not the temporal punishment due to them ; for according to the doctrine of the church of rome , there are some venial sins , which in their own nature do not deserve eternal , but only temporal punishments : and as for mortal sins , when the guilt of them is pardoned by the sacrament of penance , by confession , and the absolution of the priest , yet there remains a temporal punishment to be undergone by the penitent , either in this world , or in purgatory . so that if men die under any venial sins , or mortal sins , whose guilt is remitted , which they have not made compleat satisfaction for in this world , they must bear the temporal punishments of these sins in purgatory : and therefore as very good men , who have neither any venial , nor mortal sins , to satisfie for , go directly to heaven , when they die ; and bad men , who are under the guilt of mortal sins , go directly to hell : so those , who are indifferently good , i. e. who have only venial sins , or the temporal punishment of mortal sins to make satisfaction for ; what is wanting of a compleat satisfaction for these sins , while they lived , must be made up in purgatory . for we must not think , that this fire of purgatory is for the purging or reforming sinners , that they may ascend more pure and refined into heaven ; but only and meerly to bear that temporal punishment , which is due to sin . for the cardinal industriously proves , that the souls in purgatory can neither merit nor sin ; that they are perfect in charity , and consequently in all other graces ; and come no more perfect out of purgatory , than they went in ; but when they have paid the uttermost farthing , have undergone all that temporal punishment , which is due to their sins , then they shall be released , and received into heaven . but because this is a very uncomfortable doctrine , that men must lie many hundred or thousand years in purgatory , which differs from the torments of hell only in the continuance of them , ( for purgatory is as hot as hell , but one is temporal , and the other eternal ) which is a very terrible consideration , that we must be tormented for many hundred years , though not for ever ; therefore they tell us , that the souls in purgatory may be relieved by the prayers and alms of the living , and by the sacrifice of the mass ; and principally by indulgences , which the pope dispenses and applies to particular persons , out of the treasury of the church , which consists of the merits of supererogating saints . this short account i have given of the doctrine of purgatory ; not that i intend to spend time to confute it now ; to show how groundless it is ; how injurious to the goodness of god , and to the merits of christ ; how contrary to the sense of the primitive church , and of most , if not all , christian churches at this day , excepting the church of rome ; but to let our people see , what kind of proofs they must demand for purgatory ; which alone will be sufficient to secure them from the attacques of their wittiest adversaries . as to show this particularly . first , to prove a middle state between death and judgment , which is neither heaven nor hell , does not prove a popish purgatory . who ever is acquainted with the writings of the fathers of the first four ages , must confess , that this was a received opinion among them ; that no man , excepting christ himself , was received into heaven till the day of judgment . i shall not multiply quotations to this purpose , which the learned know where to find . irenaeus and tertullian prove this from the example of christ , to which we must be conformed . for christ himself did not ascend into heaven till after his resurrection ; but as his body rested in the grave , so his soul went into the place of souls departed ; and when he arose again , then he ascended into heaven . and thus we must do also . when we die , our souls shall live in those places , which god has prepared for separate souls , and there they must remain till the resurrection ; and when we have re-assumed our bodies , we shall be admitted into the highest heavens , whither christ is ascended . this they affirm in opposition to those gnostick hereticks , who taught , that as soon as they died , they should ascend above the heavens to him whom they called the father , which , * irenaeus says , is to exceed the order of promoting just men , as being ignorant of the regular gradations and advances to incorruption . and this he attributes to their denial of the resurrection of the flesh ; for it is no wonder , that such men should not know the order of the resurrection , who deny the resurrection . from whence it is plain , that in irenaeus his opinion , no man who believed the resurrection of the flesh , could reasonably think , that the souls of good men did ascend into heaven till soul and body was united at the resurrection : since christ himself did not ascend into heaven till after his resurrection : though he grants that some did believe so , who were orthodox in the article of the resurrection , though herein they agreed with hereticks . that this was the opinion of iustin martyr , lactantius , hilary , s. ambrose , s. chrysostom , and divers others , is at large proved by the learned mr. dally , and vindicated from the exceptions of cardinal bellarmine . but how this differs from a popish purgatory will appear in these three particulars . first , that they affirmed this of all separate souls , that none were received into heaven before the resurrection . patriarchs , prophets , apostles , whatever they were ; they continue in the state of separate souls , and have not their full reward , and are not received into the highest heavens , till the resurrection of their bodies . this is the lex mortuorum , as irenaeus calls it , the law of , the dead ; the ordo promotionis justorum , the order in which just men shall be advanced . for as s. chrysostom affirms , if the body do not rise , the soul remains uncrowned , out of that state of blessedness , which is in heaven . whereas the popish purgatory is not for all souls , but only for those , who have not made a perfect satisfaction for their sins in this life ; and therefore must indure the temporal punishments due to them in purgatory . whereas the souls of all children , who die after baptism , before the commission of any actual sin , and the souls of good men , who have completed their satisfaction in this life , according to the doctrine of the church of rome , ascend directly into heaven : which is expresly denied by these ancient fathers ; and was taught by few in those days , but by such hereticks , as denied the resurrection of the body . secondly , according to these ancient fathers , this separate state , wherein the souls of good men continue till the resurrection , is not a state of punishment , as the popish purgatory is , but of joy and felicity . they were divided indeed about the place , where the souls of good men lived till the resurrection ; some placed it in secret receptacles within the earth , and therefore called it the infernum , as tertullian did ; others thought it was above the earth in some celestial region , but below the highest heavens ; but they all agreed , that it was not heaven , and that it was not a state of punishment , but of rest and happiness : and therefore they called it abraham's bosom , and paradise , which they distinguish from heaven . tertullian calls it a place of divine pleasantness , appointed for the spirits of holy mon. the author of the questions and answers to the orthodox , in iustin martyr , expresly tells us , that when the soul goes out of the body , there is a great difference made between the righteous and the wicked . for they are carried by angels to such places , as are proper for them . the souls of just men into paradise , where they have the conversation and sight of angels and archangels , and the vision ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of our saviour christ ; as it is written , being absent from the body , we are present with the lord. — from hence bellarmine concludes , that by paradise this author understands heaven , because there we shall have the vision of christ , and therefore that paradise must signifie that place , where christ is present : which is directly contrary to the doctrine of this author , who makes paradise only a receptacle of separate souls , till the resurrection . but though it be not heaven , there is , he says , a great communication between heaven and paradise ; for they have the frequent visits and conversation of angels and archangels , whom they see and converse with , as they do with one another ; but when he speaks of christ , he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of , and conversation with angels , and christ ; for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of vision , as we see things , which are absent and at a distance ; but yet this does so strongly affect them , that he thinks , that of s. paul may be applied to it , being absent from the body , we are present with the lord. and certainly this is no popish purgatory , but as they thought , the very next degree of happiness to heaven it self . thus s. hilary expresly asserts , that the state of souls departed is a state of happiness ; and s. ambrose tells us ; that while the fulness of time comes , the souls are in expectation of such a resurrection as they deserve : punishment expects some , and glory others ; and yet neither bad souls are in the mean time without punishment , nor the good without reaping some fruits of their vertue : but i need not multiply quotations to prove that which no modest man , who is acquainted with the doctrine of the fathers , can deny . thirdly , another difference is , that this is an unalterable state till the day of judgment , and therefore no popish purgatory , out of which , as the church of rome pretends , souls may be redeemed by the prayers and alms and masses of the living , and ascend immediately into heaven . this is evident from what i have already said , that this state is to last till the resurrection , according to the sense of the ancient fathers ; as tertullian expresly affirms , that heaven is open to none , while this earth lasts ; but the kingdom of heaven shall be opened with the end of the world : and s. chrysostom observes from the parable of dives and lazarus ; that the souls of men after their depature out of these bodies , are carried to a certain place , from whence they cannot go out , when they will , but there expect the terrible day of judgment : which plainly shows , what his belief was , that they must continue in that state , which they enter upon at death , till the resurrection : and this i think is sufficient to show the difference between a popish purgatory , and that middle state between death and judgment , which the ancient fathers taught . secondly , nor is it sufficient to prove a popish purgatory , that the ancient fathers did believe , that all men must pass through the fire at the day of judgment . that those , who were perfectly good , should receive no hurt nor damage by it ; that those who had any remains of corruption about them , should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last fire , till they were purged from their sins ; and that bad men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings . this was a received opinion among the ancient fathers , that at the day of judgment all men should be tried by fire , which is so universally acknowledged , that i need not prove it by particular quotations . but yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion , and the popish doctrine of purgatory ; as will appear in these particulars . 1. that the popish purgatory is now , and has been in being at least since the time of our saviour ; and that those , who deserve the fire of purgatory , fall into it , when they go out of these bodies ; whereas the fire , which the fathers speak of , is not till the day of judgment . this was the opinion of lactantius , hilary , ambrose , and s. augustin himself : who expresly tells us , that this fire is at the end of the world , in fine seculi ; and therefore not the popish purgatory , which , as they would perswade us , is already kindled , and has been for many hundred years . indeed s. augustin , though he owns that fiery trial at the last judgment , as the fathers before him did ; yet he has something peculiar in this matter , which none of the fathers before him ever taught ; and therefore having no authority of tradition , it must rest wholly upon his own authority , who had no more authority to invent any new doctrine in his age , than we have in ours : there are three or four places in s. augustin , which do speak of some purgatory fires , which some men must undergo between death and judgment , which looks most like the popish purgatory of any thing in the ancient fathers ; and i believe was the first occasion of it ; which may be the reason , why this doctrine has so much prevailed in the latin church , which was acquainted with s. austin's writings ; when it has been always rejected by the greeks , as is evident from the council of florence . but there are two things to be said to this : first , that st. austin speaks very doubtfully about it . that there may be such punishments after this life ( he says ) is not incredible , and we may examine , whether there be any such thing or not ; and it may either be found , or may still continue a secret , whether some christians , according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments , be not sooner or later saved by a certain purgatory fire ; and in another place he says , he does not reprove this opinion , for it may be , it is true : now redarguo , quia forsitan verum est . de c. d. l. 21. c. 25. and elsewhere he says , that though such speculations may serve for his own , or other mens , instruction , yet he does not attribute any canonical authority to them , and therefore he was very far from making it an article of faith , as the church of rome has done . secondly , and yet , though st. austin speaks of a purgatory fire after death , and before the day of judgment , he seems by his whole discourse never to , have thought of such a purgatory , as the church of rome has invented . the occasion of what he says to this purpose , is that noted place , 1 cor. 3. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. for other foundation can no man lay , than that is laid , which is iesus christ. now if any man build upon this foundation , gold , silver , precious stones , wood , hay , stubble ; every mans works shall be made manifest : for the day shall declare it , because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is : if any mans work abide , which he built thereupon , he shall receive a reward . if any mans work shall be burnt , he shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved , but so as by fire . some there were , who from this place concluded ; that those who held the foundation , who believed in christ , and continued in the unity of the church , how wicked soever their lives were , should at last be saved by fire : this st. austin vehemently opposed , though it is very like the doctrine or practice of the church of rome , which sends all good catholick sinners , how wicked soever their lives have been , to purgatory ; especially if they have had time to confess , and receive absolution . they absolve all that confess , and no man , who is absolved at the hour of death can go to hell ; but how wicked soever he is , he shall at last be saved by the fire of purgatory . in opposition to this , st. austin expounds wood and hay , and stubble , which some build upon the foundation , not of such sins as the scripture tells us , will shut us out of the kingdom of heaven , such as st. paul mentions , 1 cor. 6. 9 , 10. neither fornicators , nor idolaters , nor adulterers , &c. shall enter into the kingdom of heaven , but of such a great passion for the present enjoyments of this world , though lawful and innocent in themselves , that we cannot lose them without great trouble and anxiety of mind : for when such men must suffer the loss of all these things for christ ; if they hold the foundation , if they prefer christ before all other things , they will suffer the loss of all things for him ; but then that fondness they have for this world , will make the loss of these things very afflicting ; doler urit , such sorrow burns their souls , and is a kind of purgatory fire to them in this world , which those good men escape , who sit loose from all present things , and therefore are not so much affected with the loss of them ; but those who love this world too passionately , if notwithstanding they can bear the loss of all for christ , shall be saved , but so as by fire ; shall smart for their loving this world too well in those burning and purgatory flames , which an inordinate love and grief will kindle in their souls . this is what st. austin understands by being saved by fire in this world , that sorrow with which those are burnt , when they lose these things , who loved them too much , while they had them ; but this purgatory is in this life , and st. austin questions , whether there may not be something like this , aliquid tale , in the next world : that is , that after death men who loved this world too well , may be greatly afflicted for the loss of it ; which is all the purgatory fire before the day of judgment , that st. austin ever thought of ; and he was the first , that ever thought of this ; and yet this is nothing at all to a popish purgatory , as every body will grant . so that though st. austin was doubtful , whether there may not be some purgatory punishments after death , for those who were too fond of this life ; that is , whether their leaving this world , and going into such a different state , where they can enjoy nothing , they were fond on here , will not greatly afflict and burn and torment their minds , either a longer or shorter time according to the degree of their love to this world : yet neither st. austin , nor any of the fathers thought , that there was any material purgatory fire ( such as the popish purgatory is ) till the end of the world. secondly , another difference between that fire which the fathers mention , and the popish purgatory fire , respects the persons , who are to be tried in it . for the fathers taught , that at the day of judgment all men , excepting christ himself , must pass through the fire : not st. peter , nor st. paul , nay not the blessed virgin herself excepted . this is expresly asserted by lactantius , hilary , ambrose , and many others . we must all be tried by fire , whoever desires to return into paradise , ideo unusignem illum sentire non potuit , qui est justitia dei , christus , quia peccatum non fecit . christ only , who is the righteousness of god , and never committed any sin , escapes that fire : but they believed , that all mankind besides must pass through it , that perfect good men shall pass , unhurt and untouched ; that those who are imperfectly good must be purged by fire , and shall suffer by the flames of it a longer or shorter time , as their purgation requires ; and that bad men shall sink for ever into those bottomless lakes of fire and brimstone . but the popish purgatory is neither for very good , nor very bad men. bad men immediately go to hell , and perfect saints ascend directly into heaven without passing the fire of purgatory ; which therefore cannot be that fire , the fathers speak of , which the most perfect saints must pass thorough into heaven . thirdly , another difference is , that the popish purgatory fire is not for purgation ; but the fire at the day of judgment , according to the ancient fathers , is . i observed before , that the popish purgatory is not to make men better , for the souls in purgatory are perfect in all graces , and can neither merit nor sin ; all that they have to do in purgatory is to make satisfaction for that temporal punishment , which is due to their sins : their sins are already pardoned , and their souls are purged ; they perfectly love god , and are beloved by him ; and yet unless they be relieved by the prayers , and alms , and masses of the living , they may lie several ages , in purgatory , bearing the punishment of their sins , when they are both pardoned and cleansed from sin ; which may seem a little odd to those men , who remember , that christ has born the punishment of our sins ; and who know no other end of punishments , but either to reform the sinner , or to take vengeance on their sins , which there is no room for , when the sin is pardoned . but now , though the ancient fathers do deny , that there is any purgation of sin between death and judgment ; but that every soul continues in the same state , wherein death found it , till the day of judgment ; yet they make the fire at the day of judgment to be truly purgatory ; to purge us from all the remains of corruption , just as gold is purged and refined in the fire : and therefore they tell us , that perfect souls shall pass through the fire unhurt ; but if there be any lead mingled with our gold , that must be burnt and dissolved before we can pass through this fire into heaven : now though this be very unintelligible also , how a material fire can purge and refine a soul , yet it shows , how much this differs from the popish purgatory , which burns and torments indeed , but does not purge and refine , and therefore is very improperly called a purgatory fire . origen indeed , whom cardinal bellarmine , and others quote for this purgatory fire , as they do also plato and virgil , did believe a purgatory fire in a true and proper sense ; for he believed all punishments , whether in this world , or in the next , were only purgatory ; that is not meerly for punishment , but for the correction and amendment of those , who suffered . and therefore he did also believe , that the very worst of men , nay the devils themselves , should at last be purged and cleansed by fire , and restored to a state of happiness . the summ of his opinion in short was this , that at the day of judgment , christ will destroy this world with fire , as he is said , to come in flaming fire , taking vengeance on them , that know not god. and this fire , which shall burn the world at the last day , seems to be that purgatory fire , of which origen , and some other fathers speak . though i know some thought this fire to be in the upper regions , so as to intercept our ascent into heaven without passing through it . this will try all men ; for all must pass through this fire , as the ancients believed ; and those , who had hay or stubble , or any combustible matter about them , who had any remains of corruption to be purged away , must stay in it a longer or shorter time , till they were thoroughly purged from their sins ; this as you have heard , was the general opinion of the fathers , as well as of origen , and therefore origen's purgatory fire is not the popish purgatory , because that is not kindled till the day of judgment . but then origen thought , that this purgation extended to the worst of men , and to devils themselves ; that though they might lie many ages in this fire , before they are perfectly purged , yet they should be purged at last , and restored to the favour and enjoyment of god. for which he was generally condemned by the ancient christians , and principally by the fifth general council . and yet there were other fathers , who were in some degree tainted with this opinion . for there are plain marks of it in gregory nyssen , if his works were not corrupted by the origenists , as some suspect ; and in s. hierome himself . for though some would not allow of the final salvation of devils , yet they believed this of all mankind , though never so wicked ; others thought this must be confined to all christians ; others to all those christians , who were not guilty of heresie or schism , how wicked soever they were otherwise . these opinions are rejected and condemned by the romanists , as well as by us , and therefore they ought not to alledge such authorities as these , which are nothing to their purpose . for that there will be such a fire at the day of judgment , does not prove , that there is one already kindled ; and a purgatory fire , which cleanses and purges our sins , does not prove , that there is such a purgatory fire , as is only to punish those , whose sins are already pardoned and cleansed . fourthly , there is another considerable difference between this popish purgatory , and the fire at the day of judgment ; that there is no redemption out of this by the prayers , and alms , and masses of the living ; which is the most considerable thing in the popish purgatory ; and that for which i fear the church of rome does principally value it . for this sets a good price upon indulgences , gives great authority to their priests , inriches their monasteries , and is the great support of the roman hierarchy . but as the fathers say not one word about this , so the account i have already given of their opinions , is a demonstration , that they could not think of any such thing ; because this fire is not till the day of judgment , and then i suppose , when we all come to be judged , you will grant it is too late to offer prayers , and alms , and masses , for the redemption of our selves or others from these purgatory flames . the fathers thought , that we must all undergo this purgation by fire , which would be longer or shorter , as we had more or fewer sins to be purged away , and therefore here can be no place , for the suffrages and intercessions of the living . according to the popish doctrine , those souls , who are redeemed out of purgatory , must be redeemed before the day of judgment , and those who are not redeemed before , are on course redeemed then , for the roman purgatory must end at the day of judgment ; though the purgatory fire the fathers speak of , does but begin then . thirdly , this gives occasion to another observation : that the ancient practice of praying for souls departed , does not prove that there is a popish purgatory , or that those ancient christians did believe that there was . that this was a very ancient practice i readily grant , as all men must do , who know any thing of these matters , and yet from what i have discoursed it is evident , that they never dreamt of such a purgatory , as the church of rome has now made an article of faith of , and therefore they could have no regard to the redemption of souls out of purgatory in their prayers for the dead , because they did not know of any such place . but to what original then shall we attribute this custom of praying for the dead ? truly , that is hard to say ; there is not the least footsteps of it in the canonical scripture , neither of the old nor new testament , as tertullian and others acknowledge ; and when it first came into the church we cannot tell : that tender concern men have for the memory of their dead friends , which the heathens themselves showed in their oblations and sacrifices , and funeral rites for the dead , seem to have given occasion to it ; and those who were converted from paganism to christianity , might still believe , that the dead challenged some part of our care and regard , which at first was tempered with a due respect to the laws of christianity , but soon encreased into greater excesses , as it is the nature of all superstitions to do . prayers for the dead seem at first to be used only at their funerals , in time grew anniversary , and were celebrated by their own friends and relations , not with propitiatory sacrifices , but with some offerings for the relief of the poor ; and thus by degrees it crept into the service of the church ; and at the celebration of the eucharist , the bishop or priest made mention of the names of martyrs and confessors , and bishops , and those who had deserved well of the church , and particular christians in their private devotions , remembred their own relations and friends ; and thus it became a custom , without inquiring into the reasons of it ; till from this very custom , people began to conclude , that such prayers , and commemorations were very profitable to the dead ; and that those , who had not lived so well as they should do , might obtain the pardon of their sins by the prayers , and intercessions of the living : which i confess was a very natural thought , and shows us the easie progress of superstition ; that customs taken up without any good reason , will find some reason , though a very bad one , when they grow popular . upon this aërius condemns the practice , and is reckoned among hereticks for it : though he only desired to know , for what reason the names of dead men are recited in the celebration of the eucharist , and prayers made for them ; whether by this means , those , who died in sin might obtain the pardon of their sins ; which he thought , if it were true , would make it unnecessary for men to live vertuously , if they had good pious friends , who would pray for them , when they are dead : epiphanius undertakes to confute aërius ; and we may easily perceive by him , that they were not so well agreed about the reason of it , as they were in the practice : had he understood the popish doctrine of purgatory , how easie had it been to answer it ; that the reason of it was , that those , who had died in a state of pardon , but had not made compleat satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to their sins , were to undergo this punishment in purgatory ; and that they might be relieved and delivered from purgatory by the prayers and alms of their living friends . this answer no doubt epiphanius would have given had he known it , but he says not one word of this matter , which is a strong presumption , that he knew nothing of it ; and gives such other answers , as are no answer to aërius . aërius demanded , what benefit the dead received by the prayers of the living , whether they would obtain for them the pardon of their sins or not ; to this epiphanius says not one word , but gives such reasons for it , as respect the living not the dead . as that it signifies our belief , that those who are dead to this world , do still live in another state , are alive to god : that it signifies our good hopes of the happy state of those , who are gone hence , and to make a distinction between christ , and all other good men : for we pray for all but him , who interceeds for us all . very worthy reasons of praying for the dead ! but however , what is all this to a popish purgatory ? the two first reasons do utterly overthrow it , which signifie , what good hopes we have of the happy and blessed state of our deceased friends , not that they are tormented in purgatory , but that they rest in the lord : and so does the third , which declares , that they prayed for all but christ himself . for patriarchs , prophets , apostles , martyrs , and the blessed virgin her self ; for so the church did , till praying for these saints and martyrs , was turned into prayers and supplications to them ; and yet i suppose , no man will say , that they prayed for these glorious saints , to pray them out of purgatory ; when the church of rome her self will grant , that they were never in it . there were some opinions in the ancient church , which if they were not the first original of this custom of praying for the dead , yet were made use of by the fathers to explain the meaning and use of it . thus as i have showed you , the fathers believed , that the souls of good men after death did not immediately ascend into heaven , but were detained till the resurection of their bodies , in a place of rest and happiness , which they called abrahams bosom , or paradise : now their happiness not being complete , they thought it very fit to recommend them unto god in their prayers , and beg god to remember them , which supposes , that they were not in the immediate presence of god ; for it would be absurd to beg god to remember them , who constantly attend his throne and presence : and therefore they pray not for souls , who are tormented in purgatory , but qui dormiunt in somno pacis , who sleep in peace , qui requieverunt in fide , who dying in the true faith , are gone to rest ; qui dormierunt & quieverunt in fide , who , sleep and rest in the faith , as we find in the ancient liturgies : and yet they pray , that god would give them rest , by the water of rest in the bosom of abraham with isaac and iacob , that he would nourish them in a pleasant place by the waters of rest : that is , that he would continue and increase this intermediate state of rest and happiness to them . for they did not think it improper to pray for what they knew , the souls departed already enjoyed ; no more than we do in this state , to pray for such blessings , as we already have . another opinion among them , was concerning the millennium or thousand years reign with christ on earth , which was to be before their admission into heaven , in the new ierusalem , which comes down from heaven . now during these thousand years they thought , that all just men should rise again , but some sooner , and others later according to their different merits . some at the beginning of the thousand years , others two or three hundred years after , others nearer the conclusion of them , according to their different merits and deserts ; as tertullian particularly explains it . and as the learned mr. dally observes , several passages in their prayers do plainly refer to this : as when tertullian directs a widow to pray for her husband , primae resurrectionis consortium , a part in the first resurrection . and s. ambrose prays for gratian and valentinian , te quaeso , summe deus , ut carissimos suvenes matura resurrectione suscites , & resuscites : that god would raise those beloved young men with an early resurrection . the like may be seen in the gothick missal , and elsewhere ; and this i think has nothing to do with the popish purgatory . another opinion they had regard to in their prayers for the dead was the fire of the day of judgment , which they believed all men must pass thorough , before they could enter into heaven , and continue a longer or shorter time in it , as they had more or fewer sins to purge away : and therefore this last and terrible judgment being yet to come , they prayed , that god would forgive their sins ; and be merciful to them , and deliver them in the day of judgment , of which there are some remains still in the roman offices for the dead . thus according to mens different opinions , they had different intentions in their prayers for the dead , which is a sign , as i observed before , that though they were agreed in the practice , the original reasons of this practice were not known , but men guessed at them , as they could , and altered their reasons , as they changed their opinions . hence it is , that s. austin and s. chrysostom , though they never dreamt of a popish purgatotory , yet speak very differently of these matters from those , who went before them . for in their days they began to call upon the saints , and to beg their help , and then s. austin thought it very improper to pray for those , whose help they themselves expected : according to that known saying of his , that he is injurious to a martyr , who prays for him . hence he makes three distinctions of souls departed , which the church never heard of before . from whence i doubt not , but the church of rome learnt their distinctions , and accordingly allotted three different states for these three sorts of men , heaven , purgatory , and hell. for s. austin taught , that some were so perfectly good , that there was no need of prayers or oblations for them ; others imperfectly good ; and for these , prayers were profitable ; others very bad , who cannot be redeemed by the suffrages of the living . the first of these the church of rome place in heaven , the second in purgatory , the third in hell ; and let us first see , whether s. austin were of that mind ; for if he were not , they cannot prove a purgatory from him , whatever becomes of his prayers for the dead . now it is evident , that saint austin was of the same mind with those fathers , who went before him , concerning the state of souls departed ; viz , that none were received into heaven till the resurrection ; as he expresly affirms of all souls , that during the time between death , and the last resurrection , they are kept in hidden receptacles . he divides the church into two parts , that which is still on earth , or that which after death rests in the secret receptacles and seats of souls . which he calls abraham's bosom , and teaches , that all departed souls , either rejoyce in abraham's bosom , or are tormented in eternal fire : and that by abraham's bosom he does not mean heaven , is evident from what he elsewhere says ; that though after this life we shall not go to that place , where the saints shall be , when it shall be said to them , come ye blessed of my father , receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world , ( which he represents as the common belief of all christians , for he says , quis nescit ? who knows not this ? ) yet we may be there , where dives saw lazarus at rest , viz. in abraham's bosom ; in illâ requie certè securus , expectabis judicii diem , in that rest you will securely expect the day of judgment . so that though s. austin thought , that some souls were so good and perfect , that there was no need to pray for them , yet he did not think , that the most perfect souls ascended immediately into heaven , as the church of rome now teaches ; but were happy and at rest in paradise or abraham's bosom till the resurrection . nor did he think , that those for whom he says our prayers are available , those who are imperfectly good , did after this life go into purgatory , there to bear the punishment of their sins . for what s. austin thought of purgatory , you have already heard , which has nothing like a popish purgatory in it . he prayed for his mother monica , that god would forgive her all her sins , and show mercy to her ; did he believe then , that his mother was in purgatory ? by no means ; for he expresly says , & credo , jam feceris quod to rogo , sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine . i believe , thou hast already done , what i now pray for , but accept o lord the free-will offerings of my mouth . he believed his mother was in a state of rest ; but hoped , that god would accept his pious affection for his mother , and that she was not yet so perfect , but she might receive some benefit by it . to be sure the church of rome can never reconcile this prayer with their doctrine ; for they teach , that sins are not pardoned in purgatory , but those , who are pardoned before they die , suffer the temporal punishment of their sins in purgatory ; whereas s. austin does not pray , that his mother may be delivered from the pains of purgatory , but that god would forgive her sins . the truth is , s. austin was at a great loss between vindicating the ancient practice of the church in praying for souls departed , and giving a reasonable and justifiable account of it : the church did pray for souls departed , and therefore there must be some reason given of it ; or else these prayers are vain and hypocritical , if they serve no good end . and yet in his days they began to think , and he himself was of that mind , that there were a great many saints and martyrs , who did not want their prayers ; who were fitter to be intercessors themselves for those on earth , than to receive any benefit from their intercessions : and yet the church prayed for all ; for the most perfect saints , for the apostles and martyrs , and the blessed virgin her self . this he knew not how to reconcile , but by saying , that when the church prayed for saints and martyrs , prophets and apostles , the meaning of her prayers was not to intercede with god for them , but to praise god for their graces and vertues ; but when she prayed for meaner christians , her prayers were intercessions for pardon and rest to their souls ; and yet they were all prayed for in the same form of words , and the ancient church made no such distinction between them : and thus he reconciles the matter by expounding the same words to two different and contrary senses , as they are applied to different subjects , which has taught the church of rome , when occasion serves , to soften her prayers , by expounding them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the words : that the most direct and formal prayers to saints and the virgin for all temporal and spiritual blessings , when they please , shall signifie no more than a bare ora pro nobis , pray for us . about this time s. chrysostom also , in the greek church , defended this practice of praying for the dead ; and yet the doctrine of purgatory never was received in the greek church , as appears from the council of florence ; which is a plain sign , that though the roman doctors think they have proved purgatory , if they can but prove , that the ancient church used to pray for the dead , ( which no body denies ) yet the greek church did not , and does not to this day , think this a good consequence ; for they pray for the dead , but deny a popish purgatory . which shows , that though they prayed for the dead , they did it for other reasons , than the church of rome now does . and yet s. chrysostom does not agree with s. austin in that distinction he makes of souls departed , which shows that there was no certain tradition about this matter , but men of wit and learning framed different hypotheses and schemes of things to themselves , as they thought , they could best give an account of this practice : for this was the thing both s. austin and s. chrysostom were intent on , to justifie the practice of the church , so that their prayers for the dead might not be thought vain and hypocritical . but whereas s. austin distinguishes souls departed into three orders ; those , who are so perfectly good , that they need not our prayers ; others , less perfect , to whom our prayers are beneficial ; and a third sort so wicked that their estate is irrecoverable , and so past the relief of our prayers ; s. chrysostom mentions but two sorts , sincere good christians ; and infidels , and such as die without baptism , and bad christians , whom he places in the same rank . as for the first , he expresly tells us , that after death they are in a state of rest and happiness , and upon this very account condemns those extravagant expressions of sorrow at their funerals ; and therefore he never thought of a popish purgatory ; for i think we have great reason to lament those , who are in purgatory , a place of torment , though not hell. as for others , he thinks , they deserve our sorrow and compassion , and prayers and alms , not that this can deliver them out of the state of the damned , but that he thought it gave some little ease and relief to their torments . and this was not only the sense of s. chrysostom , that the damned themselves were eased by the prayers of the living , but s. austin seems to be of the same mind , when he says , that the suffrages of the living are profitable , either ut plena fiat remissio , aut tolerabilior sit ipsa damnatio ; to obtain perfect forgiveness , or to make damnation it self more tolerable . and i think what basil of seleucia relates concerning thecla , that by her prayers she obtained the soul of falconilla , who died a pagan , signifies , that he believed something more than this ; that the prayers of the living may not only ease the torments of the damned , but deliver them out of hell it self . now this the church of rome believes no more than we do . they reject all the reasons for which the ancients prayed for the dead , and have invented some new reasons , which the ancient fathers never thought of , viz. to pray men out of purgatory : and therefore though they still pray for the dead , and we do not ; yet they no more pray for the dead , in the sense of the ancient church , than we do : however , i think , from hence it appears , that they cannot prove a popish purgatory from the practice of the ancient church in praying for the dead ; which is all i intended to prove at this time . xi . desiring the intercessions of the blessed , is more superstitious , and derogatory to our lord's mediatorship , than intreating the prayers of holy men militant . this i answered , was as plain in scripture , as that christ is our only mediator in heaven , who alone ( like the high priest under the law , who was his type ) is admitted into the holy of holies , to make expiation , and to interceed for us . — the summ of what we teach about this matter is this : that we must worship none but god , and therefore must not pray to saints and angels , as our saviour teaches ; thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . that there is but one mediator between god and man , the man christ jesus ; and therefore we must not make more mediators to our selves , nor put our trust in the intercession of saints and angels . thus far we have plain scripture proof ; and then we think common sense teaches us the rest : that it is an injury to an only mediator to set up other mediators with him . that good men on earth are not mediators , but supplicants , which is no encroachment on christ's mediatorship ; and that saints in heaven according to the church of rome , pray as mediators and intercessors , who appear in the presence of god for us ; and this is not reconcilable with christ's onely mediatorship in heaven . to this our author answers , page 7. it is not at all in scripture , that our saviour is our only mediator of intercession ; therefore this proposition is not plain there . if such an only mediatorship of intercession be plain in scripture , it had been easie and kind to have named such a plain scripture . yet none is brought , unless the answerer meant , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , &c. for such a one . truly i see not how he can deduce from it any thing to his purpose , till it appear , that all prayer is divine worship , or that we pray to saints just as we do to god. this is all his answer , and i think , i might trust every ordinary reader with it without any reply ; but i must be civil to our author ; and therefore will try , if i can make him understand this matter . the reader will easily see , that that text , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and what he has concealed in an , &c. as if he were afraid to let his own people , who possibly may read his book , know what follows , and him only shalt thou serve , was never intended to prove , that christ is our only mediator of intercession . the proof i insist on , is in 1 timothy , 2. 5. there is one god , and one mediator between god and men , the man christ iesus . but says our author , this does not prove , that there is but one mediator of intercession . but why does it not prove this ? is a mediator of intercession a mediator ? if he be , and there be but one mediator , then there is but one mediator of intercession ; for there is but one mediator in all . as for his distinction between a mediator of redemption and intercession , there is no such distinction to be found in scripture ; and therefore when s. paul asserts without any distinction , that there is but one mediator , i think we have reason to do so too ; for if we admit of unscriptural distinctions , i know no article of our faith , but what may be distinguished away . when the apostle says , there is but one god , why may not a heathen distinguish upon this ; that it is very true , there is but one supreme and sovereign god , though there are many inferior deities ; as well as a papist say , that there is but one mediator indeed of redemption , but there may be many mediators of intercession ? for both here , and in 1 cor. 8. 5. the apostle makes christ the one mediator , just as god is the one god , and that sure signifies the only god , and the only mediator . for though there be , that are called gods , whether in heaven , or in earth , ( as there be gods many , and lords many ) but to us there is but one god the father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one lord iesus christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . where , as one god is opposed to the multitude of heathen gods , so one lord , or one mediator ( as baalim and lords signified , those mediating powers between the gods and men ) is opposed to the many lords and mediators among the heathens . indeed as there is no foundation in scripture for this distinction between a mediator of redemption and intercession , so there is no sense in it ; for the office of a mediator , considered as a mediator , consists wholly in intercession ; whence his authority and interest to intercede arises , is of another consideration : and therefore s. iohn distinguishes between christ's being an advocate for us , and a propitiation for our sins , 1 john 2. 1 , 2. if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father iesus christ the righteous . and he is the propitiation for our sins . christ is our only redeemer , who has bought us with his own blood ; but to be our redeemer , and to be our mediator and advocate are two things : by the constitution and appointment of god both these are united in one person ; that he who is our only redemer , is our only advocate also ; but yet to redeem with his blood , and to intercede with his father for us , differ as the death of the sacrifice doth from the intercession of the priest. to redeem and make atonement for our sins by shedding his blood upon the cross , is not his intercession for us ; and to intercede for us in heaven is not to redeem us by shedding his blood , though he intercedes in vertue of his blood. so that though christ be our redeemer , yet considered as our mediator , and advocate , his mediation consists wholly in his intercession for us : and therefore to say , that there is one mediator , and one intercessor is the very same thing . suppose then the apostle had said , there is one god , and one intercessor between god and men , the man christ iesus ; would this have proved , that there are no mediators of intercession but only christ ? or would they still say , that there is an intercessor of redemption , and intercessors of intercession , and yet that there is but one intercessor ? but besides this , this very distinction between a mediator of redemption , and a mediator of pure intercession , that is , such a mediator as mediates in vertue of his blood and sacrifice , and a mediator , who intercedes only by prayers , and personal interest and merits , is contrary to the analogy both of the old and new testament . for as there is no remission or expiation , so there is no mediation without blood. for to mediate and intercede is not merely to pray for another , but it signifies a ministerial authority to apply the vertues and merits of a sacrifice . thus it was under the law of moses : the high priest was the mediator , or as the apostle speaks , every high priest taken from among men , is ordained for men in things pertaining to god , that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins . heb. 5 , 1. thus he mediates by offering gifts and sacrifices , by making atonement and expiation of sin . and no man has authority to do this , but by god's appointment . no man taketh this honour to himself , but he that is called of god , as was aaron , v. 4. since there is no remission of sins without shedding blood , without the atonement and expiation of sacrifice ; there can be no mediation but in vertue of the sacrifice ; and therefore there can be no mediator , but he who offers the sacrifice , which confines mediation to the sacerdotal office. and therefore if we have but one high priest , there can be but one mediator also between god and man. but that we may rightly apprehend this matter , and be able to distinguish betwen the prayers of good men for themselves and for each other , and the intercessions of a mediator ; we must distinctly consider the vertue of the sacrifice , the prayers of the people , and the intercession of the priest , all which must concur to an effectual prayer , to obtain our requests , and desires of god. thus it was in the mosaical law. the sacrifice was slain instead of the sinner , and to bear the punishment of sin , and without shedding of blood there was no remission . prayers could not expiate sin without a sacrifice ; and therefore even in the time of the patriarchs an altar , which is for sacrifice , was the place of their devotions . thus noah , as soon as he came out of the ark built an altar , and offered sacrifice to god. thus we frequently read , how abraham in his travels whereever he made any stay , built an altar unto the lord , and called upon the name of the lord ; that is , he offered sacrifices and prayers to god. the like we read of isaac and iacob : so that an altar was the place of their solemn devotions ; that is , they offered up their prayers to god in vertue of a sacrifice . for sinners must not go directly to god without the atonement and expiation of a sacrifice . hence under the law , while the priest offered the sacrifice , the people offered up their prayers to god to ascend together with the sacrifice ; and therefore those , who lived in places remote from ierusalem , which was the only place of sacrifices ; or those who could not attend the daily sacrifices in the temple , yet were to observe the time of offering their sacrifices , for the time of their prayers : whence it is that the time of offering the sacrifice is called also , the hour of prayer . thus the people were to offer a sacrifice for sin , and to offer up their prayers in vertue of the sacrifice ; but then neither their prayers nor their sacrifice were acceptable to god , unless they were offered by the priest : who sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar to make atonement ; and offered incense as an emblem of their prayers : to which the psalmist alludes . let my prayer be set before thee as incense ; and the lifting up of my hands , as the evening sacrifice . and therefore the evangelist observes , that the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense : that their prayers might ascend as incense . thus we expresly read in the book of the revelations , of an angel , who stood at the altar , having a golden censer , and there was given unto him much incense , that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar , which was before the throne ; and the smoke of the incense , which came with the prayers of the saints , ascended before god out of the angels hand . which expresly applys these legal types to the state of the gospel , that great sacrifice and great high priest , who presents our prayers to god. the death of christ upon the cross was the sacrifice for all our sins ; in vertue of this sacrifice we pray to god ; but christ our great high priest , is now ascended into heaven to present himself before his father , to offer his own blood , and in vertue of that , to offer our prayers to him . this is the work of a mediator and high priest , not so much to pray for us , as to offer up our prayers to god , in the vertue and efficacy of his own sacrifice , and with the authority of a heavenly mediator and high priest. now this plainly shows the difference between the prayers of good men for themselves and one another , and the intercession of a mediator . good men are humble supplicants , but they offer up their prayers to god , not in their own name , but by the hands of their great high priest , and in the merits of his sacrifice ; which is subordinate to the mediation of christ , and as consistent with it , as the prayers of the people under the law were with the atonement and expiation made by the priest , who offered the blood of the sacrifice , and the incense to god. the work of a mediator is to present our prayers and petitions , and to give value and efficacy to them , and therefore we must pray our selves , we must put up our petitions to god , or our advocate and mediator cannot present them ; but is it injurious to the office of an advocate , that we draw up a petition , which he is to present to our king ? so that the prayers of good men for each other is no encroachment upon the office of a mediator ; for our prayers for others , as well as for our selves must be offered to god by the hands of our mediator . and this shows also , that to desire the prayers of good men on earth is no derogation from the intercession of christ : for we only desire them to joyn with us in our petition ; just as if we should procure some persons of worth and note to subscribe our petition to our prince , which is no injury to our advocate , who presents it . for they are two different things , to subscribe a petition , and to present it to our prince . and besides this , a prayer , though it be the prayer of the best man in the world , is but a prayer still , and may be answered or rejected , as god sees fit ; but whatever prayer is presented by our mediator is always granted : for he mediates with authority , and power : he is able to save to the uttermost all those , that come unto god by him , seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them . under the law , the atonement and expiation of the priest was always valid to all the intents and purposes of the law , that is , to an external and legal purity ; much more is the mediation of christ effectual ; for if it ever miscarried , he could not be the object of our faith and hope . a supplicant may heartily desire our good ; but our mediator , by vertue of his office obtains all the petitions and prayers he presents , and every body sees , that these two are very consistent . but though to desire the prayers of good men for us on earth do not derogate from the intercession of christ ; yet to flie to the aid of saints in heaven does . for that makes them our advocates and intercessors , not our fellow supplicants , whereas there is but one mediator in heaven , who appears in the presence of god for us ; as under the law only the high priest could enter into the holy of holies , which was a type of heaven , and did prefigure that great high priest , who was to ascend into heaven with his own blood. i am sure the church of rome does not look upon the saints in heaven to be our fellow supplicants , as good men on earth are , but to be our advocates and intercessors , and then they are intercessors in heaven , where none but the high priest was to intercede , and they are intercessors without a sacrifice , which is contrary to the analogy both of the old and new testament . for we have no more intercessors , than priests ; and we have but one high priest , who is ascended into heaven , and appears in the presence of god for us . and if intercession be annexed to the priesthood , i desire to know , how the virgin mary comes to be so powerful a mediatrix , and advocatress ; for we never heard of any she-high priest before . this is answer enough to what he intimates , that desiring the intercessions of the blessed is not more superstitious and derogatory to our lord's mediatorship , than intreating the prayers of holy men militant ; for to pray for one another in this world is as consistent with the mediation of christ , as to pray for our selves ; but the intercessions of saints for us in heaven is inconsistent with the only mediatorship of christ. but praying to saints in heaven , which he modestly calls desiring the intercessions of the blessed , is of a different consideration , and more injurious to god , than to a mediator , considered only as our mediator . for prayer is an act of worship peculiar and appropriate to god , and therefore not due to our mediator himself , if he were not god. we must pray to god in the name of our mediator , and present our petitions to god by him , but if our mediator were not god , we must not pray to him ; and thus they are injurious to our only mediator , when they pray to god in any other name , and expect to be heard for the sake and merits of any other mediator , but only christ , as they always do on the festivals of their saints : but to pray to saints also is an additional crime ; it is giving the peculiar worship of god to creatures ; which i told him was expresly forbid by our saviour , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . but ( says our author ) i see not , how he can deduce from it ( this last text ) any thing to his purpose , till it appear , that all prayer is divine worship , or that we pray to saints just as we do to god. but now methinks , till he make the contrary appear , it is very much to the purpose . for prayer is appropriated to god in scripture , and all mankind have thought prayer an act of religious worship , and have been able to distinguish between a religious prayer , and begging an alms , or making any request to our earthly prince , or parents , or friends ; and if our author does not understand this , i have directed him in the margin , where he may be better informed . xii . honouring the cross , the reliques and representations of our lord and his saints , with that degree of reverence , as we do the gospels , ( commonly kissed and sworn by ) altar , and other sacred utensils is , idolatry . this i told him was ill represented ; for those who charge them with idolatry in worshipping the cross , and reliques , and images , charge them also with giving more religious honours and worship to them , than that external respect , which we allow to the gospels , and religious utensils , as both the decrees of their councils , and the visible practice of their church proves . to this our author replies . our general councils tell protestants we pay no other honour to any creature , than what ? than such an external respect as is due to the bible ? i never heard before , that they made the bible the object of their worship , but i am sure some , which they call general councils , have defined the worship of images and reliques , witness the second council of nice , and the council of trent . it is strange to me , that at this time of day , he can think to impose upon protestants with such shams . surely he has never read the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented , the answer to monsieur de meaux , or to papists protesting against protestant popery , nor the vindication of the catechism truly representing the doctrines and practices of the church of rome in answer to the first and second sheets , of the second part , of the papist misrepresented and represented . is our author then one of those , who are employed some times to do a little job at writing , but are not permitted to read any of our books , but what and when their superiors please ? this gives an account of that mystery how they can so confidently urge such things , as all the world now laughs at , for poor men , they know no better ; and what some so uncharitably call impudence , is only ignorance . he proceeds . their test and homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things , idolatry . we must either then challenge protestants , to prove this proposition , or conclude them calumniators . we know , what we profess and practise to be as the catholick church teaches , we hear our doctrine and practice confidently said , and solemnly subscribed to be idolatry . sure then we may conclude , that protestants believe the proposition , and decent it is , that they give a reason of a faith so injurious to the catholick church , or henceforward renounce it . this still makes good my conjecture , that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this , but never read the arguments , whereby some protestants make good this charge , at least as they apprehend : for me-thinks had he known these proofs , he should first have answered them before he had called for more ; but i assure him , it will be an easier task to conclude them calumniators , than to undertake to answer them , and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that ; if they believe and practise , as the church of rome teaches , ( which in defiance of common sence , he will call the catholick church ) i am sure they give another kind of honour to the cross , and reliques and images , than to the bible ; but if he thinks , that the catholick church always taught what the church of rome now teaches , i would desire him to read a late discourse intituled ; the antiquity of the protestant religion concerning images , which will better inform him . but since he calls so importunately for proofs , it may be thought very uncivil to deny him ; and therefore i shall briefly represent to him the reasons , why some protestants have charged the church of rome with idolatry in worshipping the cross , and images , and shall be very glad for the sake of the church of rome to see them well answered . they lay their charge in the second commandment , which forbids the worship of images , and all representative objects , and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of images , which are set up for worship , that the law expresly forbids , without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it , all external acts of adoration , as bowing down to them or before them : that it does not meerly forbid the worship of images as gods ; for the heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their images of wood or stone , or silver or gold , were gods , but only visible representations of their invisible deities . that it does not only forbid the worship of the images of heathen gods , but of the lord iehovah ; for the reason whereby moses enforces this commandment is , that they saw no similitude on the day , that the lord spake to them in horeb out of the midst of the fire , deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves , lest they corrupt themselves with images : that they saw no image of god is a good argument against their making and worshipping the image of the true god , but it is no direct argument against the images of heathen gods ; and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true god by images . another scripture argument against image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the divine nature , that no image can be made of god , but what must be a reproach and debasement of his majesty . to whom then will ye liken god , or what likeness will ye compare to him , &c. isaiah 40. 18 , &c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any image of the true god. they consider farther that aaron's calf was not an image of a false god , but a symbolical representation of the lord iehovah ; for they expresly call it , the god , which brought them out of the land of aegypt , and when aaron himself appointed a feast for the worship of this molten god , he said , to●morrow is a feast to the lord , or to iehovah , exod. 32. 4 , 5. and therefore these israelites are charged , with changing their glory , ( i. e. the lord iehovah , who was the glory of israel ) into the similitude of an oxe , which eateth grass , psalm . 106. 20. but how can this be true , if they did not intend this calf as a representation of the lord iehovah . and it is evident , that they made this calf only as a divine presence to go before them in the absence of moses ; for while moses delayed to come down out of the mount , the people gathered themselves together unto aaron , and said unto him , up , make us gods , which shall go before us : for as for this moses , the man that brought us up out of the land of egypt , we know not what is become of him , verse 1. so that they did not think of changing their god , but only wanted a visible and symbolical presence of god with them , instead of moses ; who , when he was with them , was a kind of divine presence ; god conversing familiarly with him , and by him giving them directions and orders what to do : and yet the worship of this calf , which was not worshipped as a god , or the image of a false god , but as a symbolical representation of the lord iehovah , was idolatry . the like may be said of the calves at dan and bethel , which ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden calf , and for symbolical representations of the god of israel . for so he himself tells them , behold thy gods , o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt ; that is , the lord iehovah , whom ieroboam did still own and worship . for he had no intention to change their god , but only to prevent their going up to ierusalem three times in the year to worship there , according to the law ; which he feared might prove the destruction of his new kingdom . and therefore god himself makes a great difference between the sin of ieroboam and the sin of ahab , who introduced the worship of baal , a false god. and therefore though iehu still preserved the golden calves , which ieroboam set up , yet he calls his zeal in destroying baal , his zeal for the lord iehovah . which is another scripture-example of idolatry in worshipping the image or representation of the true god. another instance is the brazen serpent , which moses set up in the wilderness , which was neither a god , nor the image of any god , neither of the lord iehovah , nor of any heathen god ; and was not at first set up to be worshipped , but only to be looked on by those , who were stung with fiery serpents ; and was preserved as a kind of holy relique , as a lasting memorial of that deliverance god wrought for them by it . but when the children of israel burnt incense to it , though they could intend to worship no other god in it , but the lord iehovah , who gave it that miraculous power , and could worship it only as a memorative sign of god's mighty power , yet hezekiah destroyed it , with the other instruments of idolatry , 2 kings 18. 4. and yet i think i could make a much better apologie for the worship of the brazen serpent , than of the cross. for that was a type of christ crucified , a type of god's own appointment , a miraculous and wonder-working type , which i should think should as much deserve to be worshipped , as the picture or image of the tree whereon our saviour died . for if a memorative sign of christ deserve such divine honours , let them give me a reason , if they can , why the type of a cruoified saviour ought not as much to be worshipped by the iews in those days , as the figure of christ's cross now . thus the protestants argue against the worship of images from the second commandment , and from the reasons and authorities of the old testament , and as for the new testament , they can find no alteration made in this law there : we are commanded indeed to keep our selves from idols , but the gospel has given us no new notion of idolatry , and therefore they reasonably conclude , that what was idolatry under the old testament , is so under the new. and indeed they look upon the second commandment as a natural or moral law , and such laws christ neither did , nor could alter , no more than he could alter the eternal reasons of things . for the prohibition of image-worship is founded in the invisibility , purity , spirituality , and immense glory and perfections of the divine nature , which cannot be represented by matter ; and these reasons are as unchangeable as god is , and the law must be as unchangeable as the reasons of it . and therefore we find these very reasons urged by st. paul in the times of the gospel ; forasmuch as we are the offspring of god , we ought not to think , that the godhead is like unto gold , or silver , or stone graven by art , or man's device , acts 17. 29. not as if the heathens fancied , that their gods were like the images they worshipped ; for this is not only denied by their philosophers , but the very nature of the thing shows it ; for they worshipped such kind of images , as it was impossible for them to conceive should be the likeness of any god ; not only the images of men , but unpolished stones , and trees , birds , and beasts , and creeping things ; which they did not take to be gods , nor the proper likenesses of their gods , but symbolical representations of them ; but the apostles argument is this , that it is a ridiculous thing to make any image of god , when we cannot make any thing like him , as foolish a thing as it would be to paint a sound ; and that it is an affront to so glorious a being , to represent him by that which is so very unlike him , and so infinitely unworthy of his majesty and greatness . and though this argument from the invisibility and spirituality of the divine nature does not conclude against making the images of christ and his apostles , who had the shape and figure of men , which might be painted or carved , no more than it did against many images of heathen gods ; most of whom were no better than dead men and women , yet it holds against the worship of any image ; for god alone , who is a pure and infinite spirit , is the sole object of our religious worship ; and to worship god by an image , is to reproach his nature , and to debase him as low as matter ; and to worship that which can be painted , is to worship a false object ; for christ as god , and so only he is the object of our worship , cannot be painted ; and to worship any material image , though it be not made for the supreme god , is yet a reproach to the divine nature , as it signifies that something which is divine , and a fit object of our adorations , may be represented by material images and pictures . but the protestants consider farther , that if the worship of images was forbid by the law of moses , it must needs be much more contrary to the gospel of our saviour , which has less to do with matter and sense , than the law had . our saviour tells us , that god is a spirit , and those who worship him , must worship him in spirit and in truth , in opposition to the external , and typical , and figurative worship of the law ; and if this typical worship which was allowed when the worship of images was forbid , be now abrogated as less pure and spiritual , they think it very strange , that the worship of images , which is the most gross and material , and unmanly worship that can be invented , shall be allowed under the spiritual state of the gospel . and there is one argument to this purpose , which i would desire our author seriously to consider , viz. that there is no material temple in the christian church , much less statues and images ; for the understanding of which , we must consider what notions the heathens had of their temples , what notion the iews had of it , and that there is no such temple in the christian church . as for the heathens , their temples were the houses of their gods , where they dwelt , and were confined , and shut up by some magical spells and charms , as the images of their gods were fastned there , that they might be always present to attend the sacrifices and worship of their votaries : for they did not believe that their gods were omnipresent , and therefore they confined their presence to temples and images , that they might know where to find them . their temples were the places where they kept the statues and images of their gods , to whom such temples were dedicated , and where they believed such gods dwelt : according to that of menander ; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that a just and righteous god must tarry at home to defend those who placed him there . this origen gives an account of in his third and seventh book against celsus , and the thing is so known , that i need not prove it , a temple and an image in the heathen theology were inseparably united ; an image to represent their god , a temple as a house for him to dwell in , and where they might be sure to find him . under the jewish law god so far condescended to the weakness of that people , as to a have visible presence among them ; first in the tabernacle , and then in the temple at ierusalem ; but though he had his temple , yet he had no image , which the heathen world thought essential to a temple . for though a symbolical presence was no confinement of god , nor injurious to his majesty , yet a material image was : and yet solomon in his prayer of dedication , took care to prevent the heathen notion of a temple , as if cod were confined to it ; for he owns his omnipresence , that he fills both heaven and earth ; only he prays , that he would have a more particular regard to that place , and to those prayers which should be offered up there ; 1 kings 8. 27 , 28 , &c. but will god indeed dwell on the earth ? behold the heaven , and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee , how much less this house that i have builded ? yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant , and to his supplication , o lord , my god , to hearken unto the cry , and to the prayer which thy servant prayeth before thee this day : that thine eyes may be open to this house night and day , &c. and therefore we may observe , that the temple was so contrived as to be a figure of the whole world . for the holy of holies was a figure of heaven into which the high priest entered once a year , heb. 9. 24. and therefore the rest of the temple signified this earth , and the daily worship , and service of it ; which plainly signified to them , that that god who dwelt in the temple , was not confined to that material building , but filled heaven and earth with his presence , though he was pleased to have a more peculiar regard to that place , and to the prayers and sacrifices which were offered there . and yet it seems that god would not so far have indulged them at that time , as to confine his worship and peculiar presence to a certain place , had it not been for the sake of some more divine mystery . for gods symbolical and figurative presence in the tabernacle and temple was only a type of the incarnation of the son of god , of his dwelling among us in a humane body or material temple , as st. iohn plainly intimates 1 iohn 14. the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the father , full of grace and truth ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he tabernacled among us ; dwelt among us as god under the law did in the tabernacle or temple ; and christ expresly calls his body the temple 2. iohn 19. destroy this temple , and in three days i will raise it up , which the evangelist tells us , he spake of the temple of his body , 21. v. and he affirms himself to be greater than the temple 12. matth. 6. he being that in truth of which the temple was a figure ; god dwelling among us , god dwelling in human nature . for this reason the worship of god was confined to the temple at ierusalem , to signifie to us that we can offer up no acceptable worship to god , but in the name and mediation of christ. but now under the gospel all these types and figures being accomplished in the person of our saviour ; as their priesthood and sacrifices , so their temple also had an end ; as christ expresly tells the woman of samaria , who disputed with him about the place of worship , whether it were the temple at ierusalem or samaria ; woman believe me , the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain , nor yet at jerusalem worship the father , john 4. 21. which cannot signifie that they should worship god neither at ierusalem nor samaria , for there were famous churches planted by the apostles at both these places , where they worshipped god in spirit and in truth ; but it signifies that there should be no material temple , that the presence of god should not be confined to a certain place , as then it was to the temple ; which occasioned that dispute between the iews and samaritanes , in which temple god was perculiarly present ; but wheresoever they worshipped god in spirit and in truth , the place should make no difference in their acceptation , as it did under the law ; which is not opposed to the erecting of decent and separate places of worship under the gospel , but only to the notion of a temple . that this was the sense of the primitive christians , that they had no material temples , as the heathens had , is evident from their writings ; for the heathens made this objection against them , that they had no temples nor images ; which is owned and answered by origen against celsus lib. 8. minutius faelix , arnobius , lactantius : the force then of the argument is this , if under the gospel god does not allow of so much as a temple or symbolical presence , which he did allow of under the law , when he forbad images , much less certainly does he allow images now , which he forbad under the law. but protestants have another argument to prove , that the worship of images is forbid by the gospel as well as by the law ; and that is , that the primitive church always understood it so , as is evident from the writings of the ancient fathers , who condemned the worship of images , and urged such arguments against it in their disputes with the heathens , as had easily been retorted upon themselves had they practised the same thing ; and yet this was never objected against them by their wittiest adversaries in that age , though when image worship began to be introduced into the church , it was presently objected against the christians both by jews and heathens ; and which is more than this , besides all the other arguments which they used , they alleadged the second commandment as the reason , why they could not worship images , which is a certain proof , that they then thought the second commandment was still in force . but i shall not enlarge upon this , because it is so well done in a late discourse concerning the antiquity of the protestant religion , part 2. concerning images to which i refer my reader . 13. the pope is antichrist . i answered , this has been affirmed by some protestants , but is no article of our church , and therefore we are not bound to prove it , but when we have a mind to it . no man ever pretended that there is any such proposition in scripture , as that the pope is antichrist , but some think , that the characters of antichrist and the man of sin , are much more applicable to him than the universal headship and infalibility . to this our author answers ( p. 8. ) do only some protestants , and no homily ( subscribed as containing a godly and wholsom doctrine , necessary for these times , article the fifty fifth ) though the church of england owns but thirty nine articles ; affirm the pope to be antichrist ? yet we meet with no scripture brought to prove this godly necessary doctrine . now though i could tell him , that every saying in an homily has not the authority of an article , yet i need not enter into that dispute ; for i am pretty confident it is no where expresly asserted in any of our homilies , that the pope is antichrist . the most that looks that way , is in the second part of the homily for whitsunday ; where from their opposition to some gospel doctrine , and preferring their own decrees before the express word of god , it is proved , that , they are not of christ , nor yet possessed with his spirit . from their pride and arrogance in challenging an universal headship , and advancing themselves above soveraign princes , or in the scripture phrase , above all that is called god , and treating emperors and kings with the greatest insolence and scorn : our church concludes , that they had not the spirit of god , but the spirit of the devil ; that wheresoever ye find the spirit of arrogancy and pride , the spirit of envy , hatred , contention , cruelty , murder , extortion , witchcraft , necromancy , &c. assure your selves , that there is the spirit of the devil and not of god ; albeit they pretend outwardly to the world never so much holiness , that such wicked popes as these are worthily accounted among the number of false prophets and false christs ; so that at most the homily does but reckon these popes in the number of false christs , but does not make the pope the antichrist . it concludes with a prayer , that god by the comfortable gospel of his son would beat down sin , death , the pope , the devil , and all the kingdom of antichrist ; where i confess the pope is put in very ill company , and a fair intimation given that he may have some relation to the kingdom of antichrist , but yet he is not expresly called antichrist . and therefore as for his demand of scripture proof , let him seek for it in those writers who expresly affirm the pope to be antichrist ; where it may be he will find more than he will like , or can easily answer . i told him before that the scripture does not expresly name who is antichrist , or the man of sin , but gives such characters of him , as some think the pope of rome has the best claim to : it is enough for us to know , that he usurps such an authority as christ never gave him , preaches such doctrines as christ never taught , encourages such actions as are contrary to the true spirit of the gospel ; and that is reason enough for us to reject him . 14. every prayer used in divine offices , must be in a language vulgar and intelligible to every auditor . for the proof of this i alleadged st. paul's discourse , 1. cor. 14. and must now consider what he tell us is the apostles mind in it , viz. that whoever had the gift of a tongue strange to all the auditory , should forbear to dictate therein extempore sermons , prayers , &c. containing matter , as well as the tongue inspired into the speaker : i say this gift ( of no use , but used for ostentation in such a case ) was to be reserved till either the speaker or some auditor could and did interpret , that the rest might edifie . now will it follow from hence , that all the settled forms of divine offices ( to many of which there is no necessity , that all specially joyn and intend ) be in the vulgar , or intelligible to every auditor ? it is enough ( to comply with the apostles doctrine ) that all new extempore prayers , and instructive or exhortatory discourse ( by actions , ceremonies , or circumstances , or other way not interpretable ) be , as they are , in the vulgar . but for the fixt forms of divine offices , that they be in a language the most certain and the most intelligible , not only in christendom , but in every auditory . intelligible i say , where needful , to every one by either actions , ceremonies , and circumstances , or by custom , affinity with the vulgar , or books intepreting and containing prayers correspondent to every part , wherein the auditory is concerned . i have transcribed the whole , because it is as choice a paragraph as we shall ordinarily meet with . the only difficulty i see in it , is to know at which end to begin to answer , for if i understand him , the beginning and conclusion of this paragraph do not well agree . in the beginning he would confine the apostles discourse against prayers in an unknown tongue , to inspired and extempore prayers and sermons , but that notwithstanding this , the setled forms of divine offices may be in an unknown tongue ; in the conclusion he would fain insinuate , that though the publick offices of the church of rome be in latin , which is not the vulgar tongue now in any nation , yet they are in a language the most certain and the most intelligible , not only in christendom but in every auditory . it seems he had some little qualm came over his conscience , some secret convictions that men ought to understand their prayers ; and therefore he roundly asserts , that latin is the most intelligible language , that is , the most known and best understood of any language in christendom , and to every auditory . now if this be so , what need all this dispute about service in an unknown tongue ? what need of distinguishing between extempore prayers , and setled forms of divine offices ? we are all it seems agreed , that publick prayers ought to be in an intelligible language , and that which is intelligible to every auditor ; the only difference is whether latin be as well understood in all the auditories in england , as english is . well , but this is a very great riddle , and requires some skill to make it out ; for our english auditories believe themselves that they do not understand latin , but they may be mistaken for ought any body knows ; let us than see how our author makes it out , intelligible , i say , where needful , to every one by either actions , ceremonies , and circumstances , or by custom , affinity with the vulgar , or books interpreting , and containing prayers correspondent to every part , wherein the auditory is concerned ; that is , as we use to say , you must know their meaning by their gaping ; and thus forsooth , latin is a very intelligible language to those who do not understand one word of it . what shuffling and trifling is this ! do the people understand latin prayers , or do they not ? if they don't , then the service is performed in an unknown tongue to them , which st. paul expresly condemns ; and whatever they understand about the business , yet they do not understand their prayers ; which is the dispute between us : if these dumb signs can teach people their prayers , then it is lawful for them , it seems , to know their prayers , and then why may they not pray in a language which they understand ? for words are more expressive of thoughts , than actions , and ceremonies , and circumstances can be , which can only tell in general what we are about , not what we say ; and as for books to interpret our prayers , what need we go so far about ? why may we not pray in the vulgar tongue as well as interpret prayers in a vulgar tongue ? and what shall those do who have no books and cannot read ? this is direct boys play , to make an offer of giving something , but to pull back your hand if any one offers to take it . let us then consider , how he can adjust this matter with st. paul ; and the sum of what he says is this , that st. paul only forbids inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue , where there is no body to interpret , but the setled forms of divine offices may be in an unknown tongue for all that . this is certainly as little as can be said , and as little to the purpose ; for whoever considers the place , will find that all the apostles arguments are against an unknown tongue , for this very reason , because it is unknown and not understood ; and then if we must not use an unknown tongue in religious worship , we must not use an unknown tongue in our setled and ordinary devotions . there are three arguments the apostle uses , which i think , will reach our ordinary devotions , as well as inspired gifts . 1. that it is contrary to the edification of the church . 2. that it contradicts the natural use of speaking . 3. that it is contrary to the nature and end of prayer . 1. it is contrary to the edification of the church . now , brethren , if i come unto you , speaking with tongues , what shall i profit you , except i shall speak to you either by revelation , or by knowledge , or by prophecying , or by doctrine ? that is , unless i speak something to you , which you can understand , and which may inform your judgment ; as he adds , in the church i had rather speak five words with my understanding , that by my voice i might teach others also , than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue . now if these extraordinary gifts of the spirit were to be valued and used only for the edification of the church , and to speak to the instruction of others , is to be preferred before speaking in an unknown tongue by inspiration ; then certainly the ordinary service and worship of god , which is instituted on purpose for the edification of the church , must be in a known tongue , when the extraordinary gifts of the spirit themselves must give place to edification . for if the apostle would have made any exception , methinks he should have excepted these extraordinary gifts : for one would think , whenever the holy spirit inspires men , they ought to speak whatever language it be in : for it seems strange , that any man should forbid these to speak , whom the spirit inspires ; and yet we see the exercise of these gifts were restrained to make them serviceable to the church , and not to be for meer pomp and ostentation . but for men , who have no pretence to any such inspiration , to affect to speak in an unknown tongue that they may not be understood , is to deprive the church of the edification of religious offices , without any pretence for doing so . 2. to speak in an unknown tongue , contradicts the natural end and use of speech . for even things without life giving sounds , whether pipe or harp , except they give a distinction in the sounds , how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound , who shall prepare himself to the battel ? so likewise you , except ye utter by the tongue words easie to be understood , how shall it be known what is spoken , for ye shall speak into the air ? there are , it may be , so many kinds of voices in the world , and none of them without signification : therefore if i know not the meaning of the voice , i shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian , and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me . is this argument only against inspired tongues , or against the use of all unknown tongues , among persons who do not understand them ? for this relates to the use of speech in common conversation , as well as in the offices of religion ; and if speech was given us to communicate our thoughts to each other ; if it be so vain , and absurd , and useless a thing to talk to men in a tongue which they do not understand , it is much more absurd in religion , which does more straitly oblige us to mutual edification . for the use of words even in prayer , is not for the sake of god , but men . god knows our thoughts , and therefore a mental prayer is as acceptable to him without vocal words ; but the use of words is either to affect our selves , and then they must be such words as we our selves understand ; or to direct others in the matter and form of their prayers , and then they must be such words as they understand ; or to unite the affections and desires of the whole congregation at the same time in the same petitions , which is essential to publick worship ; and then they must be such words as we all understand ; but to speak words which no body understands , is to speak to no purpose , which is absurd in common conversation , but profane in religion . 3ly . another argument st. paul uses against an unknown tongue , is , that it is contrary to the nature of prayer and religious worship , which must be a reasonable service , and therefore requires the exercise of the understanding , as well as affections . for if i pray in an unknown tongue , my spirit prayeth , but my understanding is unfruitful . what is it then , i will pray with the spirit , and will pray with the understanding also ; i will sing with the spirit , and i will sing with the understanding also . else when thou shalt bless with the spirit , how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned ( that is , every ordinary christian , who has not this gift of tongues , or of interpreting tongues ; for there were no clarks in those days to say amen for the whole congregation ) say amen at thy giving of thanks , seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest ? and if the exercise of supernatural gifts themselves , which the apostle seems here to call praying by the spirit , be not an acceptable worship to god , without the acts of our reason and understanding , certainly an unknown tongue is much more unjustifyable in our ordinary devotions . if the whole congregation must say amen to those prayers which are offered to god , and it be a ludicrous thing to say amen to what we do not understand , then whether the prayers be inspired , or composed , it is necessary that the whole congregation should understand them . but our author ( though very timerously ) insinuates an answer or two to this one reason , why he thinks the setled forms of divine offices are tacitely excepted by the apostle , and need not be performed in the vulgar , and intelligible to every auditor , comes in in a parenthesis , and indeed was as fit for a parenthesis as any thing could be ; for he will presently see , that it might have been spared . to many of which ( divine offices ) there is no necessity that all specially joyn and intend : by which i suppose he means , that there are several offices in the church of rome , which people are not bound to attend to , nor joyn in , and therefore there is no need they should understand them . 1. now in the first place , i desire to know why there should be any such divine offices in publick worship , which the people are not bound to joyn in ? methinks the apostle's argument against speaking in an unknown tongue , because it is contrary to edification , holds as well , and for the same reason , against such offices as these , which certainly are not much for edification , when people are not bound to joyn in them ; unless every thing in publick worship must be done for edification , and therefore must be understood by the people who are to be edified by it , the apostles argument against these inspired tongues is not good ; for if our author had been present when st. paul wrote this , he could have easily answered him , that there was no need that the whole congregation should understand these inspired men ; but let those understand who could , and if no body understood it , what hurt did it do ? nay , the exercise of such extraordinary gifts did edifie those who saw and heard , though they did not understand ; and when the spirit inspires men to speak in unknown tongues , we have reason to think , that the spirit did not intend that every one should understand them ; and that is reason to believe , that the exercise of such gifts was very fitting , though they were not understood . let our author try now how he can justifie st. paul's argument against unknown , though inspired tongues , upon the principle which he has laid down , that the people are not bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship ; that any thing may be done in publick worship , which is not for publick edification : or let him try if he can say half so much for such setled forms of divine offices , as people are not bound to joyn in , and therefore not bound to understand , as may be pleaded for the occasional exercise of miraculous and inspired gifts in an unknown tongue : and if he can't , then this answer he gives about such offices as people are not bound to joyn in , is a better answer to st. paul , than it is to protestants , a much better vindication of the exercise of such unknown tongues , than of the use of latine service where latine is an unknown tongue . for , secondly , i would ask our author , whether there be any offices of religion , which people are bound to attend to , and to joyn in ? his saying , that there are many , which they are not bound to attend to , supposes , that there are some , which they are bound to attend to , and to joyn in ; and his making this an argument for service in an unknown tongue , that there are many offices , which they are not bound to attend to , and therefore not to understand ; ( for there must be the force of his argument , if it have any ) supposes , that they must understand what they must attend to , and joyn in : how then does this justifie the latine service of the church of rome ? for their whole service is in latine , an unknown tongue ; and therefore according to his reason , the people are not bound to attend to , or joyn in any part of their worship , because they understand none of it . and is not that a pretty kind of publick worship , which no body is bound to attend to , or joyn in ? not the priest himself , when he does not understand latin , which , as they say , too often happens in catholick countries . 3ly . since our author says , that there are only many , not all divine offices , which the people are not bound to joyn in , he would have done well to have given us some mark of distinction , that we might have known what offices people must joyn in , and what not . for i cannot for my life think of any act of publick christian worship , which all christians are not bound to joyn in . i should think it very convenient , that all christians should attend to , and joyn in the holy sacraments when they are administred ; for if they must not bear their parts there ( which must be their own act , or it signifies nothing , it being a making and renewing a solemn vow and covenant with god ) to be sure they can be concerned in nothing else : and therefore the offices of baptism and the lords supper , ought to be administred in the vulgar tongue , that every body may understand them . thus , if men are bound to pray to god , and to praise him , surely they are bound to joyn in publick prayers and praises ; and then according to this rule , the publick prayers and hymns of the church ought to be in the vulgar tongue . and i cannot imagine a reason why the people ought not to attend to reading the lessons , the epistles , and gospels ; for i know no other use of reading them , but that the people might hear , and understand them , and be edified by them ; and then they also should be in the vulgar tongue . in short , there is nothing is an office of religion , but what the people are concerned in , and therefore must attend to it , and joyn in it , unless it be not their duty to attend to , and joyn in the worship of god : and therefore our author by insinuating this principle , that people must understand what they are bound to attend to , and joyn in , ( which is so agreeable to common sense , that he could not resist it ) has effectually overthrown and condemned the latine service , unless he can prove , that people are not concerned to joyn in the worship of god ; and then i desire to know why they must be present at it ? 4. but suppose , as he says , that there were no necessity that all should specially joyn , and attend to all religious offices , yet were it not better , that they should ? were it not more for the edification of the church , and of every particular christian , that they should understand their prayers , and all joyn in the same petitions , with the same devout affections , than that they should only gaze upon the priest , and be not worshippers , but meer spectators of religious worship ? now if it be better to understand our prayers , than not to understand them , to offer up a reasonable , than unreasonable service to god ; if it be better to worship god , than meerly to see him worshipped ; then how can he justifie service in an unknown tongue ? for when the apostle disputes against speaking with unknown tongues , the argument whereon he founds the unlawfulness of it , is , that it is against edification ; and this argument must hold against latine service , unless ignorance edifies more than knowledge ; which i believe at this time of day our author will not care to say . secondly , his next answer is what i before took notice of ; that the people do understand their prayers , though they be in latine . the meaning of which , is no more but this ; that by frequent attendance at mass , and observing the actions and ceremonies used by the priest , some of them understand whereabout the priest is , and what he is a doing : they know , when they hear the bell , and see the elevation of the host , that they must fall down and worship , &c. but do not understand one word that is said . but this is only to understand the actions and ceremonies , not the words ; and cannot answer the end of publick prayer , which is to offer up our common petitions to god with one heart and mind . the use of words in publick prayer , is to direct and determine our thoughts , and to excite our affections ; for this reason the priest reads the prayers with an audible voice , that all the people may joyn with him , and these indeed are publick and common prayers ; but now in the church of rome the priest reads the prayers , but the people do not joyn with him , because they do not understand him ; but the most they can do is by actions and ceremonies , to guess at what part of the service he is , and either only look on , or if they be very devout , entertain themselves with some good pious thoughts , or put up some private prayers to god , or it may be to the virgin mary , or some saint , while the priest is saying mass ; and thus the priest prays by himself , and the people , if they do pray , pray by themselves , and have no other benefit of the publick offices of the church , but only to see what the priest does , which at best can only fill them with some religious amusements , or with confused , and indistinct , and enthusiastick devotions . it is plain , that in the church of rome , the devotions of the people are left to their own extempore conceits , which is a thousand times worse than the extempore prayers of the preachers , who may be men of parts and learning , and able to suggest very proper petitions , and very pious thoughts , and to excite very devout passions in their hearers ; and is it not very odd that the church should have settled forms of divine offices , composed forms of prayer and praise , and yet the people , who will pray , must be left to their extempore devotions ; is this also for the edification of the church ? is not this fanaticism with a witness . to conclude this argument , i know no practise in the world more directly contrary to the sense of all mankind than prayers in an unknown tongue . there was no nation , nor no religion in the world ever professedly guilty of it , but the church of rome ; and there can be no reason imaginable why they should conceal their worship , unless they are ashamed of it , or suspect that no disinterested man can like it when he knows it ; and it is as odd a task to prove that men must understand their prayers , as it would be to prove that the use of speech is to be understood . 15. a company of christians voluntarily separating from all other christian societies , condemning their doctrines and rites , destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the eucharist , in any religious assemblies or solemn devotions ; can , notwithstanding this perverse , intire , and manifest separation be a mystical member of christ in catholick unity , and a charitable part of the catholick church . in answer to this i told him , that if he applies this to us , it is manifestly false ; for though we do not communicate with the church of rome in her corrupt worship , yet there are many christian churches with which we can and do communicate ; and separate our selves no farther from any society of christians , than they separate themselves from the primitive and apostolick church ; that if the church of england be a true apostolick church in faith , and worship , and government , and separates from other churches only upon account of such corruptions as will justifie a separation , what should hinder her from being a mystical member of christ , in catholick unity , and a charitable part of the catholick church ? for a true apostolick faith and worship does certainly make us the mystical members of christs body , or else i desire to know what does ? that catholick unity is not violated by a just separation , and dangerous corruptions in faith and worship are a just cause of separation . come out from among them , and , be ye separate , saith the lord ; and touch not the unclean thing and i will receive you 2 cor 6. 17. all that our author replies to this is , that this proposition relates to matter of fact , which we affirm protestants to have done , and desire them to make out by scripture the lawfulness of it , and its consistency with catholick unity and charity . but i denied that we had done this , and gave him in short my reasons why i denied it , which methinks might have deserved some notice : and as for our separation from the corruptions of the church of rome , that i gave him my reasons for , and such as , it seems , he had no mind to answer ; that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary , and therefore not chargeable with schism , nor a breach of catholick unity , i proved from the text now quoted . come out from among them , &c. to which he says , if i intend this for a proof , then it must import that it is the duty of one christian , or a party pretending to be a national church to come out of the catholick church , and be separate from her ; less than this will not reach the protestant case , and so much as this will by no means agree with one holy church , wherein alone the communion of saints , remission of sins , and life everlasting are to be found . but how is this the protestant case ? how does separation from the church of rome , and that no farther neither than she is corrupt , come to be a separation from the catholick church ? he knows that we deny the church of rome to be the catholick church , and we know that he can never prove it to be so ; and whatever church or churches have corrupted the faith and worship of christ , we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such corruptions , and have the whole gospel to justifie us in it ; for in such cases we are under the same obligation to separate , that we are to profess the true faith , and practise the true worship of christ. all that can be charged upon the church of england is , that she renounced the supremacy of the bishop of rome , and denied obedience and subjection to that see , which never had any divine right to claim it : and that she reformed those errors in doctrine , and corruptions in worship , which she formerly was guilty of . this charge we readily own , but deny that this is schism of separation from the catholick church . for till our author can prove that the unity of the catholick church consists in subjection to the bishop of rome , it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking catholick unity , by denying that obedience which we do not owe ; and when he can prove this essential to catholick unity to submit to the bishop of rome , as the visible head of the church , we will own our selves to be schismaticks . but then i must mind him what he is to prove , viz. that by a divine institution the bishop of rome is the visible head of unity , to whom all churches must submit , for nothing can be essential to the unity of the church but what christ himself has made so ; and what is not absolutely essential may be changed and altered , when there is absolute necessity for it , without a sinful breach of unity ; and therefore though they cannot make good their claim to this universal supremacy , not so much as by ecclesiastical canons and constitutions , and ancient customs , as has been often proved by learned protestants ; yet to shorten that dispute , which to be sure none but learned men can be judges of ; whatever jurisdiction or primacy they pretend to , have been formerly granted by ancient councils to the bishop of rome , may be retrenched or denied without the guilt of schism , when it proves a manifest oppression of the christian church , and serves only to justifie and perpetuate the most notorious and intolerable corruptions of the christian religion . and the reason is very plain , because all human constitutions are alterable , and what is alterable ought to be altered , when the indispensable necessities of the church and of religion require it . catholick unity requires no superiority , or jurisdiction of one bishop or one church over another , but only mutual concord and brotherly correspondence ; and therefore a church which rejects any foreign jurisdiction , may yet maintain catholick unity , as the african churches did in st. cyprians days . the combination indeed of neighbour churches and bishops , for the more convenient exercise of ecclesiastical discipline and government , we grant was very ancient , and is of great use to this day ; but if such combinations as these degenerate from their first institution , and by the tyranny and encroachments of some usurping bishops is improved into a temporal monarchy , and invasion upon the inherent rights and liberties of all other bishops and churches , i would desire to know why these oppressed bishops and churches may not vindicate their own rights and liberties , and cast off such an intolerable yoak ? no , you 'l say , when such a superiority and subordination of churches is ordered and decreed by general councils , which is the supream authority in the church , no change nor alteration can be made but by an equal authority ; and therefore no particular bishops or churches can reject any such jurisdiction , unless it be revoked by a general council , without the guilt of schism . now in answer to this , let us consider , 1. suppose such an aspiring bishop has usurped such an authority , as was never orginally granted him by any council ; that he has improved a primacy of order ( which yet is more than the nicene canons granted to the bishop of rome ) into a supremacy of jurisdiction , and has enlarged his patriarchate beyond its original bounds , may not that be taken away without a general council , which was usurped indeed but never given ? 2ly . suppose a general council had granted what it had no right to give ; as it must have done , if ever any general council had granted or confirmed the popes pretensions , of being the universal bishop and visible head of the church , and the fountain of all ecclesiastical authority , and granted away these rights and powers , which are inherent in every church , and inseparable from the episcopal office. for it is not in ecclesiastical as it is in civil rights ; men may irrevocably grant away their own civil rights and liberties , but all the authority in the church cannot give away it self , nor grant the whole intire episcopacy , with all the rights and powers of it , to any one bishop . if bishops will not exercise that power which christ has given them , they are accountable to their lord for it ; but they cannot give it away , neither from themselves , nor from their successors ; for it is theirs only to use , not to part with ; and therefore every bishop may reassume such rights , though a general council should give them away , because the grant is void in it self . 3ly . especially when the regular means of redress is made impossible by such usurpations ; when the christian church is so inslaved to the will and pleasure of one domineering bishop , that there can be no general council unless he call it , and preside in it , and confirm it by his own authority ; and how impossible it is this way to cast off such an usurping power , when the usurper must be the judg in his own cause ; i need not prove , especially when christian princes and bishops are so devoted to the see of rome , either linked to it by secular interests , or over-awed by superstition ; that it is in vain to expect that such a council should redress such abuses , as they themselves are fond of ; or if they would have them redressed if they could , yet dare not venture to attempt it ; must all bishops now and churches quietly submit to such usurpations , because the greatest number of them will not , or dare not , vindicate their own rights ? is it then unlawful for christian bishops to exercise that authority which christ has given them , and of which they must give an account , if they happen to be out-voted by other bishops ; i grant the less number of bishops cannot make laws for the universal church , in opposition to the greater numbers ; whatever constitutions owe their authority to mutual consent , must in all reason be confirmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers ; but the less number , nay any single bishop may observe the institutions of our saviour , and exercise that authority which he has given him , without asking leave of general councils , nay in opposition to them ; for the authority and institution of our saviour is beyond all the general councils in the world. 4. especially when we have the consent of much the greater number of bishops , without their meeting in a general council . all the eastern bishops , which are much more numerous than the western , i cannot say , have cast off the authority of the bishop of rome , because they never owned it , but yet they oppose and reject his authority , as much as the bishops of england do ; and therefore our reformers in casting off the pope , did nothing but what they had the authority of the whole eastern church to justifie ; which i take to be as good as a council of western bishops , though they may call it general : for the business of a council in such cases , is not to consent to some new laws , but to declare ancient and original rights ; and if we have their authentick declarations in this matter , we need no more : for we do not so much want their authority , as their judgment in this point . it is a very daring thing to oppose the universal consent of the whole christian church ; and no private bishops , nor national combination of bishops , would be able to bear up against such a prejudice ; but when we have the concurrent opinions of the greatest number of christian bishops , we need not much concern our selves for want of the formality of a western council , who are interested parties ; yes , you 'l say , at least the church of england was subject to the jurisdiction of the western patriarch , and therefore ought not to have innovated without the patriarchal authority , and a patriarchal council , nor to have rejected the patriarchal authority , which was confirmed by ancient councils . now , not to dispute this at present , whether england were subject to the bishop of rome , as the western patriarch , which it is certain our brittish bishops , when austin the monk came into england , would not own ; and which was never granted by any ancient general council : and the submission of the english bishops afterwards by fear or flattery , could never give such a right as should oblige all their successours for future ages ; yet i say this patriarchal authority is not the dispute between the church of england and the church of rome . our reformers took no notice of the patriarchal authority , but the universal headship and supremacy of the bishop of rome , as is evident from the articles of our church , in which there is no mention of it : and this was such an usurpation as might be renounced , without the authority of any council , as i have already shown . indeed his patriarchal authority , if he had any , necessarily fell with it : for when he challenges such an exorbitant power , so far exceeding the bounds and limits of a patriarchal authority , and will exercise all , if he exercise any , and will hold communion with none upon any other terms , and will not be confined to a meer patriarchal jurisdiction , we must necessarily renounce all subjection to him to deliver our selves from his usurpations ; when his pretended patriarchate is swallowed up in his universal headship , he may thank himself , if he forfeits what he might with a better appearance make some pretence to , by challenging so much more than ever was his right . and the patriarchal authority it self , could he have made any pretences to it , which he never could over the church of england , which was originally a free and independent church , being but a human constitution , may be renounced without schism , when necessity requires it ; and certainly , if ever there can be any necessity for such a rupture , it becomes necessary then , when it swells into a boundless , and unlimited authority , to the oppression of the whole christian church in her essential rights and liberties . 5ly . there is one thing more i would have observed for the right stating of this dispute about schism . viz. the difference between schism from the catholick church , and the breach of ecclesiastical communion between different churches . in the first sense schism cuts us off from the body of christ , and consequently puts us out of a state of salvation ; and therefore it can be nothing less than a separation from the communion of the church in things essential to faith , or worship , or government ; for in this sense no man can be a schismatick , without , in some degree or other , forfeiting his christianity , and his essential right to christian communion . ecclesiastical communion is the union of several distinct churches into one ecclesiastical body for mutual advice and counsel , and the more pure administration of discipline . when several bishops who have originally all the same authority in the government of their several churches , bestow different powers on some bishops , whom they advance above others with the title and authority of metropolitans , or patriarchs , with a power of calling synods , and receiving appeals , and the principal authority of ordinations ; and govern their several churches by such ecclesiastical laws , as are agreed on by common consent , or the major vote , this is a very useful constitution , and of great antiquity in the church , if it had not its beginning in the apostles times ; and for any bishop or church causelessly to break such a confederacy as this , is a very great evil , and has the guilt and crime of schism ; but yet it does not seem to be such a schism as divides the intrinsick unity of the catholick church , and cuts off such a church from the body of christ. for the unity of the catholick church consists in one faith , and worship , and charity , and such an external communion , when occasion offers , shows , that we are all the disciples of the same common lord and saviour ; and own each other for brethren ; but the church may be the one body of christ , without being one ecclesiastical body , under one governing head , which it is impossible the whole christian church should be ; and therefore a church which divides it self from that ecclesiastical body , to which it did once belong ; if it have just and necessary reasons for what it does , is wholly blameless , nay , commendable for it ; if it have not , it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the crime ; but still may be a member of the catholick church , and still enjoy all the priviledges of a true catholick church , the communion of saints , the forgiveness of sins , and the promises of everlasting life : which shows us how the holy catholick church in the creed may be one , notwithstanding all those divisions of christendom , which are occasioned by the quarrels of bishops , and the disputes about ecclesiastical canons , and ecclesiastical jurisdiction . those who are the beginners or fomentors of such divisions , shall answer it to their lord and judge , as they shall all their other personal miscarriages : but it would be very hard , if such a church , which in its faith and worship is truly catholick , should be cut off from the body of christ , and all the members of it put out of a state of salvation , because the bishops and pastors of such churches think fit to divide themselves from that ecclesiastical body , to which they were united by custom , or ancient canons . now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the ecclesiastical communion of the church of rome ; that we have divided our selves from the bishop of rome , to whom by custom , or some pretended canons , we owed obedience and subjection ; which i have proved to be very innocent in us , because it was necessary : but suppose it were a causeless and criminal separation , yet it is only an ecclesiastical schism , which does not separate us from the catholick church , though it does from that ecclesiastical body , of which the bishop of rome makes himself the head. this , i think , is a sufficient justification of the church of england in rejecting the authority of the church of rome ; and her reforming the errors and corruptions of faith and worship , needs no defence at all , though there were never a pure and reformed church in the world besides her self . for i would desire our author to tell me , whether it be a fault to reform the corruptions of faith and worship . can it be a fault then to believe as christ has taught , and to worship god as he has prescribed ? is it possible that the true catholick faith and worship should ever be a crime ? if it be not , then it can be no fault to make the doctrines and institutions of our saviour , the rule of our faith and worship ; and that is all that we mean by reforming ; not to mend christian religion , but to return to primitive christianity . to cast such doctrines out of our creed , as christ never taught , and to reject all new and suspected worships : and if it be always a duty to profess what christ and his apostles have taught , and to practise as they have commanded ; then if ever we believed or practised otherwise , it is necessary to reform ; which is not in a proper sense to reform the church , or the christian faith and worship , but to reform our selves . for the christian faith and worship is always the same ; and if there be any thing to be reformed , it must be our own errors and mistakes . what then is the fault of the church of england ? why cannot she be a mystical member of christ in catholick unity , or a charitable part of the catholick church ? the charge is drawn up against her , under three heads . 1. that she voluntarily separates from all other christian societies . 2. condemns their doctrines and rights . 3. has no visible correspondence with them in the eucharist , nor in any religious assemblies , nor solemn devotions . let us consider these distinctly . 1. the church of england voluntarily separates from all other christian societies . this i told him was false as to matter of fact ; for there are a great many christian societies which we can , and do hold communion with , as opportunity serves ; and he can never make good this charge , but by denying , that there are any other christian societies besides the church of rome ; which , i suppose , is what he intends . well! we do separate , he says , and that voluntarily from the church of rome , that is , from all christian societies . now i grant we do separate from the bishop and the church of rome , considered as the principle and center of catholick unity , as i observed before ; but considered as a christian church , so i deny , that we separate from the church of rome , or any other christian church , as far as they are christian , and we are bound to communicate with them no farther . for , i pray , consider what christian communion is , which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true christian faith and worship ; for to communicate in judaism , paganism , mahumatism , or any unchristian doctrines or practices , certainly is not christian communion : and therefore every church is more or less perfect in christian communion , according to the purity and perfection of her faith and worship . if then the church of england professes the true christian faith , and worships god according to the gospel of his son , without any corrupt mixtures and innovations , as far as true faith and worship reaches , she is in communion with all the christian churches in the world ; for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise , which is truly christian , and christian communion extends no farther . well , but when the whole church was agreed in faith and worship , we broke this bond of unity by a pretended reformation . suppose this , the question still is , whether this unity of the church was a christian communion ? for if it were not , it is no separation from the christian church , to leave its communion in those things which are not christian : and therefore the whole controversie will still turn upon this point , whether the reformation of the church of england be a true gospel reformation ; for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed , then we separated no farther than we ought to separate ; and such a separation , if you will call it a separation , i hope , is no crime . did elias separate from the jewish church , because he broke their unity in the worship of baal , and reduced them to the institutions of the moisaick law , which was the standard of their religion and communion ? just so the church of england separated from the church of rome , by rejecting those articles of faith , and forms of worship , which are not christian. some kind of separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt church , but if you would know on which side the separation is criminal , you must consider on which side the corruption is ; for necessary truths can never make a criminal separation . the church which forsakes the truth , is always guilty of the separation , not the church which forsakes errors ; and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the schism , who only forsake the company , when those are the schismaticks , who forsake the truth . and yet this is the only pretence for the church of rome to charge us with schism , that they did not leave us , but we left them ; they kept where they were , and we went out from among them , and forsook their communion ; but it was because they had first forsaken the apostolick communion , by corrupting the apostolick faith and worship . they were the deserters and separatists , we only returned to the true christian communion , and were very sorry to leave them behind us . the short of it is this , if we cannot justifie our reformation , we are schismaticks ; if we can , we are none : and i would desire all protestants to take notice of this short answer , and stick to it ; for it is as certain as any demonstration in euolid , that no man can be a schismatick , who forsakes no society of christians any farther than they forsake the truth . 2. the next charge is , that we condemn their doctrines and their rights ; but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned ? if we do it is indeed a fault ; but if we don't , why are we blamed for it ? 3. we have no visible correspondence with them in the eucharist , nor in any religious assemblies , nor solemn devotions . how so ? we visibly receive the eucharist our selves , and perform our solemn devotions in publick assemblies , and this is to communicate with the whole christian church in the same sacraments and worship , and the only way that distant churches have to communicate with each other in sacraments and worship ; unless he thinks the church of england must travel into france , and spain , and italy , into greece and aegypt , and all other remote churches to communicate with them . no , but when their worship is brought home to us , we refuse to joyn with them ; right ! for according to the laws of catholick communion , when they are in england they ought to communicate with us , not we with them , according to st. austins rule , to observe the rights and usages of the church , whither soever we come , as far as they are innocent ; if we denied to receive them to our communion , they might with better reason charge us with schism ; but we are not bound to forsake the communion of our own church to follow foreign customs at home . but when we do come where their worship is the established religion , we still refuse to communicate with them ; we do so indeed with the roman church , but not with all other christian societies ; and the reason is , because we believe their worship is sinful , and no christian is bound to communicate in a sinful worship , as they themselves must grant : so that still this whole controversy issues in this , whether the terms of their communion be not sinful ; if they be , this will justifie our non-communion with them ; if they be not , we are schismaticks , and by this we are willing to stand or fall . so that this charge of schism upon the church of england is very absurd and ridiculous , unless they can charge us with schismatical doctrines and practices ; if we separate for the sake of a corrupt faith or worship , we are schismaticks indeed ; but if we separate , only because we will not profess any erroneous doctrines , nor communicate in a corrupt worship , unless the true faith and true worship can make men schismaticks , we may very securely scorn such an accusation . and it is as impertinent a question to ask us what church we joyned in communion with when we forsook the communion of the church of rome : for if by joyning in communion with other churches , they mean uniting our selves in one ecclesiastical body with them , putting our selves under the government of any other patriarch , so we joyned in communion with no other church , and there was no reason we should ; for we were originally a free independent church , which owed no subjection to any other church , but had a plenary power to decide all controversies among our selves , without appealing to any foreign jurisdiction ; and when we had delivered our selves from one usurper , there was no reason to court a new one , this not being necessary to catholick unity and communion . if by joyning in communion with other churches , they mean , what other churches we made the pattern of our reformation , we freely confess we made no church of that age our pattern ; but i think we did much better , for we made the scriptures our rule , and the primitive and apostolick churches our pattern , which we take to be a more infallible direction than the example of any church then or now : if we must have been confined to the faith and practise of other churches then in being , without regard to a more infallible rule , and a more unquestionable authority , i confess , i should have chose to have continued in the church of rome , which had the most visible and flourishing authority of any other church at that time ; but our reformers did believe , and very rightly , that no church had any authority against the scriptures and primitive practise , and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other church did in all things believe and practise as they taught , but what the faith and practice of the apostles and their immediate successors was ; and yet they very well know , that most of those doctrines and practises , which they condemned in the church of rome , were condemned by other churches also , though it may be those other churches might have some less errors and corruptions of their own . if the scriptures and the example of the primitive churches be a sufficient authority to justifie a reformation , then the church of england is blameless , though no other church in the world followed this pattern but our selves ; for this is the rule and pattern which they ought all to follow , and if they do not , it is not we are to blame , but themselves . and yet what if i should say , that our reformers made the church of rome her self , the pattern of our reformation ; and indeed this is the plain truth of the case . for we framed no new creeds , no new articles of faith , no new forms of worship , no new models of government , but retained all that is ancient and apostolick in the church of rome , and only rejected those corruptions and innovations , which were introduced in several ages , and confirmed all together by the council of trent . our faith is contained in the apostles , nicene , athanasian creeds , which are all owned by the church of rome , and were the ancient faith of the catholick church . we own the two christian sacraments , baptism and the lords supper , which were expresly instituted by our saviour himself , and which the church of rome owns . we worship one god through jesus christ , who is that one mediator between god and man , as the church of rome confesses , though she brings in a great many other mediators by the help of a distinction . our publick liturgie is so conformed to the ancient liturgies of the roman church , that it has been often objected to us , though very peevishly and absurdly , by dissenters , that our common prayer is taken out of the mass book : our litanies , collects , hymns , are many of them taken out of the old latin liturgies , only we have changed the popish legends into lessons out of the old and new testaments , and have left out prayers to saints , and all the corruptions of the mass , and other superstitions : so that in truth the church of england is the exact resemblance of the church of rome in her state of primitive purity , before her faith and worship were corrupted with new and superstitious additions ; and it is plain that this was the rule of our reformation , not to form and model a new church , but only to purge the church from all new corruptions , and to leave the old foundations and building as it was ; and if we have indeed retained all that is ancient and apostolick in the church of rome , and rejected nothing but innovations in faith , and corruptions in worship ; they need not enquire for a church which believes all that we do , for the church of rome her self does so , and if they believe more than they should , it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do ; and therefore we had no need to seek for any other church to joyn with ; for we staid where we were , and did not leave our church , but reform it ; and a man who does not pull down his house , but only cleanses it , and makes it a more wholsom habitation , needs not inquire for a new house to dwell in . to conclude this argument , our positive faith and worship is the same still with the church of romes , and therefore they cannot blame us for it ; and in those doctrines and practices wherein we have forsaken the church of rome , we have the authority and practice of most other churches to justifie us , which do not own the supremacy of the pope , nor transubstantiation , nor purgatory , nor communion in one kind , nor latin service , nor the worship of images , with several other of the trent innovations : so that in truth we are so far from separating from all christian societies , that there are few things in our reformation , but what are owned and justified either by the church of rome her self , or by some other churches ; not to take notice now , that there are few things in our reformation but what some doctors of the roman communion , have either justified , or spoke modestly of . 16. the whole clergy of the catholick church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness , whilst part of a national laity may preserve both , discover the clergies defection , and depriving them heap to themselves teachers of their own sending and instruction . in answer to this i told him , that if by this he meant , that the whole clergy of the christian world did at the time of the reformation maintain the doctrines of the church of rome , which were rejected and condemned only by a major vote of a parliament of lay-men in england , all the world knew how false it is . for , 1. there were many other churches , and better parts of the catholick church than the church of rome , which did not own those doctrines and corruptions , which we reject . 2. nay the whole clergy of the roman church did not , for many of our english bishops and clergy were as zealous for the reformation as any lay-men ; so were the german reformers , who were originally popish monks and priests , and yet did not follow the laity , but lead them way to the reformation . in reply to this , he says , i manifest my self meanly versed in the story of my own party , or no friend to ingenuity and truth . for it is certainly true and attested by protestant historians and records , that all the bishops , and the whole convocation declared against lay-supremacy and other protestant points , and for non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived ; the queen and her lay-parliament enacting supremacy , whereby she imposed new doctrines , displaced the catholick clergy , and created prelatick ministers . and whether he or i be most in the right let the reader judg. for , 1. it is plain i did not speak only of the clergy of england , but of the whole clergy of the catholick church , as he himself stated the question ; and he answers only to the clergy of england , and with what truth shall be examined presently : for if the whole clergy of the catholick church have not apostatized , whatever the clergy of the church of rome has done , he loses the very foundation of his request to us , to prove that the whole clergy of the catholick church have apostatized from fundamental truth and holiness , for we are not bound to prove that which is false ; but he who allows no catholick church but the church of rome , must consequently allow no clergy of the catholick church , but the roman clergy , but we grant neither one nor t'other ; and yet as i showed the roman clergy themselves were the first reformers ; and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true , that the whole roman clergy opposed the roman laity in the reformation . 2. as for the english reformation , he confines it in his answer only to the story of queen elizabeth , and what was done in her reign ; but the article he would have proved , and the answer i gave to it has no such limitation ; and i must still repeat , that all the world knows , and , the histories and records of our church assure us , that the popish bishops and convocation in henry the eight's days did acknowledg the kings supremacy , and in higher terms than queen elizabeth would challenge it . indeed the late oxford writer , or rather publisher of books , charges this upon that force they were under ; that is , that the clergy was taken in a praemunire , and the king would not compound the business with them , unless they acknowledged him to be the head of the church . but does this prove that they did not make this recognition ? if force or flattery can corrupt the whole clergy ; then it seems the whole clergy of the ( roman ) catholick church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness , if they fall first into a praemunire , and meet with a king who will take the advantage of it ; and are not the clergy then admirable guides to follow ? especially if they can be so over-awed , as not only to make such a profession , but to write and dispute for it , and use all variety of arguments to perswade people to believe it . the institution for the necessary erudition of a christian man , was agreed on in convocation , and published by authority . bishop gardiner wrote a book de vera obedientia , to which bonner prefixed a preface upon the same argument . stokesly , bishop of london , and tonstal bishop of duresm , wrote in defence of the kings proceedings , to cardinal pool ; and many sermons were preached by several bishops to the same purpose ; out of which dr. burnet has collected the arguments used by them , both against the power of the pope , and for the supremacy of the king : and during that session of parliament , which took away the power of the pope in the year 1534. a bishop preached every sunday at st. paul's cross , and taught the people , that the pope had no authority in england . was all this matter of force too , and fear of the praemunire , which was pardoned in parliament , anno 1531. three years before ? let us now consider what passed under queen elizabeth : and methinks , what was good doctrine in king henry's time , should be good doctrine still : and yet it is true , that many bishops then did protest against the act for supremacy , and refused the oath when it was offered them ; and that many of those bishops who had wrote , or preached for it before , such as bonner , bishop of london , and tonstal of duresm , which seems to lessen their authority in this matter ; and when the nation had so lately had the sense of the whole english roman clergy in this point , their present obstinacy to confirm their former opinions , without answering their former reasons , was no sufficient cause why a lay-parliament should not renew such laws without the consent of the clergy , which were at first made with it : not a bishop dissenting , excepting fisher bishop of rochester : and whereas he talks in such a strain , as if this were opposed by the whole clergy , and that they were almost all deprived for it , the account which the visiters gave the queen , is very different , that of 9400 beneficed men in england , there were no more but fourteen bishops , six abbots , twelve deans , twelve archdeacons , fifteen heads of colledges , fifty prebendaries , and eighty rectors of parishes , that had left their benefices upon account of religion , which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole . 3. i answered farther , that we do not say , that the roman church her self has apostatized from fundamental truth and holiness . we do grant , that they have retained the true faith and worship of christ , though they have fatally corrupted both by additions of their own . and therefore we are not bound to prove , that the whole clergy of the catholick church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness ; for we do not say they did . all that he replies to this , is , that this apostacy ( at the least ) is taught in the 19 and 21 articles and homilies against the peril of idolatry . that is to say ( for i suppose that is his meaning ) that the church of england charges the church of rome with idolatry , and idolatry is an apostacy from fundamental truth and holiness . but if men may be guilty of some kinds of idolatry , and of very great corruptions in faith and worship , without denying any fundamental article of the christian faith , then idolatry it self does not prove such an apostacy from fundamental truth . and this is the opinion of those who own the church of rome a true , though a corrupt church , notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous practices . for they consider , that the jewish church was guilty of idolatry in the worship of the golden calf , and the calves at dan and bethel , and yet were a true church still , because they worshipped only the true god , the god of israel , though in an idolatrous manner . and i would advise our author not to insist too peremptorily on this , that idolatry is an apostacy from fundamental truth , till he is sure that he can clear himself and his church from the charge of idolatry . i know very well what he aims at , to disprove the charge of idolatry , because idolatry is an apostacy from fundamental truth and holiness ; and thus the church cannot apostatize , and therefore cannot commit idolatry ; which is like their proving , that the church has not erred , because it cannot err : whereas if de facto it appears that the church has erred , that is a demonstration that it can err . thus if de facto it appears that the church is guilty of idolatry , this is a demonstration , that either idolatry is not such a fundamental apostacy , or that the church may fall into such an apostacy . those who say , that idolatry is not such an apostacy , are not bound to prove that the church may fall into such an apostacy from fundamental truth , to make good their charge of idolatry . those who say , that idolatry is such an apostacy , are bound to prove , either directly , that the church is not guilty of idolatry , or by consequence that she cannot be , because she cannot apostatize from fundamental truth : so that the proof lies on their side , not on ours ; we are not bound to prove that the church may apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness , because we have no occasion to say it may ; but they are bound to prove that the church cannot so apostatize , because it is the best defence they have against the charge of idolatry . but i cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this argument , to prove that a thing is not , upon a pretence that it cannot be , when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is ; which is now the modish and popular way of disputing , and the very last refuge of the church of rome . if you charge them with errors and corruptions in faith and worship , and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair reply , they presently take sanctuary in the indefectibility or infallibility of their church . their church cannot err , because the council , or pope , or at least both of them together , are infallible : or , as others say , tradition is infallible ; for the church must believe to day , as it did yesterday , and to morrow as it does to day , and so from one generation to another ; and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the faith of the church . the church cannot be guilty of idolatry , because it cannot apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness ; and so in other cases : and therefore the way they take with their new converts , is not to dispute particular controversies , but instruct them well in this one point , which puts an end to all other disputes , that the church cannot err , and cannot apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness ; and then it is certain , whatever she teaches , she cannot err ; and whatever she does , is not apostacy . now not to show at present how vainly the church of rome challenges to her selfe the title , priviledges , and prerogatives of the catholick church , and appropriates all those promises to her self , which were made to the church in general ; nor to examine the meaning of those texts , whereon she founds this pretence of infallibility , i shall only consider , whether this plea , the church cannot err , therefore she has not erred ; the church cannot apostatize from fundamental truth and holiness , therefore she is not guilty of idolatry ; which , say they , is such an apostacy , be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man , who can read the scriptures , and compare what the church now believes and practises , with the doctrines and institutions of our saviour . for , 1. when such errors and corruptions are notoriously evident , though but in any one instance , to argue that the church has not erred , because she cannot err , is to dispute against matter of fact , like the philosophers disputing against the possibility of motion ; and no argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact , true , you 'l say , if it were notoriously evident that the church has erred , there were an end of her infallibility ; but this is matter of dispute , whether she have erred or not , and then if you can prove that she cannot err , you effectually prove that she has not erred . no such matter ; for if she be charged with errors , and plain evidence brought , that she has actually erred , unless you can as plainly take off this evidence , it weakens and overthrows all the proofs for infallibility whatever they are ; and therefore the pretence of infallibility is of no use in this dispute , but to cheat the ignorant and unwary ; for if i can prove that such doctrines and practices of the church of rome are errors and corruptions , till i am satisfied that they are not , i can never believe that church to be infallible , which i can prove has erred : and therefore while any charge against the errors of the church of rome remains unanswered , it is too soon to talk of her infallibility ; for actual error is a just confutation of infallibility , but the pretence of infallibility is not a just plea against the charge of actual error ; because if i can prove my charge against them , that they have erred , that disproves their infallibility , and then nothing else can prove it : so that this infallibility can do them no service at all in this dispute , whether they have erred or not ; for if i can prove that they have erred , i overthrow all their proofs of infallibility ; and whether they have erred or not , is not to be tryed by their infallibility , but by the rule of truth and error , which are the holy scriptures ; so absurd it is to think to determine all the controversies now in dispute among us , by the churches infallibility . it is indeed a most certain truth , that if the church be infallible , she cannot err , and therefore she has not erred ; and it is as certainly true , that if the church has erred , she can err , and therefore is not infallible . the romanists assert the first , the protestants the second ; but there is this difference between these two pleas , that if we can make good our charge against them , that they have actually erred , this is a direct and positive proof against their infallibility ; but though it be as certainly true , that an infallible church cannot , and has not erred , yet whatever proofs they bring of the churches infallibility , they are not a direct answer to that charge , that she has actually erred , and can have no force to prove her infallibility , till that charged be answered , because there can be no proof against matter of fact . and therefore when they begin with the proof of infallibility , they begin at the wrong end ; for when the church is charged with error , if they would not lose their labour , they must prove that she has not erred , before they prove her to be infallible ; for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her infallibility , if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred , their labour is lost , and therefore it is best to try that first ; which shows what a sophistical argument it is to prove that the church has not erred , because she is infallible and cannot err ; for they must first prove that she has not erred , before they can prove her to be infallible ; for till this be removed , it is an effectual bar to all other proofs of infallibility . and thus their compendious way of making converts , and confuting hereticks , is nothing but sophistry and a cheat ; and if men would be sincere and honest converts , they must not flatter themselves with an opinion of the churches infallibility , but must examine the particular disputes between us , and be thoroughly satisfied that the church of rome has not erred , before they embrace her communion . 2. for if it appear , that the church of rome has been guilty of error or apostacy , this is a certain demonstration , that either those scripture-promises which she alledges , do not belong to her , or do not signifie what she brings them for ; for whatever christ promises , he will certainly perform ; and therefore if the church of rome has erred , he never promised she should be infallible . to be sure when the sense and application of such texts of scripture are disputed , as they are between protestants and papists , that side must have the advantage , which is confirmed by the event , and matter of fact ; and therefore if it appear the church of rome has erred , the protestant interpretations of those texts , thou art peter , and upon this rock will i build my church , and such like , are to be preferred before the popish interpretations , which apply them to the bishops of rome , as the infallible guides of the church , especially when that evidence we have that the church has erred , is much more plain and notorious , then that christ has promised that she shall not err ; when the scripture proofs , that the church of rome has erred in several doctrines and practices which she now teaches , are much plainer than those texts are , by which they prove that she cannot err : if i can prove by plain texts that she has erred , this shall teach me how to expound those obscure texts , from which some would prove that she cannot err. indeed it is very happy that no man believes christ has promised infallibility to the church of rome , but those who believe that she has not erred ; for if they did , it would be a very dangerous state of temptation , and a very ill argument in the hands of an infidel against christianity ; for they would rather charge christ with a breach of his promise , which would destroy his authority , than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing evidence , that the church of rome has not erred ; and indeed it would stagger the faith of a christian , if the pretended promises of infalibility to the church of rome , were as plain as her errors are ; for what should any man do in that case ? believe that she has not erred , because of the promise of infalibility , or disbelieve the promise because she has erred ? when both sides are equally plain , and yet can never be reconciled , it is a sore temptation to believe neither , when i know not which to choose , and cannot possibly believe both . so that to urge the infallibility of the church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred , may make some men infidels , but can make no considering man a roman-catholick . but to return to our author , though i think i have not left him all this time , i gave a fourth answer to this reqnest , which he takes no notice of , viz. if the first discovery of this defection had been made by lay-men , and afterwards acknowledged by the clergy , who joyned in the reformation , i should not have thought the reformation ever the worse for it . for if the clergy corrupt religion , we have reason to thank god if he opens the eyes of honest and disinterested lay-men . for this is the great grievance , that the clergy should apostatize , and a national laity discover the clergies defection and reform it . this is now the fashionable way of disputing against the reformation of the church of england , that it was not regularly done by the consent of the major part of the clergy in a national synod , which first ought to have been obtained , before the queen and the parliament had made any laws about it ; which is the whole design of a late oxford book against the reformation . now this i confess seems to me a very strange way of reasoning , unworthy of christians , especially of christian divines ; for not to enter now into the history of the reformation , which those who please may learn from dr , burnet , who has published the authentick records of the most material transactions in it , yet i say , 1. if the reformation be good and necessary , there can want no authority to reform ; and my reason is , because it is established by the authority of christ and his apostles , which is a good authority to this day ; for to reform abuses and corruptions , signifies no more than to profess the pure and uncorrupted faith and worship of christ ; and i desire to know whether christ have not given sufficient authority to every man to do this ? or whether there be any authority in church or state which can de jure forbid the doing it , and make it unlawful and irregular to do so ? if there be , truly christ and his apostles have preached the gospel to very little purpose , if we must not believe or practice as they teach , unless our superiors will give us leave . how could the gospel have been at first planted in the world upon these principles ? jews and heathens had a regular authority among them to determine matters of religion , and this authority opposed and condemned the faith of christ ; and therefore unless particular men had reformed for themselves , and joyned themselves to the fellowship of the apostles , they must have continued jews or pagans to this day . for as for what our author says , that sueb a change in religion ought to have some scripture , or because extraordinary , should have miracles to countenance it : i answer , we have both , we have reformed according to the scriptures , and can justifie our faith and worship by the scriptures , and a scripture reformation is confirmed by miracles , because the doctrine of the gospel is so confirmed ; and we no more want new miracles to confirm our reformation , than to confirm the authority of the christian religion ; for reformed christianity is nothing else but the old primitive apostolick christianity ; and therefore we have the same authority to reform now , which the apostles at first had to preach the gospel ; for their authority to preach the gospel is , and will be to the end of the world , a sufficient authority to all men to believe it , and consequently to renounce all errors and corruptions in faith and worship , which are contrary to it . 2. as for the authority of the clergy , whatever it be , it is certain christ gave them no authority to preach any other gospel than what he had taught them , which is the express commission which he gave to the apostles themselves ; and therefore whatever decrees , and definitions they have made contrary to the true faith and worship of christ , are void of themselves , and want no authority to repeal them . as for that distinction between making and declaring new articles of faith , it is a meer piece of sophistry ; for if they have the power of declaring , and no body must oppose them , nor judg of their declarations under the pretence of declaring , they may make as many new articles of faith as they please ; as we see the council of trent has done : this extravagant authority they give to the clergy , of making decrees and canons concerning faith and worship , which shall oblige the laity to a blind obedience and implicit faith , is a most ridiculous pretence , unless it be supported with infallibility ; and yet you have already heard , that the pretence of infallibility it self , though it may silence those mens objections , and stop their farther inquiries who do really believe it , yet it is no defence against the charge of errors , nor a sufficient answer to that charge ; and how vain the pretence it self is , has been abundantly proved in some late treatises . this is enough to show how insignificant that charge is against the reformation , that those bishops and priests who were at that time in power , and were zealously addicted to the interests of rome , would not concur in it , though afterwards much the greater numbers submitted to it , and thereby gave it an after confirmation , which is as much as they can pretend for the confirmation of some of their general councils . i grant , nothing can be looked on as the act of the clergy , which is not done by a regular authority , according to the rules of that church . nor do we pretend that the reformation was perfected or finished by the regular authority of the popish clergy , though several of them were zealous in it ; but we say it is never the worse for that ; if they can prove that what we call a reformation is faulty upon other accounts , then we will grant that to reform against the consent of the clergy did greatly aggravate the crime ; but if the reformation were just and necessary , and a true reformation of the errors and corruptions of christianity , the dissent of the clergy could not and ought not to hinder it , for they had no such authority from christ , either to corrupt religion , or to hinder the reformation of it . 3. the supreme authority of any nation has a regular authority to declare what shall be the established religion of that nation ; and therefore the queen and the parliament could make the reformed religion the national religion established by law ; and this is all that we attribute to kings and parliaments . we do not justifie our reformation because it was confirmed by the authority of parliament , but because it is agreeable to scripture ; but we thank god that he then inclined the heart of the queen and parliament to establish the reformation , and heartily pray that he would still continue it to us and to our posterity for ever . amen . the end. books lately printed for richard chiswell . the history of the reformation of the church of england . by gilbert burnet , d. d. in two volumes . folio . the moderation of the church of england , in her reformation , in avoiding all undue compliances with popery , and other sorts of phanaticism , &c. by timothy puller , d. d. octavo . a dissertation concerning the government of the ancient church : more particularly of the encroachments of the bishops of rome upon other sees . by william cave , d. d. octavo . an answer to mr. serjeant's [ sure footing in christianity ] concerning the rule of faith : with some other discourses . by william falkner , d. d. 4 o. a vindication of the ordinations of the church of england ; in answer to a paper written by one of the church of rome , to prove the nullity of our orders . by gilbert burnet , d. d. octavo . an abridgment of the history of the reformation of the church of england . by gilb . burnet , d. d. octavo . a collection of several tracts and discourses , written in the years 1678 , 1679. &c. by gilbert burnet . d. d. to which are added , ( 1 ) a letter written to dr. burnet , giving an account of cardinal pool's secret powers . ( 2 ) the history of the powder-treason , with a vindication of the proceedings thereupon . ( 3. ) an impartial consideration of the five jesuits dying speeches , who were executed for the plot , 1679. in quarto . the apology of the church of england ; and an epistle to one signior scipio , a venetian gentleman , concerning the council of trent . written both in latin , by the right reverend father in god , iohn iewel , lord bishop of salisbury : made english by a person of quality . to which is added , the life of the said bishop : collected and written by the same hand . octavo . a letter writ by the last assembly general of the clergy of france to the protestants , inviting them to return to their communion . together with the methods proposed by them for their conviction . translated into english , and examined , by gilb . burnet , d. d. octavo . the life of william bedel , d. d. bishop of kilmore in ireland . together with certain letters which passed betwixt him and iames waddesworth ( a late pensioner of the holy inquisition of sevil ) in matter of religion , concerning the general motives to the roman obedience . octavo . the decree made at rome the second of march , 1679. condemning some opinions of the iesuits , and other casuists . quarto . a discourse concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . quarto . first and second parts . a discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue . quarto . a papist not misrepresented by protestants . being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to [ a papist misrepresented and represented ] . quarto . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the late bishop of condom , [ in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church . ] quarto . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . quarto . an answer to three papers lately printed , concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england . quarto . a vindication of the answer to some late papers concerning the unity and authority of the catholick church , and reformation of the church of england . quarto . an historical treatise written by an author of the communion of the church of rome , touching transubstantiation . wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. quarto . a catechism explaining the doctrine and practices of the church of rome ; with an answer thereunto . by a protestant of the church of england . octavo . a papist represented and not misrepresented : being an answer to the first , second , fifth and sixth sheets of the second part of the [ popish representer ] ; and for a further vindication of the [ catechism , truly representing the doctrine and practices of the church of rome . ] quarto . in 3. discourses . the lay-christian's obligations to read the holy scriptures . quarto . the plain man's reply to the catholick missionaries . 24 o. the protestant's companion : or an impartial survey , and comparison of the protestant religion as by law established , with the main doctrines of popery . wherein is shewn , that popery is contrary to scripture , primitive fathers and councils ; and that proved from holy writ , the writings of the ancient fathers , for several hundred years , and the confession of the most learned papists themselves . quarto . mr. chillingworth's book called [ the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation ] made more generally useful , by omitting personal contest , but inserting whatsoever concerns the common cause of protestants , or defends the church of england . with an addition of an useful table , and also of some genuine pieces of the same author never before printed , viz. about traditions , against the catholicism and infallibility of the roman church . and an account of the arguments which moved him to turn papist , with his confutation of the said arguments . quarto . a discourse of the holy eucharist , in the two great points of the real presence and the adoration of the host. in answer to the two discourses lately printed at oxford on this subject . to which is prefixed a large historical preface relating to the same argument . quarto . the pillar and ground of truth . a treatise shewing that the roman church falsly claims to be that church , and the pillar of that truth , mentioned by s. paul in his first epistle to timothy , chap. iii. vers. 15. quarto . a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church , with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's fifteen notes . quarto . an examination of the cardinal's first note , concerning [ the name of catholick ] . — his second note , [ antiquity ] . — his third note , [ duration ] . — his fourth note , [ amplitude or multitude , and variety of believers ] . — his fifth note , [ the succession of bishops ] . — his sixth note , [ agreement in doctrine with the primitive church ] . — his seventh note , [ union of the members among themselves , and with the head ] . — his eighth note , [ sanctity of doctrine ] . ( the rest will be published weekly in their order ) . a defence of the confuter of bellarmin's second note of the church [ antiquitr ] against the cavills of the adviser . quarto . the peoples right to read the holy scriptures asserted . in answer to the 6th , 7th , 8th , 9th and 10th chapters of the [ popish representer , second part ] . two discourses : of purgatory and prayers for the dead . quarte . a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england , and the church of rome . being a vindication of several protestant doctrines , in answer to a late pamphlet intituled [ protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs ] . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59894-e2320 ans. to request , p. 1. answer to request , p. 2. f , prot. answer to request , p. 3. answer to request . p. 5. council . trid. sess. 7. de eucharistia cap. 5. answer to request , p. 7. concil . corstant . sess. 13. purgatorium esse , animasque ibi detentas , fidelium suffragiis , potissimum vero acceptabili altataris sacrificio juvari praecipit sancta synodus episcopis , ut sanam de purgatorio doctrinam , à sanctis patrib●s & sacris conciliis traditam , christi fidelibus credi , teneri , doceri , & ubique predicari diligenter studeant . concil . trid. sess. 25. decret . de purgat . de purgat . l. 1. cap. 5. cap. 10. l. 2. cap. 10 , 11 , 12. cap. 11. idem l. 2. cap. 3 , 4. ibid. c. 14. cap. 16. irenaeus l. 5. contr . haeres . c. 31. tert. de anima , cap. 55. * supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis justorum , & modos ( al. motus ) meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant . ir. ibid. qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem , & quantum in ipsis est , auferunt eam de medio , quid mirum est , si nec ordinem resurrectionis sciunt . — ibid. quidam ex his , qui putantur rec●e credidisse — baereticos sensus in se habentes . ibid. dall . de poenis & satisf . l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 locum divinae amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinat●m . tert. apol. cap. 47. iustin martyr l. resp . ad orth. quaest . 75. hilar. in psal. 2. & in psal. 120. ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis , expectant animae resurrectionem debitam . alias manet poena , alias gloria . et tamen nec illae interim sine in●●iâ , nec istae sine fructu . ambr. de bono mortis cap. 10. nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva , ne dixerim clausa , cum transactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum . tert. apol. cap. 47. chrys. hom. 29. in matth. aug. l. 16. de c. d. c. 24. tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est , & utrum ita sit , quaeri potest ; & aut inveniri , aut latere , nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium , quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt , tanto tardius , eitiusve , salvari . aug. enchirid. c. 69. cum iis quae descripsimus , ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur , vel erudiatur , infirmitas , ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur authoritas . aug. de octo quaest. dulcilii quaest. 3. aug. enchiridion ad laurent . cap. 67 , 68 , 69. ambros. serm 20. in psal. 118. cyrilli hierosol . liturgia . syr. orationes . bibl. patrum . t. 6. tertull. contra marcion . c. 24. dall . de poenis & satisf . l. 5. c. 9. tert. de monog . c. 10. ambr. de obitu val. bibl. patr. t. 6. enchirid. ad laurent . de civit . dei l. 12. c. 9. idem , tract , 10. in ep. ioan. chrys. serm. 3. in philip. ed. savil. tom 4. p. 20. & in hebr. ser. 4. p. 453. chrys. homil. 21 in act. t. 4. p. 734. aug. enchirid. ad laurent . answer to request , p. 10 , 11. genes . 8. 20. genes . 12 7 , 8. ch. 26. 25. 35. act. 3. 1. psal. 141. 1. luke 1. 10. revel . 8. 3 , 4. hebr. 7. 25. see answer to papists protesting against protestant popery . see the object of religious worship , part 1. and the answer to papists protesting against protestant popery , sect. 4. protestancy destitute of scripture-proofs , p. 8. 1 kings 12. 28. 1 kings 16 , 31. 32. 2 kings 10. 16. maximus tyrius dissert . 38. answer to request . p. 12. prot. dest . p. 9. 1 cor. 14. 6. 19. vers. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. vers. 14 , 15 , 16. answer to request . p. 13. protestancy destitute of scripture proofs . p. 10. see dr. barrows treatise of supremacy . see dr. stilling fl . origines britan. p. 106. &c. answer to request . protestancy destitute of scripture proofs . church government . part. 5. english reformation ch . 2. p. 21. burnets history of the reformation , part 1. book 2. p. 137. burnets histo ry of the reform . part 2. l. 3. p. 401. church government part. 5. concerning the english reformation . see the authority of councils , with the appendix . in answer to the eight theses of the oxford writer , and the judge of controversies . an ansvver to a discourse intituled, papists protesting against protestant-popery being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux, late bishop of condom, his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome, in the articles of invocation of saints, and the worship of images occasioned by that discourse. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1686 approx. 287 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 59 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59784 wing s3259 estc r3874 12083889 ocm 12083889 53692 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59784) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 53692) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 823:9) an ansvver to a discourse intituled, papists protesting against protestant-popery being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux, late bishop of condom, his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome, in the articles of invocation of saints, and the worship of images occasioned by that discourse. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 131 (i.e. 117) p. printed for john amery ... and william rogers ..., london : 1686. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. attributed to william sherlock. cf. bm. errata: p. 131. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. 1704. -papists protesting against protestant-popery. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. -papist not misrepresented by protestants. bossuet, jacques bénigne, 1627-1704. -exposition de la doctrine de l'eglise catholique sur les matières de controverse. catholic church -controversial literature -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 andrew kuster sampled and proofread 2005-02 andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , martii 29. 1686. c. alston , r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domesticis . an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant-popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meavx , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , and the worship of images occasioned by that discourse . london : printed for john amery at the peacock , and william rogers at the sun ; both against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . mdclxxxvi . an answer to papists protesting against protestant popery : since the protester thinks my answer to his reflections so great a complement , i am resolved to oblige him a little farther , and to complement him very heartily , and i see no reason , but complementing may be as good a word for disputing , as representing is . the reply consisted of two parts , 1. concerning the misrepresentation of a papist . 2. concerning the rule of true representing , and i shall consider , what the protesting papist says to each of them . as for the first , a misrepresenter is so foul a character , that no man can wonder , if we think our selves concern'd to wipe off such an imputation : and therefore i expresly denied the charge , and made it appear from comparing his own characters of a papist misrepresented , and represented together , that we had not charged them falsly in any matter of fact , and therefore are no misrepresenters : for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing , but what they themselves confess to be their faith and practice , wherein is the misrepresentation ? thus i particularly showed , that all matters of fact ( excepting some points , wherein they disown the doctrine of their own church ) in the character of the papist misrepresented , are confessed and defended in the character of the papist represented ; and the protester himself acknowledges , that i have learnedly ( as he is pleased to speak ) distinguished between matters of dispute , and of representation ; and if so , then he ought to own , that we do not misrepresent them : and this is all i undertook to prove in the first part of my reply , and for that reason gave it the title of , a papist not misrepresented by protestants , wholly with relation to his character of a papist misrepresented , which i had proved to contain nothing in it , which in a strict and proper sense can be called a misrepresentation . we truly relate what the faith and practice of the church of rome is , and this is true representing ; and though we say their faith is erroneous , and their practices corrupt or superstitious , contrary to the laws of god , and the usages of the primitive church ; yet whether this be true or false , it is no matter of representation but dispute ; though we believe thus of their faith and practice , we do not charge them with believing so , and therefore do not misrepresent a papist . whether they or we be in the right is matter of dispute , and not to be determined by character-making , but by an appeal to the laws of god , and the dictates of right reason , and the authentick records of the ancient church . while we agree about matter of fact there can be no misrepresenting on either side , for there is a great deal of difference between a misrepresentation , and a false judgment of things ; and thus i hoped , the talk of misrepresenting would have been at an end . but our author , though he confesses i am in the right , will have us to be misrepresenters still ; he says , i declare plainly , that popery is really that antichristian religion , which protestants say it is , that it teaches and practises all those fopperies , superstitions and non-sense , which have at any time been charged against it by protestants . but i never said any such thing yet , but only said and proved , that all matters of fact complained of in the character of a papist misrepresented , are owned by himself in the character of a papist represented ; and this , i thought , was proof enough , that we were no misrepresenters . but the title of my reply offends him , a papist not misrepresented by protestants , which he says , is a condemnation of the religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms , it has been at any time exposed in by members of the reformation ; by no means ! if there have been other misrepresentations of them , which our author has not yet given us an account of , i can say nothing to them , till i see what they are ; but my title related only to my book , and that related only to the character of a papist misrepresented , which our author had given us , and i undertook for that then , and will defend it still , that there is no misrepresentation in it . of the same nature is what he adds , that i tell my reader in the name of all my brethren , we charge them ( the papists ) with nothing , but what they expresly profess to believe , and what they practise ; and thus says the protester , in this one assertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy , and prophaneness , which is laid at their doors : and thus , for ought i see , i am drawn in for a great deal more than i intended ; i spoke with reference to his characters , and now i must discharge the scores of all protestants since the beginning of the reformation ; but when a man 's in , he must get out as well as he can : but would not one wonder , that there should not be one word of his own characters all this while ? that instead of defending his own misrepresentations , which he has so unjustly father'd upon us , he should be hunting about to pick up some new misrepresentations for me to answer ? there must be a reason for this , and i believe , i can guess what it is . but however he takes this occasion to ransack the writings of protestants , and to see what fine things they have said of papists , and to collect a new character of a papist misrepresented out of them . for since all that proceeds from a popish hand of this nature is suspected and challenged , and the double character of a papist misrepresented and represented ( about which , as the replier says , there is so much pother and noise ) is questioned as to its method , its sincerity , and exactness , we 'll now follow our author's call , and learn what popery is , from the pens of protestants , and especially from some of those , who are supposed to know what popery is . and thus our author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor hare did , which was almost run down . because i have proved , that his character of a papist misrepresented , contains no misrepresentation in it , properly so called , therefore forsooth we will not take characters from a papist , because we confute them , as soon as they make them , which is not very civil ; and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to protestant characters , he turns off the dispute to them ; never did any man take more pains to defend popery , than he does to prove a papist to be misrepresented ; it seems there is something in the world called popery , which he is very much ashamed of , and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved popery at last . i had told him as plainly as i could in answer to his character of a papist misrepresented , what i called popery , and what i take to be the general sense of protestants about it , and shewed him evidently , that what he calls a misrepresentation is none ; nay in most cases i have allow'd his own character of a papist represented , and surely there is no misrepresentation in that , unless he has misrepresented a papist himself ; and why is he not satisfied with this ? why so much zeal to prove us misrepresenters , when we are willing to fall with the market , and to abate as much in the notion and idea of popery , as they are pleased to lower it ? why must we be bound to justifie that representation of popery , which some protestants have formerly made of it , when popery was quite another thing , than the bishop of condom , and the representer have now made it , any more than they are bound to justifie every thing , which thomas aquinas , or bellarmin , or vasquez have taught for popery ? but let us consider that character , he has made of a papist out of the writings of protestants , only i must put him in mind , that he must still distinguish between matters of representation and dispute . if the matter of fact they charge them with be true , they are no misrepresenters ; as for their reasons and arguments , i will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of protestants , than i suppose , our protester will all the reasonings of papists . the first misrepresenter , he brings upon the stage , is john lord archbishop of york in his manual or three small and plain treatises , written for the use of a lady , to preserve her from the danger of popery . and all that i shall say to this , is , that if what he transcribes out of his book , be a misrepresentation , it is not a protestant , but a popish , misrepresentation . for the archbishop cites his authors for what he says , as the very title of the chapter tells us , which i shall here present to the reader , with all the references and authorities as they are printed in his book , and leave the protester to consider of a good reason , why he left all these authorities out . chap. vi. reasons of refusal to leave the romish religion , collected out of printed authors . i cannot leave my religion . i. reason . because we must simply believe the church of rome , whether it teach true or false . stapl. antidot in evang. luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. and if the pope believe there is no life to come , we must believe it as an article of our faith. bulgradus . and we must not hear protestant preachers , though they preach the truth , rhem. upon tit. 3. 10. and for your scripture , we little weigh it . for the word of god , if it be not expounded as the church of rome will have it , is the word of the devil . hosius de expresso verbo dei. ii. reason . you rely too much upon the gospel , and s. paul's epistles in your religion ; whereas , the gospel is but a fable of christ , as pope leo the tenth tells us . apol. of h. stephen fol. 358. sm●ton , contra hamilton pag 104. and the pope can dispense against the new testament . panormit , extra de divortiis . and he may check , when he pleases , the epistles of s. paul. carolus ruinus concil . 109. num . 1. volum . 5. and controul any thing avouched by all the apostles . rota in decis . 1. num . 3. in noviss . anton. maria in addit . ad decis . rotae nov . de big . n. 10. and there is an eternal gospel , to wit , that of the holy ghost , which puts down christs . cirellus a carmelite set it forth . iii. reason . you attribute all your salvation to faith in christ alone . whereas , he is the saviour of men only , but of no women . dial. of dives and pauper , compl . 6. cited by rogers upon the artic. and postellus in jesuits catech. l. 1. cap. 10. for women are saved by s. clare . mother jane . som. in morn . de eccles. cap. 9. postellus in jesuits catech. lib. 8. cap. 10. nay to speak properly , s. francis hath redeemed as many , as are saved since his days . conformit . of s. fran. and the blood of s. thomas à becket . hor. beat. virg. and sometimes one man , by his satisfactions , redeems another . test. rhem. in rom. 8. 17. iv. reason . in your church there is but one way to remission of sins , which you call faith in christ ; but we have many . for we put away our venials , with a little holy water , test. rhem. in rom. 8. 17. mortals , by 1. merits of the b. virg. hor. b. virg. 2. the blood of becket , ib. 3. agnos dei , or holy lambs , cerem . l. 1. t. 7. 4. little parcels of the gospel , breviar . 5. becoming franciscans , conf . l. 1. fol. 101. 6. a bishops pardon for 40 days , a cardinals for an 100. days , and the popes for ever . taxa camer , apud . esp. in 1 ad . tim. v. reason . you stand too precisely upon your sacraments , and require a true faith , in the partakers . whereas with us , to become a monk , or a nun , is as good as the sacrament of baptism . aquin. de ingres . relig. l. 2. c. 21. and the very true and real body of christ may be devoured of dogs , hogs , cats and rats , alex. hales , part . 4. q. 45. thom. parte 3. q. 8. art . 3. vi. reason . then for your ministers , every one is allowed to have his wife ; or else inforced to live chastly : whereas with us , the pope himself cannot dispense with a priest to marry , no more than he can priviledge him to take a purse . turrianus found fault withal by cassan. consult . art . 23. but whoredom is allowed all the year long . see sparks 's discovery , pag. 13. and constitut . othen . de concubit . cleric . removend . and another sin for june , july , august , which you must not know of : allowed for this time by sixtus quartus to all the family of the cardinal of s. lucie , vessel . grovingens . tract . de indulgent . citat . à jacob. laurent . jesuit . lib. pag. 196. vide jo. wol●●i lection . memorab . centen . 15. pag. 836. for indeed the wickedness of the church-men is a prime argument of the worthiness of the roman church . bellar. l. 4. de rom. pont. cap. 14. artic . 28. and the pope can make that righteous , which is unrighteous , l. 1. decretal . greg. tit . 7. c. 5. and yet can no man say unto him , sir , why do you so ? in extrav . tom . 22. titul . 5. c. ad apostolatus . vii . and last reason . you in the church of england have cast off the bishop of rome , whereas the bishop of rome is a god. dist. 96. c. satis evidenter , & panorm . cap. quanto abbas . the use and application of this doctrine you may find in the next chapter , and a particular proof that some doctrines of the roman church destroy justice towards men in all relations ; as the popes power of dispensing with the duties of all relations : their doctrines of probabilities , of mental reservations , that the intention regulates the action , that no faith is to be kept with hereticks ; that the pope may depose princes , and dispose of their kingdoms , pardon , nay canonize king-killers , and absolve subjects from their allegiance , &c. i know our author calls all this misrepresentation , but that is not our dispute now ; but whose misrepresentation it is . it is plain , this is not protestant but popish popery ; for not protestants , but papists , were the original authors : and i doubt not , were it worth the while , it might easily be proved , that the grossest misrepresentations , which this author charges on protestants , are only transcribed out of popish authors ; and this he seems to own , when he is so angry with us for proving these misrepresentations , as he calls them , by appealing to their own private , but approved , doctors , who have in plain terms asserted those things , which poor protestants must not repeat after them , without incurring the censure of misrepresenters . now though we grant , that every doctrine , which we find in popish authors , ought not to be accounted an article of the romish faith , yet if such books be published by the authority of superiors , and when they are published and known in the world , escape the inquisition and the index expurgatorius , the doctrines contained in them ought at least to be looked on , as licensed and tolerated doctrines , and therefore consistent with the romish faith , not a misrepresentation of it . for will a church so strict and severe in its discipline , and so jealous of heresies , which censures all the ancient fathers , and expunges out of their writings every passage , which in the least savours of heresie ; which will not entrust the people to use the bible for fear of their learning heresie from it ; i say will such a church suffer their own doctors to publish such opinions to the world , as misrepresent her own faith and worship , without condemning , or passing the least censure on them ? and therefore though we cannot prove from these private doctors , what the faith of the church of rome is , and what all are bound to believe , who are of that communion , yet by their authority we may confute the charge of misrepresentation . for no protestant can be justly accused of misrepresenting the doctrines of the church of rome , who charges them with no doctrines , but what are allowed to be taught in that church , as all those doctrines are , which are allowed by publick authority to be printed and read in the communion of that church , especially , as i observed before , where the press is kept under such strict discipline , as it is in the church of rome . we must not indeed charge all papists with believing such doctrines , because all are not bound to believe them , as they are to believe the decrees and definitions of their councils ; but we may say , that they are not contrary to the faith of the church , because all papists are allowed to believe them , who will ; for i presume all men are allowed to believe that , which any man among them is allowed to teach . however i hope , it may be some excuse to the archbishop , that he misrepresents only at second hand , ( since our author will have it to be a misrepresentation ) and says no more than some papists themselves say , and resolves all into the credit and authority of his authors ; and i cannot think it a greater fault in a protestant to give an account of such pernicious doctrines and opinions , as are owned by some of their own writers , than it is in the church of rome to suffer them to be published by authority , and to pass without any censure , if they dislike the doctrine . as for what he transcribes out of doctor beard and mr. sutcliff , i presume , he intended we should take it all upon his authority ; for he has not directed us , where to find any of those passages he has cited , and it is a little too much to read two great books in quarto to pick them out . without looking on the books we might easily perceive , that those sayings he has transcribed out of them , do not concern representing but disputing , and i never undertook to justifie every saying in protestant writers against popery ; but yet some things sounded so harsh , that i vehemently suspected foul play , and therefore had the curiosity to examine , and found it to be , as i suspected . some passages for which they produce their authorities , and that very good authorities as the world went then , are cited by the protester , without any authorities , as he dealt before with the archbishop ; or what they prove by variety of reasons , is nakedly represented without any reason to back it ; or their words are curtailed , or transplaced , which alters their sense and signification . i shall give some few instances of this out of mr. sutcliff , to let the world judge , who are the misrepresenters . quotations out of mr. sutcliff in the papists protesting , &c. mr. sutchliff's survey of popery . they speak what they can in disgrace of the holy scriptures . finally they say , they are obscure and hard to be understood , they speak what they can in disgrace of the holy scriptures . p. 6. they give the office of christ's mediation to the virgin mary , to angels and to saints , they make also saints our redeemers . they give the office , &c. teaching that by their merits christians obtain their desires , and are delivered out of purgatory . ibid. they overthrow grace , and ascribe the merit of our salvation not to gods mercy through christ , not to the merit of his passion , but properly to our own works and merits . albeit they exclude not grace from the work of our salvation , yet making grace a habit or vertue , they overthrow grace , &c. p. 9. they cut out the second commandment because it cannot stand with the popish worship of images . they cut out the second commandment in the offices of our lady and their primers , because , &c. ib. they pray before stocks and stones , nay they put their trust in them . nay they put their trust in them : for if this were not so , why should they hope for better success at the image of our lady of loretto or monserat , than at any other image or form of our lady ? p. 10. papists think they do god good service , when they murder true christians . proved from the cruel executions in england , france , germany , spain . p. 23. by the doctrine of papists the devils of hell may be saved . they teach , that the devils of hell may have true faith , but our saviour saith john 3. that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish , but have everlasting life . so it followeth by the doctrine of papists , that the reprobates , and devils in hell may be saved . p. 28. papists blasphemously make christ not only a desperate man without hope , but also an infidel without faith. p. 13. they take from christ both faith and hope . aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art . 4. so that which they falsely objected to calvin doth rightly fall upon the papists — that they blasphemously make christ , &c. that christ is not the redeemer of all mankind . they affirm the virgin mary to be conceived without original sin , &c. of which it follows , that christ is not the redeemer of all mankind , for what needed they a redeemer , who were not born sinners ? p. 41. they make christ inferiour to saints and angels . they say masses in honour of angels and saints , but he , in whose honour a sacrifice is offered , is greater than the sacrifice : doth it not then appear , that while they offer christs body and blood in honour of saints and angels , they make christ inferior to saints and angels ? p. 42. they prefer the pope before christ. they prefer the pope before christ , for christ's body , when the pope goeth in progress , is sent before with the baggage , and when the pope is near , goeth out to meet him , while all the gallants of rome attend on the pope . p. 43. to the images of the cross and crucifix , they give as much honour as is due to god. p. 14. to the images , &c. — teaching their followers , that it is but one honour given to the image , and the thing represented by the image . p. 74. they fall down like beasts before the pope , and worship him as god , ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to christ. they fall down , &c. paulus aemilius l. 2. telleth , how the ambassadors of sicily cried thus to the pope , thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us . — stapleton to greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris : they call him vicar of christ , the monarch of the church , the head , the spouse , the foundation of the church , ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to christ. p. 72. they give divine honour to images , which they themselves cannot deny to be idolatrous . they confess is idolatry to give divine honour to creatures . but they give divine honour to the sacament , to the cross , and to images of the trinity , which , i hope , they will not deny to be creatures . the romish church consists of a pack of infidels . p. 15. faith is of things ( as the papists say in their catechism ) only proposed to us by the church ; so that if the church propose not to us the articles of faith , we are not to believe them , if these men teach truth . further this sheweth , the romish church consists of a pack of infidels ; for if the same believed not without the authority of the church , then she did believe nothing of christ , seeing the papists acknowledge no other church but that of rome , and no church can teach it self . p. 178. scripture and fathers they read not . spoken of the schoolmen ( not of all papists ) upon the authority of ferdinando vellosillo . p. 200. in a member of the catholick church ( they say ) neither inward faith nor other virtue is required , but only that he profess outwardly the romish religion , and be subject to the pope . this opinion he attributes to cardinal bellarmin and cites de eccles . milit . cap. 2. they make more conscience to abstain from flesh on friday , than to murder christians . they make more conscience , &c. as their curiosity in keeping the fast , and their cruelty in massacring christians declares . p. 205. divers points of popish doctrine are especially said to proceed from the devil . he instances in forbidding marriage , and commanding to abstain from meats , which he says are called in scripture doctrines of devils . p. 213. that the popish church hath no true bishops , that popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the doctrine of mahomet : that papists , that positively hold the heretical and false doctrines of the modern church of rome , cannot possibly be saved , are the titles of several chapters , in which he endeavours to make good these charges , how well let our author consider ; but all men will see , that this is not representing but disputing . this is abundantly enough to give the reader a tast of the protesters honestly in representing , and how little i am concerned in these quotations . if some protestants have charged the doctrines and practices of the church of rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie , wiser protestants disown it , and papists may confute it , if they please , which will be a little more to the purpose , than to cry out so tragically about misrepresenting . but to make good this charge of misrepresenting against us , he concludes with several passages out of the homilies , concerning the worship of saints and images . now if our church be guilty of misrepresenting in her very homilies , which we are all bound to subscribe , we must acknowledge our selves to be misrepresenters . but wherein does the misrepresentation consist ? do they not set up images in churches ? and do they not worship them ? have they not a great number of saints , whom they worship with divine honours ? the matter of fact is plain and confessed , and therefore our church does not misrepresent them . so that the only misrepresentation he can complain of , is , that he does not like the judgment of our church about the worship of saints and images , and we cannot help that . this is the belief of our church , and this is our belief , and let him prove us to be misrepresenters in this , if he can ; for that is not proved meerly by his calling it misrepresenting . only i would gladly know of this author , what he takes the judgment of the church of england to be about the worship of images ? whether it be idolatry or not ? if he thinks our church charges them with idolatry in worshipping images , ( which i suppose he means when he complains of misrepresentation , and picks out some passages , which look that way ) there is the authority of doctor godden against him ( unless he has changed his mind lately ) who accuses dr. st. with contradicting the church of england in his charge of idolatry upon the church of rome , and makes it a certain mark of fanaticism to do so : and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the church of rome in this charge of idolatry , we do not misrepresent the church of england in it , which is some satisfaction to us , that we are not misrepresenters on both sides . but these men take great liberties in representing the faith and doctrines of churches . in one kings reign the church of england does not charge the church of rome with idolatry , in the next it does ; though their articles and homilies be the same still : but they deal with the church of england no worse than they do with their own church ; in one age a bellarmine truly represents the doctrine of their church , in another a bishop of condom ; and though the council of trent be but one and the same , the faith of it alters very often , as it may best serve the interest of the catholick cause . our author having exposed the protestant character ( as he calls it ) of a papist , which he always looked upon no other , than of a papist misrepresented , he falls a commending the zeal of protestants against such popery with great earnestness and passion , and therein we agree with him , as believing it to be very commendable ; and do not doubt ( as he says ) but those martyrs recorded by fox , who for not embracing this popery passed the fiery tryal , had surely a glorious cause , and that the triumphs and crowns of glory , which waited for them in heaven , were not inferior to what those enjoyed , who suffered under decius or dioclesian . i agree with him also , that there is no need of any longer disagreement , that there is no necessity of keeping up names of division ; that protestant and papist may now shake hands , and by one subscription close into a body , and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence : for if ( as he says ) there is no papist , but will give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of popery , i see no reason , why they may not joyn in communion with the church of england which has suppressed it . but i am not of his mind , that all the strife has been about a word ; for the dispute has been about the worship of saints , and images , about transubstantiation , worshipping the host , communion in one kind , service in an unknown tongue , the authority and the use of the holy scriptures , the sacrament of penance , indulgences , purgatory , the popes supremacy , and several other material differences ; which are something more than a meer word ; will they now part with all these doctrines and practices , since they have been informed by great and good authorities , what the nature and evil tendency of these things is ? no! by no means , they will retain all these doctrines and practices still , but will renounce and abhor all that evil , which protestants charge them with . they will pray to saints , and worship images still , but they will abhor all heathenish idolatry in such worship , &c. but what reason is this for protestants to joyn with them in one communion , while they retain the same faith and worship , which at first made a separation necessary , and we retain the same opinion of their faith and worship , which ever we had ? if papists be the same , & protestants the same , that ever they were , if separation were once necessary , surely it is so still . what change is there now in papists , which was not before , that should now invite us to embrace their communion ? yes they abhor all that which protestants call popery . this is good news , but let us a little better understand it . do they abhor the worship of saints and images , and the host ? do they abhor the doctrines of transubstantiation , penances , indulgences , purgatory ? do they renounce the popes supremacy , &c. no such matter ! but they abhor those opinions , which protestants have of these things ; did they then ever believe that these doctrines and practices were so bad , as protestants always did , and to this day , say they are ? if not , what change is there in them , that should invite us now to a reconciliation ? did protestants separate from papists , because they believed , that papists thought idolatry lawful ? if not , why is their abhorring idolatry , while they do the same things , that ever they did , a sufficient reason for a re-union ? suppose some common-wealths-men , who take up arms against the king , should tell the royalists , who fight for him , that they have all this while mistaken one another , that for their parts they hate rebellion , as much as they can do , and have been greatly misrepresented by those who have called them rebels ; the strife has been only about a word , and therefore it is time for them now to joyn all together , not in their duty to their prince , but in opposing him ; though i dare not smile at our author for fear of his displeasure again , yet i fancy a good subject would entertain such a proposal with a very disdainful smile . and therefore as for misrepresenting , our author may complain on till he is a weary , but he can never prove us to be misrepresenters , while they still own that faith and worship , which we charge them with , and if he thinks we censure their doctrine and worship too severely , let him vindicate it , when he can . in my reply i considered , what were the faults of his twofold character of a papist misrepresented , and represented , and shall now briefly examine , what he says to it . as for the character of a papist misrepresented , i observed , 1. that he put such thing 's into the character , as no man in his wits ever charged them with : as that papists are not permitted to hear sermons , which they are able to understand , or that they held it lawful to commit idolatry ; or that the papist believes the pope to be his great god , and to be far above all angels , which the answerer calls childish and wilful mistakes . and yet ( says the protester , p. 19. ) those very things almost in express terms , and others far more absurd , we see charged on them , as is shewed above ; that is in the quotations out of the archbishop and others . but i can see no such thing , unless the supremum numen in terris ( as stapleton calls greg. 13. ) signifie that the pope is their great god , and then i must beg his pardon , that i did not think any man in his wits so silly , as it seems some of their own great divines have been , for this is not a protestant , but a popish representation of them . 2. i found fault , that the opinions of protestants concerning popish doctrines and practices , and those ill consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them , are put into the character of a papist misrepresented , as if they were his avowed doctrine and belief . for whosoever gives a character of a papist , ought only to represent , what his faith and practice is , not what opinion , he , who gives the character , has of his faith and practice : for this does not belong to the character of a papist , but only signifies his own private judgment , who gives the character : while we charge papists only with matter of fact , what they believe and what they practise , this is a true character , and no misrepresenting ; but if we put our own opinions of his faith and practice into his character , this is misrepresenting , because a papist has not the same opinion of these things , which we have , and this makes it a false character . to this the protester answers . p. 20. this is a pretty speculative quarrel , i confess , and might deservedly find room here , were it our business to consider the due method of misrepresentation in the abstract : but as our present concern stands , here 's a quaint conceit lost for coming in a wrong place . for what had the author of the misrepresentation to do with these rules ? he did not intend to misrepresent any body . this is very pleasant ! a man , who undertakes to make characters , is not bound to consider , what a character is , nor what belongs to representing , nor misrepresenting . any man would have thought so indeed , who had read his characters , but i never expected , that he should have said so . but he did not intend to misrepresent any body , and therefore had nothing to do with those rules ; but he intended , it seems , to give an account , how papists are misrepresented by protestants , and therefore ought to have understood , what is misrepresenting , and not have called that misrepresenting , which is not . but his province ( he says ) was only to draw forth the character of a papist , as it is commonly apprehended by the vulgar or the multitude , with the common prejudices and mistakes that generally attend such a notion . now i would fain know , whether this character , as it lies in the peoples heads , is distinguished into antecedents and consequents ; whether they , when they hear one declaiming against popery for committing idolatory , as bad or worss than that of the grossest heathens , worshipping stocks and stones for gods , distinguisheth between the doctrine of the papists , and these interpretations and consequences charged against it . — thus in short he tells us , the character of a papist misrepresented was intended only , as the author expresses himself in his introduction , for a copy of popery as painted in the imagination of the vulgar , and if it be conform to that , it is exact and perfect ; and if there be any faults in it , the blame must fall on those , who drew the original . this is the sum of his excuse for putting such things into the character of a papist misrepresented , as do not belong to character-making , nor are in a strict and proper sense misrepresentations . that the common people , who do not distinguish between antecedents and consequents , have such an idea and notion of a papist , as he has described in the character of a papist misrerepresented . well , suppose this , how does this mend the matter ? if his character of a papist misrepresented , be no misrepresentation , then our people , who have this notion of a papist , are not misrepresenters . now this is that , which i undertook to prove in my reply . that there is nothing of misrepresentation , properly so called , in his character of a papist misrepresented ; it is a false character indeed , because it contains such things , as are not matters of representation , but of dispute , and therefore do not belong to a character ; but separate matters of fact from matters of opinion and dispute , as i have particularly done in my reply , and the character of a papist misrepresented contains no matter of fact , excepting some very few things , but what the character of the papist represented owns . and therefore as far as it can be called a character , it is a true one . and if this ( as he says ) be a copy of popery as painted in the imagination of the vulgar , the original can have no more of misrepresentation in it , than the copy has . but though the protester does acknowledge , that there is a real difference between representing the doctrines and practices of papists , and declaring our own judgment and opinion concerning them , he suspects the people do not distinguish between antecedents and consequents , between the doctrines of the papists and these interpretations and consequences charged on it . they swallow all down greedily in the lump , antecedents and consequents go down with them all at once . but what does he mean by this ? that any protestant people are so silly as to think that papists believe as bad of their own religion , as they believe of it ? that papists believe idolatry to be lawful , as he tells us in the character of a papist misrepresented ; or that they believe the worship of an image to be idolatry ? no , i assure him , our people are taught , what popery is in its genuine purity , as he speaks ; they know in the most material points , what the doctrine of the church of rome is , and are taught , what to think of it ; and when they hear or read our disputes against the church of rome , they are not so weak as to believe , that we and papists have the same opinions about worshipping saints and images , and the host , &c. and therefore are not in danger of affixing such opinions on papists , as they hear us charge on popery . so that this is a very needless fear he is in , and if nothing else hinders , he may ( as he promises ) reform his character of a papist misrepresented . i must confess we are pretty positive in declaring to our people the evil and danger of popery . we tell them what we think of it , not as thinking signifies doubtfulness and uncertainty , but an assured perswasion founded on reason , scripture , and the best authorities : as he complains , that we go beyond thinking , and instead of saying we think so , we positively say , so it is . but if we are in the right , there is no hurt in this , and we shall believe so , till they can prove , that we are in the wrong ; we do not indeed pretend to infallibility , but we think our selves as certain , as those who do . this is the sum of what he says in defence of his character of a papist misrepresented , that though he acknowledges my distinction to be good between matters of dispute and of representation ; and consequently that his character of a papist misrepresented has nothing of misrepresentation in it , truly so called ; yet he says , this is the idea of a papist , as it is commonly apprehended by the vulgar , who do not distinguish between antecedents and consequents , but whatever they hear said of popery , they take to be the faith of a papist , without distinguishing what it is the papists own , and believe , and practise , and what guilt protestants charge them with for thus believing and doing : that when they hear the papists charged with idolatry for worshipping images , they as verily think , that papists believe idolatry to be lawful , as they do , that they believe it lawful to worship images . if there be any among us so very silly , i dare say , they can neither read nor write , and therefore he might have spared his pains in writing and printing characters for them ; and if his character of a papist ( as he says ) be what he thought of a papist , while he himself was a protestant , it seems he was in a very low dispensation then , and could not himself distinguish between antecedents and consequents , but swallowed all down together , though he is now improved into a writer of characters ; and may they never have any wiser converts . however this does plainly yield the cause , that the protestant clergy , and understanding gentry and laity , who can distinguish between antecedents and consequents , are no misrepresenters ; and as for others , we fear , they have a great many more misrepresenters on their side , than we hope , we have on ours . let us now consider his character of a papist represented , and what the faults of that are . now the general fault is , that whereas one might reasonably expect , that there should be some difference between the character of a papist misrepresented , and of a papist represented , and he has endeavoured to make his readers believe , that there is , yet in truth there is none in most parts of the character . for what does strictly belong to representation , that is , all matter of fact , is the same in both . for , 1. he having put the opinions of protestants concerning popish doctrines and practices into the character of a papist misrepresented , as if they were his avowed doctrine and belief ; in the character of a papist represented he denies , that he believes those interpretations and consequences ; and this he might very easily do , because ( as he observes , p. 24. ) no body charges him with that belief ; and whereas he says , then he contradicts no body , and he hopes there is no fault in that , he is so far in the right ; but his fault is , that he imposes upon his reader , with an appearance of a misrepresentation , when there is none ; and by his denying that they believe such things , would perswade the world , that protestants charge papists with believing all these ill things themselves , which we say of their faith and worship ; a sign that he was hard put to it , to find out some protestant misrepresentations of papists . and 2. as for matter of fact , which alone is proper for a character , he generally owns the doctrines and practices we charge them with ; and his saying , how could this possibly be otherwise , if they charge us with ●ore , but what we expresly profess to own ( in which he reflects upon what i had said in my reply , that we charge them with believing nothing , but what they expresly profess to believe ) is nothing to the purpose ; for it is not absolutely what we charge them with , but what he himself makes us charge them with in his character of a papist misrepresented , and calls us misrepresenters for doing so , that he owns in the character of a papist represented , as i particularly shewed in my reply ; now the question is , why he calls one character a misrepresentation , and the other a representation , when the matter of fact is the same in both ? but then ( 3. ) i observed , that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their church , which manifestly is so , and has been proved on them , beyond all possibility of a fair reply , by the learned answerer . to which he answers : then for all his word , we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe . but he must know we do not take the profession of the roman faith from every private character-maker , but from the authentick records of their church ; and if they deny what their church teaches , and requires them to believe , it is not indeed their faith , but yet it ought to be so : and though he may huff at manifestly and proving , i suspect , he will take a little time before he brings it to the tryal . this is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of misrepresentations . i now proceed to the second part of the reply , the rule of true representing , or the rule whereby the doctrine of the church of rome is to be known . he appealed to the council of trent , and the catechism ad par●chos , and these i acknowledged to be authentick rules ; but since catholick divines differ about the sense of the council and catechism , the question is , why we must prefer his sense of the council and catechism before cardinal bellarmin's , or any other divines of note and eminency in the church of rome , who lived since the council of trent , and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it , as well as the representer ; and therefore to remove this difficulty in his reflections he appealed to the bishop of condom , as the authentick expositor of the council and catechism , and told us , how his book had been approved by many bishops , and cardinals , and by the present pope himself , and therefore has the authority of the see apostolick . to this i answered in my reply ( p. 44. ) that the attestation given to cardinal bellarmin's controversies was not inferior to that given to the bishop of condom's exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church ; that it was dedicated to pope sixtus 5. and that with the popes leave and good liking , which is not much inferior to a testimonial under the popes hand ; and why then are not bellarmin's controversies as authentick a rule for the exposition of the catholick faith , as the bishop of condom's ? but to this he thought fit to answer nothing . and whereas he pretends that the popes approbation gives it the authority of the apostolick . see : i acquainted him out of melchior canus ; that the name of the apostolick see does not signifie the pope in his private capacity , but in his chair , or doing such things , and in such a manner , as belong to the papal chair , that is , not giving his own private sense , but proceeding in council with the advice of good and learned men ; and therefore that is not to be accounted the judgment of the apostolick see , which is given only by the bishop of rome , privately , maliciously , and inconsiderately , or with the advice only of some few of his own mind , but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing , by the advice and counsel of many wise men. to this the protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence , that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the apostolick see , which is given only by the pope , privately , maliciously , and inconsiderately , or with the advice only of some few of his own mind , therefore this learned prelates exposition of the catholick faith is to be thrown by , as of no authority ; so that our replier has here concluded without any more ado , that the approbation of this book was only given privately , maliciously , inconsiderately , or else with the advice only of some few of the popes own mind , otherwise the consequence will not hold . but i thought canus had told us , what was necessary to make the popes approbation the judgment of the apostolick see , as well as what hinders it from being so . that the pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the apostolick chair , in full council , after due examination , and with the advice of many wise men. now i only desire to know , whether the pope in a full council of cardinals , did give judgment ex cathedrâ , that the bishop of condom's book was a true exposition of the catholick faith ; for if he did not , though the pope and all his cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it , according to canus his rule , it is not the judgment of the apostolick see ; for it is a private judgment , whether it be malicious or not , which i was so far from concluding without more ado , that , as the protester observes , i did not so much as translate it , ( though i put it in the latine quotation in the margin , which is an argument i did not designedly conceal it ) because i thought it was needless to my purpose : and yet the consequence holds good without it , if it be not a judgment ex cathedra , it is not the judgment of the apostolick see , which was all i intended to prove ; and our author in his long harangue has said nothing to prove that it was , nay is so far from that , that he avoided the very mentioning of that , because he knew not what to say to it . malitiously and inconsiderately were pretty words to descant upon , but the cathedra choaked him . the truth is the principal commendation , which is given to the bishop of condom's book ▪ is , that it is a new way of dealing with hereticks , and that which they hope may be more effectual than disputing has been ; but there is none of them , that make it the rule , much less the only rule of the catholick faith. cardinal de buillon acquaints cardinal bona , that there are some ( and he speaks of catholicks ) who find some fault in it ; and cardinal sigismond chigi in his letter to the abbot of dangeau , though he highly commends him , yet is far from allowing his book to be the standard of the catholick faith , or the authentick interpretation of the council of trent , when he tells the abbot , certainly it was never his ( condom ' s ) intention to give the interpretation of the tenets of the council , but only to deliver them in his book rightly explicated , in such sort , that hereticks may be convinced : that is , he did not allow him to interpret the council , but commends him for dealing with hereticks in a new , and , as he thought , more advantageous method , than had been formerly used ; and to this purpose the pope commends him , that his exposition of the catholick faith contains such doctrine , and is composed in such a method , and with so much prudence , that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct the readers clearly in few words , and to extort even from the unwilling , a confession of th● catholick faith. now to me this seems to fall very short of making the bishops exposition the authentick interpretation of the council of trent ; that what ever the bishop of condom says , is the sense of the council , must be acknowledged to be so , though other , as good catholick divines , as famous in their generation , and whose books have been received with as universal approbation , are of another mind ; and which signifies a little with us protestants , where the plain words and reason of the council is against him . i would desire our author to tell me , whether the pope , when he approved the bishop of condom's book , did at the same time condemn cardinal bellarmin's , or those other divines and schoolmen , who give such a different explication of the council of trent , from what this bishop does ; if he did not , what authority has he given to this exposition , more than any other catholick doctor may challenge ? why may we not , if we please , follow bellarmin , or suarez , or vasquez , or cajetan , as well as condom ? our author thinks it the shortest and easiest way to decide this controversie whether he have truly represented the faith of a papist , by making an experiment : thus he concluded his reflections , p. 19. do but you , or any friend for you ( though i did not know before , that the church of rome would admit proxies in the profession of our faith ) give your assent to those articles of faith , as i have represented it , in the very form and manner a i have stated them , in that character of a papist represented ; and if upon your request , you are not admitted into the communion of the roman catholicks , and owned to believe aright in all those points , i 'le then confess , that i have abused the world , that my representing is mispresenting the faith of the papist . to this i answered in my reply , p. 40. that i did believe that his representation was the faith of a papist , excepting what concerned the deposing doctrine , and some few other points , which i had before particularly remarked ( not that this is the whole of what papists believe , but that it is right as far as it goes ) but we did not like his faith so well , as he had represented it , as to make the experiment . this i thought had been answer enough for any reasonable man , but in his answer to the reply , he is still for new experiments , as being much easier than disputing , which he does not like , and now the trial is , that if notwithstanding my refusal to admit the deposing doctrine , and the popes infallibility , but as stated by the representer ( that is , not as articles of faith ) i be not judged sufficiently qualified as to these points , to be received into the communion of the roman catholicks , then he will grant , that i have reason to charge the representer not to have done his part in those particulars , that is , not to have truly represented the faith of a papist . now in answer to this , i beg his leave , that i may take my turn too in making proposals , and i will do it very gravely , without the least smile , since i see he is offended at it , and that is this . suppose i should resolve to be a thorough-paced papist , and instead of assenting to his representation , should rather chuse that representation , which cardinal bellarmine has made of the faith of a papist , who does not mince the matter , as to worshipping images , and praying to saints , and trusting in their aid and assistance , &c. who makes the popes infallibility and his deposing power an article of faith ; should i be thought sufficiently qualified , as to these points ( wherein the cardinal expresly contradicts and condemns our authors , and the bishop of condom's representation ) to be received into the communion of roman catholicks ? if i should ( and i will venture the protestor to say , that i should not ) then if his argument from experience be good ; it is plain , that cardinal bellarmine has made a true representation of the roman catholick faith ; and thus we have experience for both sides , for cardinal bellarmine , and for the bishop of condom , and our representer ; and yet it is somewhat strange , they should be all true representers , especially in those points , wherein they contradict each other . this the bishop of condom was aware of , and therefore concludes his book with a caution against it to those , who should think fit to answer it . that it would be a quitting the design of this treatise , to examine the different methods which catholick divines make use of , to establish or explicate the doctrine of the council of trent , and the different consequences , which particular doctors have drawn from it . which is a plain confession , that other catholick divines do not agree with him in this method , nor allow of those narrow bounds , which he has set to the catholick faith ; and therefore it was wisely done of him to persuade his answerers , to take no notice of any such disagreement , and it will be a great piece of civility and good breeding in them not to do it ; but how other catholick divines will take this , i cannot tell . this is enough in all conscience concerning the bishop of condom's authority , which i must still say is nothing , when we speak of an authentick rule of expounding the catholick faith , in which sense our author appeals to him ; though we will allow him the authority of a wise and prudent man , whose writings are published and approved by publick authority , as the writings of other catholick doctors are , which is all the authority we protestants give to our best writers ; and therefore the protester has no reason to complain ( as he does p. 27. ) of an uneven kind of justice and reasoning in this matter , and whoever desires a more particular account of the bishop of condom's authority , and those glorious testimonies which are given to his book , if he be a reasonable man , may find satisfaction in the preface to the late answer to the bishop of condom . but the truth is , i know no reason there is for all this dispute . i told the reflector before , that i did not like his faith , though it were as he has represented it ; should we allow the bishop of condom's exposition , and his character of a papist represented , to contain the true catholick faith , and that this is the whole of what the council of trent has determined , yet i can never be of this religion ; and since he was not satisfied with my bare telling him so , i will now give him some reasons for it , and particularly shew him , what it is i dislike in monsieur de meaux the late bishop of condom his exposition of the doctrine of the church about the object of worship , invocation of saints , and worship of images , and take the flourishes of his introduction into the bargain . and i chuse these heads , because these are the matters , wherein he principally appeals to the bishop of condom , and about which only he has offered any thing like an argument , in his answer to my reply : and i am as glad to take any opportunity of useful discourse , as our author seems cautious not to give any . and that neither he nor the bishop may have any occasion of quarrel , i shall observe the directions the bishop has given to those , who think fit to answer to his treatise . he tells us ; to urge any thing solid against this treatise ( the exposition ) and which may come home to the point , it must be proved , that the churches faith is not here faithfully expounded , and that by acts , which the same church has obliged her self to receive ; or else it must be shewn , that this explication leaves all the objections in their full force , and all the disputes untouched ; or in fine it must be precisely shewn , in what this doctrine subverts the foundations of faith. as for the first of these , it is done already to my hand , in the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented , in answer to the papist misrepresented and represented . and he must be as bold a man , who will attempt to mend that author , as who attempts to confute him . the other two i will have in my eye in examining , as far as i am now concerned , monsieur de meaux late bishop of condom his exposition of the doctrine of the church in matters of controversie . sect . i. the design of this treatise . were it possible to reconcile the differences between us and the church of rome , only by a fair representation of matters in controversie between us ; i should think it an admirable design ; and this being all the author professes to intend , i cannot but highly commend his good meaning in it ; whether he has shewn so much skill and judgment , in undertaking a design in its own nature impracticable , i shall leave to the reader to judge , when he has fairly heard both sides . had i known no more of the matter , but that the reformation was begun by men brought up in the communion of the church of rome , and intimately acquainted with the doctrines and practices of that church ; that some of these corruptions , both before and since , have been complained of by men of that communion ; that the council of trent , which was convened upon this occasion , condemns many doctrines of the reformers , as contrary to the catholick faith , and guilty of heresie ; that both before and after this council , there have been many volumes written , and many fine disputes between popish and protestant divines , who have been men of as great learning and true understanding in these matters , as any the age has bred , who did all this while believe , that there was a real and substantial difference between them : i say , when i consider these things , i should not venture , for the reputation both of papists and protestants , especially of the council of trent , to say , that the dispute has been only about words ; that papists and protestants , even the most learned men among them , have mistaken each others propositions ; and that the only way to reconcile this difference , is so to state the matter in dispute , that papists and protestants may understand each other . i doubt not , but fierce men on both sides , may have made this difference much wider than it is : but yet such a difference there is , as no representing can cure , as i believe will appear by considering particulars . sect . ii. those of the reformed religion acknowledge , that the catholick church embraces all the fundamental articles of the christian religion . that the church of rome does profess to believe all the principal and fundamental articles of faith , as the bishop affirms , i readily grant ; but yet she may hold fundamental errors , and destroy that faith she professes , by other doctrines destructive of the true catholick faith. that this is possible , he cannot deny , for men may believe inconsistent propositions ; and the design of his book is so to explicate the peculiar doctrines of the church of rome , as to reconcile them with the fundamental articles of faith , which the protestant explication of popish doctrines contradicts and overthrows ; which had been a very needless undertaking , were it impossible for men , who believe all the fundamental articles of the christian faith , to believe any thing contrary to it . he might then have spared his pains in vindicating and explaining particular doctrines ; for it had been evidence enough , that such doctrines and practices do not overthrow any fundamental article of faith , because they are owned by that church , which professes to believe all fundamental articles . and therefore i cannot well guess , what advantage he promised himself from this . we may safely grant , that the church of rome believes all fundamental articles , and yet charge her with such doctrines and practices , as destroy and tear up foundations . he observes indeed from m. daille , that we ought not to charge men with believing such consequences , as they themselves do formally reject ; nor do we charge any such thing upon the church of rome , but m. daille never said , that we may not charge mens doctrines and practices with such consequences , as they , who teach these doctrines , disown ; for m. daille himself , in the place quoted by the bishop , charges the opinion of the lutherans , and of the church of rome , about the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament , with inferring the destruction of the humanity of jesus christ : and therefore the bishop concludes too much , when he infers ; it is then a certain maxime established amongst them , that they must not in these cases look upon the consequences , which may be drawn from a doctrine , but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges , who teaches it . but the use m. daille makes of it , is only this . that when such ill consequences , as mens doctrines are justly chargeable with , have no ill influence upon worship , or as he speaks , no poyson in them ; if they disown such consequences , this ought not to break christian communion . and therefore , though no man ought to be received into the communion of the church , who denies the humanity of jesus christ ; yet the national synod at charenton admits lutherans to the holy table ; because whatever might be inferred from their doctrine , yet they expresly owned the humanity of christ ; and this doctrinal consequence was a meer speculative error , which made no change at all in acts of worship ; but when the consequences are not meerly speculative , but practical , and do not so much concern , what other men believe , and think , as what we our selves are to do , as it is in the worship of saints and images , and the host , &c. to say , that we must have no regard to consequences , if the church disowns them , is to say , that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our actions , nor what they are in gods account , but only what the church thinks of them : and therefore though we will not charge the church of rome , with believing any consequences , which she disowns ; yet if her doctrines and practices corrupt the christian faith and worship , it is fit to charge her with such corruptions ; and if the charge be just , though she disown it , it will justifie our separation from her communion . sect . iii. religious worship is terminated in god alone . the account the bishop gives of that interior adoration which is due to god alone , is very sound and orthodox ; that it consists principally in believing he is the creator and lord of all things , and in adhering to him with all the powers of our soul , by faith , hope , and charity , as to him alone , who can render us happy by the communication of an infinite good , which is himself . but there are two things i except against in this section , as not fairly stated : first , concerning the exteriour marks of adoration . secondly , concerning the terminating of religious worship . as for the first , he tells us : this interiour adoration , which we render unto god in spirit and in truth , has its exterior marks , of which the principal is sacrifice , which cannot be offered to any but to god : and with respect to the second , he tells us ; the same church teaches us , that all religious worship ought to terminate in god , as its necessary end ; and that if the honour , which she renders to the blessed virgin , and to the saints , may in some sence be called religious , it is for its necessary relation to god. the bishop very well knew , that this is the main seat of the controversie between us , and had he intended by his exposition , to have put an end to our disputes ; he should have taken a little more care about this point ; for as he has now stated it , he has left the matter just as he found it . we say , that all religious worship ought not only to terminate in god , as its necessary end ; but that god is the sole and immediate object of all religious worship , and that we must worship none besides him , as our saviour expounds the law. thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve , matth. 4. we have always denied any relative worship to be due to creatures ; for to worship creatures , is to make them gods , and it is no honour to the supreme god , to advance his own creatures to divine honours , to make more , though inferiour , gods for god's sake . we say , all external acts of religious worship , are peculiar and appropriate to god , as well as sacrifice ; for since we must worship none but god , whatever can be called religious worship , must be given to none besides him ; and the bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter ; he says , that sacrifice can be offered to none but god , but he has not told us , what he thinks of other external acts of worship , whether they may be paid to some excellent creatures : for since sacrifice is not a natural but instituted worship ; if nothing but sacrifice is peculiar to god , then all external natural worship is common to god and creatures , and then in the state of nature , there could be no external and visible difference , between the worship of god and creatures ; nor had there been any under the gospel neither , had not christ instituted his last supper , which the church of rome has transformed into a sacrifice of his natural flesh and blood. thus when he says , that all religious worship ought to terminate in god , as its necessary end , this seems to me an ambiguous expression ; for worship properly terminates in the object to which it is given ; and in this sense , if all religious worship must terminate in god , then all religious worship must be given to god , and to none else ; which is the true catholick faith , that god is only to be worshipped . but then what becomes of that religious worship which is given to the virgin mary , and saints , in relation to god ? does not this worship , which is given to them , terminate in them , and not in god ? are not they the immediate and proper objects of that worship , which is given to them ? and does not the object terminate the worship ? is god the object of that worship , which they give to the saints and blessed virgin ? then they either give that inferior degree of worship to god , which is proper for creatures , which is an affront to his majesty and greatness ; or they give that worship to creatures , which is proper to god , which is idolatry . which plainly shews , that that worship , which is given to creatures , is terminated in those creatures to which it is given ; and therefore if any degree of religious worship be given to creatures , all religious worship does not terminate in god , as he said it must ; and if all religious worship must terminate in god , then no religious worship must be given to creatures , as he grants it may , to the virgin mary and saints . yes , you will say , that worship , which is given to the saints and blessed virgin , terminates in god , because it is given them upon account of their relation to god ; but this is a great mistake ; their relation to god can only serve , for a reason why they are worshipped ; but cannot terminate that worship on god which is given to them ; because not god , but they themselves are the object , and the ultimate object of that worship , which is given to them . though we should grant , that god is honoured by that worship , which is given to some excellent creatures , who are his friends and favourites , yet the honour we do to god in this , is of a very different nature from that worship , which we pay to creatures ; it does not consist in this , that the worship we give to creatures is terminated on god , for it is terminated upon those creatures whom we worship ; but the honour must consist in the reason of our worship , that we worship them for god's sake : it is an honour to god by interpretation and consequence , as we intend it for god's honour , or as god is pleased to think himself honoured by it ; but it is no act of worship to god , and therefore not terminated on him . the worship can go no further than its proper object , though the reason of the worship may : for there is a great deal of difference between an object , and a medium of worship ; a medium of worship , which is only a representative object , receives our worship , but does not terminate it , but convey it to that being it represents ; because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another , as it is in that worship , which is given to the images of christ and the saints ; which some divines of the church of rome tell us , is not terminated on the images , but on christ or the saints represented by those images ; but a proper object of worship , which receives worship in its own proper person , for whatsoever reason it is worshipped , it terminates the worship ; the worship , which is given to it , goes not beyond it self , though the reason of the worship may reach farther , and be thought to reflect some honour upon god , and to testifie our love and reverence for him , by that worship we pay to those , who are dear to him . so that if we do give religious worship to the virgin mary and saints , such worship is terminated on them , and then all religious worship is not terminated on god , as he says the church of rome teaches it must be , which yet teaches also the worship of saints and the blessed virgin. methinks he should have taken care , to have stated this matter a little plainer : for if he cannot reconcile the doctrine and practice of the church together , i fear his exposition will rather increase than end controversies . thus how doubtfully does he speak ; if the honour she renders to the blessed virgin and to the saints , may , in some sense , be called religious , it is for its necessary relation to god. why does he not tell us plainly , whether this honour the church of rome gives to saints and the virgin be religious , or not , and in what sense it may be called religious honour ? if he undertake to expound the catholick faith , why does he not do it ? why does he speak so cautiously ? as if he were afraid to own , what the faith of the church is in this point ? which yet is a very material one , and very necessary to be truly stated . thus i can understand , how the honour , which is given to creatures , may have relation to god , viz. because we honour them for god's sake , and upon account of their relation to him ; but i do not understand , how this relation to god , makes the honour of creatures a religious honour . for though we honour creatures for god's sake , yet the honour we give to creatures must be sutable to their own natures , and therefore not that religious honour , which is proper to god only : as when we honour a man for the sake of our father , or our prince , we do not give him that honour , which is proper to our father , or our prince , though we honour him for their sakes . and therefore if the church of rome does give religious honour to any creatures , it will not justifie her , in giving religious honour to creatures , that she honours them for god's sake ; for creatures are creatures still , though never so nearly related to god , and therefore not capable of religious honours . so that i do not see , how this explication , if it may be so called , takes off any objection , that was ever made against the church of rome , about the object of religious worship . for if by all religious worship being terminated on god , he means , that no other being must be religiously worshipped but only god ; then this is an invincible objection against that religious worship , which the church of rome gives to the blessed virgin , and to saints and angels . if he means by it , that religious worship may be given to other beings besides god , so it be all terminated in god , then all the other objections , against worshipping any other being besides god , are in full force still , notwithstanding his explication : their relation to god will not justifie the religious worship of creatures , and it is contrary to all sense and reason to say , that the worship , which is given to creatures , is terminated on god. sect . iv. invocation of saints . there are two great opinions against that worship , which the church of rome gives to saints departed , who now reign with christ in heaven , as the council of trent teaches . 1. that it is to give them that religious worship , which is due only to god. 2. that it makes them our mediators and intercessors in heaven , which is an honour peculiar to christ. now m. de meaux , and after him , the author of the character , think to remove these objections , only by explaining the doctrine of their church about this matter ; and i shall distinctly consider , what they say to each of these . 1. as for the first , that in praying to saints they do not give them that worship , which is due only to god , they think is evident from hence , that the council of trent and the catechism ad parochos teaches them only , to pray to saints to pray for them : the bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the council , and therefore , that in what terms soever those prayers , which we address to saints , are couched , the intention of the church , and of her faithful , reduces them always to this form. now i will not dispute this matter at present , but refer my reader to the answer to a papist misrepresented . but let us suppose , that this is all the church of rome intends by it , that we should only pray to the saints to pray for us , what advantage can they make of this ? yes , says the advertisement before the bishops exposition , p. 12. to pray to saints only to pray for us , is a kind of prayer , which by its own nature , is so far from being reserved by an independent being to himself , it can never be addressed to him ; that is , we must never pray to god to pray for us ; and therefore such a prayer is no part of that worship , which is due to god. and he adds , if this form of prayer , pray for us , diminished the trust we have in god , it would be no less condemnable to use it to the living than to the dead ; and st. paul would not have said so often , brethren , pray for us : the whole scripture is full of prayers of this nature . thus the author of the character , tells us . in this he does not at all neglect coming to god , or rob him of his honour , but directing all his prayers up to him , and making him the ultimat object of all his petitions , he only desires sometimes the just on earth , sometimes those in heaven to joyn their prayers to his , that so the number of petitioners being increased , the petition may find better acceptance in the sight of god : and this is not to make them gods , but only petitioners to god : he having no hopes of obtaining any thing , but of god alone . this is the least that can possibly be made of that worship , they give to saints , which is not reconcileable with their practice neither ; and if it should appear , that this ( as little as it is thought to be ) is to give that worship to creatures , which is due to god , they must e'en reject praying to saints to pray for them , as they now do , trusting in their aid and assistances , and power to keep them . now i only ask , whether prayer be not an act of religion , and a worship due to god ? if it be not , why do they pray to god ? if it be , then they give the worship of god to saints , when they pray to them . for it is not so much , the matter of our prayer , as the nature of prayer , which makes it an act of religion . we may pray to god for those things , which men can give , viz. food and raiment , and yet these are as religious prayers , as when we ask such things of god , as none can give but himself ; and by the same reason , though we pray to saints only to do that for us , which a creature can do , that is , only to pray to god for us ; yet our very praying to them is an act of religious worship , which is due only to god. the truth is , i am so dull , that i cannot see , what makes these new reformers of the roman-catholick doctrine and worship , so shy of owning any other aid and assistance , which they expect from the saints , but only their prayers for them : for this makes no alteration at all in the nature of that worship , they pay to them . for suppose the saints in heaven ( who now reign with christ , as the council affirms ) were intrusted with the guardianship of men , and the care of saints on earth , as cardinal bellarmine expresly says they are ; might we not as lawfully pray to them to imploy that power , god has committed to them , for our good and happiness , as to use their interest with god for us by their prayers ? does one exalt you more above the condition of creatures than the other ? may we not beg our friends on earth , to relieve our wants and necessities , as well as to pray for us ? and if begging the prayers of our friends on earth , will justifie our praying to the saints in heaven , to pray for us ; our asking an alms on earth , will equally justifie our begging the aid and assistance , as well as prayers , of the saints in heav●n ; and then we are just where we were . and if ever there were any good arguments against praying to saints , they are all good still , though they pray to saints only to pray for them : which is my only business at present , to shew ( according to the bishop's desire ) that his explication leaves all the objections in full force , and all the disputes untouched . so that setting aside the matter of our prayers , or what it is we ask , which makes no alteration in this case , the inquiry is , whether when we pray to saints , we do not give that worship to them , which is peculiar and appropriate to god ? now the church of rome , is so far from thinking such prayers to be the peculiar worship due to god , that she thinks it as innocent to pray to the saints in heaven to pray for us , as it is to desire the prayers of our christian brethren on earth . the bishop says , the church in teaching us , that it is profitable to pray to saints , teaches us to pray to them in the same spirit of charity , and according to the same order of fraternal society , which moves us to demand assistance of our brethren living on earth . the character to the same purpose makes our desiring sometimes the saints on earth , sometimes those in heaven , to joyn their prayers with ours , to be actions of the very same nature , and equally lawful . this is the true pinch of the controversie , and here it is we part with the church of rome ; that we think , there is some difference between speaking to our christian brethren on earth , whom we see , and converse with , and praying to the saints in heaven , with all the external expressions of religious worship and adoration : the first is to converse with them as men ; the second is such a manner of address , as is proper only for a god. to pray to saints , is somewhat more than to desire our christian friends to pray for us ; it is supplicitèr eos invocare , as the council of trent speaks , to invoke them , or call on them , in the manner of supplicants ; so that this must be acknowledged a worship of the saints ; and then it must be either a civil or religious worship ; and which of these two it is , must be known by the manner of paying it . and therefore when all the circumstances of worship are religious , we must acknowledge the worship to be religious too : such as praying to them in religious places , in churches and chappels , and at consecrated altars with bended knees , and hands and eyes lifted up , in a very devout manner , when they see no body to speak to , or to receive their addresses , unless it be the image of the saint they worship . thus some nations worship their gods , but no people ever paid their civil respects to each other in this manner . but as i observed in my reply ( p. 66. ) there is one infallible distinction between civil and religious worship , between the worship of god and men : that the worship of the invisible inhabitants of the other world , has always been accounted religious worship . civil respects are confined to this world , as all natural and civil relations , which are the foundation of civil respects , are ; but we have no intercourse with the other world , but what is religious . and therefore as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour , are distinguished by the sight of the object , to which they are paid , though the external acts and expressions are the same ; as when men bow the body , and are uncovered , you know what kind of honour it is , by seeing who is present , whether their father , their friend , or their prince , or some other honourable person : so the most certain mark of distinction between civil and religious worship is this , that the one relates to this world , the other to the invisible inhabitants of the next . in this last paragraph the protester says ( p. 35. ) we have a consequence and comparison , and both so excellent in their kinds , that if any better connexion can be found in them , then between the monument and the may-pole , it must be by one , who has found one trick more in logick , than ever aristotle knew . sometimes indeed aristotle 's logick does not do such feats , as one would expect ; but a little natural logick , called common sense , would have shewed him the connexion . for i think , there is some sence in saying , that as the different degrees of civil honour , though most of the external signs of honour be the same , such as kneeling , bowing the body , uncovering the head , may yet be distinguished by the presence of the object , to which it is paid ; whether it be our father , or our prince : so though the external signs of civil and religious honour , are in many instances the same , yet civil and religious worship may be visibly distinguished , by the object to which it is given : for civil worship can belong only to the inhabitants of this world ; but whatever worship is given to the invisible inhabitants of the other world , is religious . now if this be so , then to pray to saints , now they are removed out of this world into an invisible state , is to give religious worship to them ; which makes a vast difference between praying to the saints in heaven to pray for us , and speaking to our fellow-christians on earth to pray for us . the protester is willing to grant , or at least suppose , that the honour or worship , which is given to the invisible inhabitants of the other world , is religious worship ; but still he says , it remains to be proved , that all religious respect and honour is so a divine honour , as to make a god of the thing , to which it is paid , at least constructively : this i think , is no hard matter to do ; but i shall first consider his arguments against it , and all that he says , is , that if it be true , it proves too much , and will bring my self in for a share with them , in giving religious worship to creatures , and so making gods of them , at least constructively . he instances in that custom of bowing to the altar , or communion table , as he calls it , and bowing at the name of jesus ; but this shall be considered , when i come to the worship of images . his other instances concern that religious respect , which we allow due to sacred places and things , and a religious decency to the bodies of saints and martyrs ; but what is this to a religious worship . the respect we shew to such things and places , is no more than a civil respect , which consists in a decent usage , in seperating them from vile and common purposes ; and it is called a religious respect , not from the nature of the respect , but from the reason , why we give it , viz. out of reverence to god , to whose worship they are seperated . thus that love and honour we pay to a living saint , though it rise no higher than the expressions of a civil respect , may be said to be religious , when we love and honour them for gods sake ; but this is an external denomination from the cause and motive , not from the nature of the act , and therefore cannot make gods of them , because it is not religious worship ; but to give proper religious worship to any being , is to give it that worship , which is proper only to god , which is the only way to make any being a god , which is not a god. now if this be a true notion , that all worship , which is given to the invisible inhabitants of the other world , is religious worship , i will easily prove , that we must worship no other invisible being , but god alone , and therefore cannot pray to saints in heaven , without giving the worship of god to them . and my reason is this , because god challenges all religious worship to himself ; as our saviour tells us , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve , matth. 4. it seems to me a very needless dispute , what is the peculiar and incommunicable worship , which must be given to none but the supreme god , when god has appropriated all religious worship to himself , whatever act of religious worship god requires us to pay to himself , must be given to none else ; and therefore if all worship paid to invisible beings , be in its own nature religious worship , we must worship no invisible being , but only god. for if all worship of invisible beings be religious , and god challenges all religious worship to himself , then we must worship no invisible being but only god ; for to worship any other invisible being , is to give religious worship to that , which is not god. but the protester thinks i ought to have allowed , for the different kinds and degrees of religious , as well as civil honour . such i suppose as they call their latria or dulia , supreme or subordinate absolute or relative , terminative or transient worship ; but there is no place for these different degrees and distinctions of religious worship , if we must worship no other invisible being , but only god ; for if there be but one object of religious worship , there is no need to distinguish this worship into different kinds and degrees , as civil worship is , which has very numerous and very different objects . if we must give no worship to any invisible being besides god , it is ridiculous to dispute , what degree of worship we may lawfully give them , when we must give them none . and it is a good argument , that there are no different kinds of religious worship ; one which is supreme and soveraign , and due to the one supreme god ; other inferiour and subordinate degrees of worship , which may be paid to those excellent spirits , which are very dear to god , and the ministers of his providence ; because there are no external and visible signs , to distinguish between such different degrees of religious worship . as civil worship is confined to the inhabitants of this world , and is thereby distinguished from religious worship ; so the different degrees of civil honour , though the external signs and expressions of it are the same , are distinguished by the visible presence of the object to which it is paid ; for when a man bows or uncovers his head , we know what kind of honour it is , by considering the relation , or the quality , of the person , to whom it is paid , whether he be a father , a prince , or a wise and good man. but if there were more invisible beings than one to worship , though there might be different degrees of internal honour and worship paid to them , according to the different apprehensions men had of their several degrees of perfection ; yet the external signs of worship must be the same in all . and thus there would be no visible distinction , between the worship of the supreme god , and created spirits , and glorifyed souls of dead men ; and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish , between the worship of god and creatures , we must worship no invisible being , but only the supreme god. the protester proposes some ways , whereby the different kinds and degrees of religious worship may be distinguished ; as by the intention of the giver ; but this is not a visible distinction : for mens intentions are private to themselves , and there is no difference in the visible acts of worship , to make such a distinction , or by some visible representation ; that is , by images : this i grant , would make as visible a distinction between the worship of god , and christ , and the virgin mary , as the presence of the person distinguishes the kinds and degrees of civil honour ; for when we see , whose image they worship , we may certainly tell what being they direct their worship to ; but the fault of this is , that it is forbid by the law of god ; of which more in the next section ; or by determination of other circumstances , but what these are , i cannot tell , and therefore can say nothing to it . the church of rome indeed does appropriate the sacrifice of the mass to god , as his peculiar worship , which must not be given to any other being ; and if this be so , then indeed we can certainly tell , when we see a priest offering the sacrifice of the mass , that he offers it to the supreme god ; but there are a great many other acts of worship , which we owe to god , besides the sacrifice of the mass , and in every act of worship , god ought to be visibly distinguished from creatures ; and yet if all the other external acts of worship be common to god , and creatures , where is the distinction ? and yet the sacrifice of the mass can be offered only by the priest , so that the whole layety cannot perform any one act of worship to god , which is peculiar to him , and therefore can make no visible distinction in their worship between god and creatures . and yet the very sacrifice of the mass , is not so appropriated to god in the church of rome , but that it is offered to god in honour of the saints . this the bishop of condom ( p. 7. ) endeavours to excuse by saying ; this honour which we render them ( the saints ) in sacrificing , consists in naming them in the prayers we offer up to god , as his faithful servants , and in rendring him thanks for the victories they have gained , and in humbly beseeching him , that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their intercession . now it is very true , according to the council of trent , the priest offers the sacrifice only to god , but they do somewhat more than name the saints in their prayers , for they offer the sacrifice in honour to the saints , as well as to god , which the bishop calls to honour the memory of the saints : now if sacrifice be an act of honour and worship to god , it sounds very odly to worship or honour god for the honour of his saints , which seems to make god only the medium of worship to the saints , who are the terminative object of it ; and that the saints are concerned in this sacrifice appears from this , that by this sacrifice they implore the intercession of the saints , that those whose memories we celebrate on earth , would vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven . the bishop translates implorat by demand , for what reason i cannot tell ; and makes this imploring or beseeching , to refer to god , not to the saints , whose patronage , patrocinia , and intercession they pray , they would vouchsafe them , contrary to the plain sense of the council , and i think to common sense too : for i do not well understand offering sacrifice to god , that he may procure for us the intercession of the saints ; for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far , as to intercede with the saints to be our intercessors , he may as well grant our requests without their intercession ; and yet the bishop was very sensible , that if we offer up our prayers to the saints in the sacrifice of the mass , it does inevitably entitle them to the worship of that sacrifice , which , they say , must be offered only to god. he alleadges indeed st. austin's authority , who understood nothing of this mystery of the sacrifice of the mass , and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this nature , is evident to any man , who consults the place . but the church of rome ( as the bishop observes p. 8. ) has been charged by some of the reformation , not only with giving the worship of god to creatures , when they pray to the saints , but with attributing the divine perfections to them , such as a certain kind of immensity and knowledge of the secrets of hearts ; for if they be not present in all places , where they are worshipped , how can they hear the prayers , which are made to them at such distant places at the same time ? if they do not know our thoughts , how can they understand those mental prayers , which are offered to them without words , only in our secret thoughts and desires ? for even such prayers are expresly allowed by the council , voce vel mente . now to this he answers very well , that though they believe the saints do by one means or other know the prayers , which are made to them , either by the ministry and communication of angels , or by a particular revelation from god , or in his divine essence , in which all truth is comprised , yet never any catholick yet thought , the saints knew our necessities by their own power , no nor the desires which move us to address our secret prayers to them . and to say a creature may have a knowledge of these things , by a light communicated to them by god , is not to elevate a creature above his condition . this i grant and therefore do acknowledge , that they do not attribute the divine perfections of omniscience and omnipresence to the saints , either in thought or word , but yet actions have as natural a signification as words ; and if we give them such a worship , as naturally signifies omniscience and omnipresence , our worship attributes the incommunicable perfections of god to them . for it is unnatural and absurd to worship a being , who is not present to receive our worship ; to speak to a being , who does not , and cannot hear us ; and since god has made us reasonable creatures , to understand what we do , and why , he interprets our actions , as well as words and thoughts , according to their natural signification . and herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists , that every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a confession of some excellency and perfection , which is above a created nature , and thereby ( whatever the worshipper thinks or intend ) does attribute the incommunicable glory of god to creatures . if the saints are not present in all places to hear those prayers which are made to them , and if they cannot hear in heaven , what we say to them on earth , by their own power , then prayer is a worship , which is not due to their nature , even in a glorified state . for no being can have a right to our prayers , who cannot hear them ; and though we should grant , that god reveals our prayers to them , yet to know by revelation is not to hear . in this case all that can be reasonable for us to do , is only secretly to desire , that the saints would pray for us , which god can reveal to them , if he pleases , as well as our prayers ; but it can never be reasonable to pray to those , who cannot hear us . and if prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its most exalted state , because no creature can be present in all places to hear our prayers , then if it be a proper worship for creatures , it must be so by a positive institution of god ; but then they must shew an express command for it , and when they can do that , we will dispute the reason of the thing no longer . and this is a manifest reason , why we should worship no other invisible being besides god , because no other invisible being is capable of our worship . god alone fills all places , and therefore may be worshipped , though we do not see him , for he is present every where to hear our prayers ; but we cannot know , that any being , of a limited presence , is present with us , unless we see it ; and it is unnatural to pray to any being , who is not present to hear us . and though the church of rome does not directly and positively attribute any divine perfections to saints , yet mankind are so naturally prone , to ascribe a kind of divinity to immortal and invisible spirits , that this is a sufficient reason , why god should not allow the worship of any invisible spirits . for after all that can be said to the contrary , it is a mighty temptation to men , at least to make inferior deities of those , to whom they constantly pay divine honours . and though they do not attribute to saints , a natural power to know our thoughts , and to hear our prayers , and to answer them : yet if this supernatural gift and power , whereby they do it , be as constant , and act as certainly as nature does , it is as great and adorable a perfection , as if it were natural : for since all created excellencies are the gift of god , what mighty difference is there between a natural and supernatural perfection , or gift , if that which is supernatural , be as certain and lasting , and that which they can as constantly use , as that which is natural . as to take their own instance : were the gift of prophesie , which god bestowed on some in former ages , as constant and certain , as natural knowledge ; that they could use this gift , whenever they pleased , and as constantly foretel things to come , as they could reason and discourse ; what difference would there be in this case , between a natural and supernatural knowledge of future things : truly no more but this ; that a natural knowledge is a perfection , which god did originally bestow upon our nature : supernatural knowledge is an additional perfection , but yet upon this supposition , as inseparably annexed to our natures , as natural knowledge , and always as ready for use as that ; which i think , would make such a prophet as truly venerable , as if prophesie were natural to him . thus it is in this present case . if the saints know our prayers , by what means soever they do it , it must be as constant and lasting a gift , as if it were natural ; that is , they must as certainly know when , and what we pray for , every time we pray , as if they were present to hear us . for if they do not always know our prayers , we can never know , when to pray , and can never have any security of their intercession for us ; many thousand ave maries may be every day lost , and turn to no account ; and if they do constantly know this by a supernatural gift , it is as glorious a perfection , as if this knowledge were natural . mankind do not so critically distinguish between natural and supernatural gifts ; in whomsoever these perfections are , they are divine , and such creatures have a supernatural kind of divinity annexed to their natures ; they are made gods , though not gods by nature , which is as much as any people believe of their inferior deities , who believe but one supreme and sovereign god , who is a god by nature . and yet the author of the character of a papist represented , gives some instances , which would perswade us , that the saints have a natural knowledge of our prayers . thus he tells us , that abraham heard the petitions of dives , who was yet at a greater distance , even in hell , and told him likewise his manner of living , while as yet on earth , ( p. 4. ) now not to ask , how he comes so exactly to know , where hell is , and that it is at a greater distance from heaven , than the earth is : if there be any force in this argument , it must prove , that the saints have a natural knowledge of our prayers , though at so great a distance from us , as heaven is : that they see , and hear us , as abraham did dives , though we cannot see and hear them , as dives did abraham ; which might have satisfied him , since he thinks fit to reason from parables , that whatsoever distance there is between heaven and hell , there is a greater communication between them , than between heaven and earth . however our saviour cannot here speak of any supernatural gift , whereby abraham saw and heard dives in hell ; unless we will say , that dives did by a supernatural gift also , see and hear abraham in heaven ; and therefore if this prove any thing , it proves , that saints know and hear our prayers by their own natural powers . thus he adds , that the very devils hear those desperate wretches , who call on them ; and why then should he doubt , that saints want this priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and wicked spirits . but though he call this a priviledge , i suppose , he means a natural one , unless he thinks , that the devils hear witches by a supernatural revelation , as the saints in heaven hear the prayers of the saints on earth : but i always thought , that devils had been a little nearer bad men , than the saints in heaven are to us on earth ; for they are confined to this lower region , and therefore are often so near , as to see and hear bad men , though they are invisible themselves : and this is one reason , why god will not allow us to worship any invisible spirits , because though we should intend only to worship good spirits , and glorified saints , yet bad spirits , who are near and present , as having their residence in the air , as the devil is called the prince of the power of the air , do assume this worship to themselves , and both corrupt the worship , and abuse their votaries , with lying wonders . thus they did in the times of paganism , and whether they have more reverence for the christian saints , than they had for the pagan deities , in assuming their names and worship , let others consider . but to return to the bishop . he having assured us , that the church of rome does not ascribe any divine perfections to the saints ( of which the reader may judge by what i have already discoursed ) he thus concludes . it is therefore true , that by examining what are our interiour sentiments concerning the saints , it will be found we do not raise them above the condition of creatures , and from thence we ought to judge , of what nature that exteriour honour is , which we render them ; exteriour veneration being established to testifie the interior sentiments of the mind : that is , we must conclude , they do not give the worship of god to them , because they do not believe them to be gods. now this , i confess , would be true , were the external signs of honour wholly arbitrary , and at our own choice ; for then they could signifie no more , than what we intend to signifie by them , and we ought not to be charged with intending to signifie more , than what we profess to intend ; but when either the act of worship naturally signifies divine perfections , as prayer to an invisible being does , or god has reserved any acts of worship to himself , as he has done all religious worship , that is , all worship paid to invisible beings , as i have already shewn ; in these cases we may be guilty of giving divine honours to creatures , though in words and intention , we ascribe no divine perfections to them . so that i cannot see , but that , after all the fine colours , and soft interpretations , which the bishop puts upon this practice of the church of rome , in praying to saints , the charge against them of giving the peculiar worship of god to creatures , is as strong and forcible as ever . secondly , let us now consider , whether our praying to the saints , to pray and intercede for us , be not injurious to the merits and mediation of christ. now there are two things the bishop urges to prove , that the mediation of saints is not injurious to the mediation of christ. 1. that if the quality of mediator , which the scriptures gives to jesus christ , received any prejudice from the intercession made to the saints ▪ who raign with god , it would receive no less from the intercession made to the faithful who live with us . for this he alledges the authority of the catechism ad parochos , which tells us , that if it were not lawful to desire help of the saints , because we have one patron or mediator jesus christ , the apostle would not so earnestly have desired the prayers of the brethren , who were then living , to god for him . for the glory and dignity of christ , as mediator , is not less diminished by the prayers of the living , than by the intercession of saints in heaven . this is the least that can be made of it , that the mediation and intercession of the saints for us in heaven , is no more than one christians praying for another on earth ; and i fear this is not reconcileable with the practice of the church of rome in this matter . for can this ( if it be no more ) be thought a sufficient foundation , for all that pompous worship of the virgin mary , and other powerful saints ? is this a good reason to erect temples and altars , consecrated not only to their memory , but to their honour ; to set up their images in holy places , and pay our humble adorations before them ; because they pray for us in heaven , just as christian brethren pray for one another on earth ? and therefore i must needs say , the bishop has not truly expounded the doctrine of the church of rome in this point , which makes the saints to be our mediators in heaven ; not indeed mediators of redemption , which she acknowledges none to be but christ , who has purchased us with his own blood ; but mediators of intercession , who have so much interest , and favour , in the court of heaven , as powerfully to recommend those to god , who put themselves under their patronage . this i confess makes a great difference between the mediation of christ , and of the saints , and yet leaves a great distance between the prayers of saints in heaven for us , and the mutual intercessions of christians for each other on earth , and the church of rome never taught , that they were of the same nature ; for though the catechism endeavours to prove , that the mediation and intercession of the saints in heaven for us , is not injurious to the mediation of christ ; because the prayers of christians for each other on earth , are very reconcileable with the honour of christ's intercession : yet it never teaches , that there is no difference between the prayers of saints in heaven , and christians on earth ; and i think we ought to distinguish , between the doctrine and the arguments of the church . what she declares to be her doctrine we must own to be so , but i think we must not grant every thing to be her domakes which ought to be supposed to make her arguments good ; because there is no necessity of granting , that all her arguments must be good . this argument indeed , that the intercession of the saints in heaven , is no more injurious to the mediation of christ , than the prayers and intercessions of the saints on earth for each other , cannot be good without supposing , that the intercessions of the saints in heaven are of the very same nature , with the prayers of christians for each other on earth ; and the bishop takes the advantage to represent this as the doctrine of the church , that she teaches us to pray to saints in the same spirit of charity , and according to the same order of fraternal society , which moves us to demand assistance of our brethren living upon earth . but this i think is not reconcileable with the express words of the council of trent , which founds the invocation of saints upon their reigning with christ ; which makes a vast difference between their interest and authority in the court of heaven , and the humble supplications of christians on earth . and i think the spirit of charity , and the order of fraternal society , does not require us supplicitèr invocare , to pray to our fellow christians on earth as humble supplicants to pray for us , as the council teaches us to address our selves to the saints in heaven . christians indeed on earth , and saints in heaven ( since the bishop has limited all their aid and assistance to their prayers ) can do no more than pray for us ; and are thus both of them distinguished from christ , who is our mediator of redemption , who has bought us with his blood : but then we ought to consider , that there is a vast difference in prayers , and prayers may prevail upon such different reasons , as may quite alter the nature of the intercessions . for is there no difference between the power and interest of a favourite , to obtain what he desires of his prince , and the petition of an ordinary subject ? a prince may grant the petition of a subject for himself , or of one subject for another , where there is reason and equity in the case , without any more powerful intercession ; but acts of grace and favour must be dispensed by the intercession of favourites ; and yet it is all by way of prayer and petition to the prince ; but though it is all but petition and request , yet those who have any request to make to their prince , place more confidence in the interest and power of one favourite , than in the joynt petitions of many ordinary subjects . thus it is here ; christians on earth pray for each other as common supplicants , and the benefit they expect from such prayers and intercessions , is only from the prevalency of faith and charity , which inspire such prayers , and make them efficacious . god has commanded us to pray for one another , and has promised to hear our united , fervent , and importunate prayers , for the merits of our common saviour jesus christ : but those who pray to saints in heaven , pray to them as favourites and mediators , who prevail not meerly by the force and efficacy of prayer , but by their personal merits and interests with god ; and this makes them just such mediators as christ is , who by their power and interest can recommend us and our prayers to god's acceptance . no you 'll say , christ purchased us with his blood , and mediates in the vertue of his sacrifice , which makes his mediation of a different nature from the mediation of saints , who mediate only by their interest with god , upon account of their personal merits . but this alters not the case ; for the general notion of a mediator , is one who has power and interest with god , effectually to recommend us to his favour ; and whether he mediates with , or without a sacrifice , if his mediation be powerful and efficacious , he is a true and proper mediator ; and to set up such other mediators besides christ , must be injurious to his mediation , for then christ is not our only mediator ; and after all the apologies that can be made for it , it argues some distrust , either of christ's power , or good will to help us , when we fly to other patrons and advocates . 2. and therefore monsieur de meaux has another reserve ; for in the second place he tells us from the council of trent , that to invocate saints , according to the sense of this council , is to have recou●se to their prayers , for obtaining benefits from god through jesus christ , so that in reality we do not obtain those benefits , which we receive by the intercession of the saints , otherwise than through jesus christ , and in his name ; seeing these saints themselves pray in no other manner than through jesus christ , and are not heard but in his name . after which we cannot imagine , that any one should accuse us of forsaking jesus christ , when we beseech his members , who are also ours , his children , who are our brethren , and his saints , who are our first fruits , to pray with us , and for us , to our common master , in the name of our common mediator . as for forsaking jesus christ , this we do not charge them with ; tho whoever considers , how much more frequent addresses are made in the church of rome to the virgin mary , and some other powerful saints , than to christ himself , will be tempted to think , that it looks very like forsaking him ; but we only say , that they rob christ of the glory of being our only mediator and advocate , by having recourse to the prayers , and intercessions of so many saints . but how can the intercession of saints be injurious to the mediation of christ , when they themselves intercede in the name and mediation of christ ; which necessarily reserves to christ the glory of his mediation entire , since the saints themselves are not heard but in his name ? now rightly to understand this , we must consider the nature of christs mediation , which is to offer up all those prayers to god in heaven , which we make to god in his name on earth . he is our mediator in heaven , our high-priest , who is passed into the heavens ; who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment , but after the power of an endless life , who is made higher than the heavens , who is not entred into the holy place made with hands , which are the figures of the true , but into heaven it self , now to appear in the presence of god for us . so that as the high-priest under the law entred once a year into the holy place , which was a type and figure of heaven , to make expiation and intercessions for the people ; so the office of christ , as our high-priest and mediator , is to ascend into heaven with his own blood , and there to appear in the presence of god for us . his mediatory office is confined to heaven ; there he presents our prayers to god , in vertue of his own blood ; and this is as peculiar and appropriated to him , as it was to the high-priest under the law , to offer the blood of the sacrifice , and make attonement , and intercession in the holy of holies . so that to present our prayers to god in heaven is the peculiar office of christ , who is our great high-priest , and only mediator in the immediate presence of god in heaven ; and to apply our selves to any other mediators in heaven , to present our prayers to god , in what manner , or upon what pretence soever it be , is injurious to the mediation of christ , whose proper office it is to present our prayers to god in heaven . and that pretence that the saints pray for us only in the name and mediation of christ , is no apology in this case , for in what name soever they pray , they offer up our prayers to god immediately in heaven , which is the office of our great high-priest , for there is and must be but be but one mediator in heaven . and if we consider , what is meant by praying to god in the name and mediation of christ , we shall see reason to think , that this is very improperly attributed to the saints in heaven . for when we pray to god in the name of christ , though we address our prayers immediately to god , yet god does not receive them , as coming immediately from us , but as presented by the hands of our mediator ; which is the true meaning of praying to god in the name of christ , that we offer our prayers to god , not directly from our selves , for then we should have no need of a mediator , but by his hands , whose office it is to present them to god , to appear in the presence of god for us , which is therefore called coming to god by him . now this is very agreeable to the state and condition of christians on earth , who are at a great distance from the immediate throne and presence of god , to offer their prayers by the hands of a mediator , who appears in the presence of god for them ; and the reason , why we want a mediator to appear for us , is because we are not yet admitted into god's immediate presence our selves . but could every ordinary priest , or jew , have been admitted into the holy of holies , as the high-priest was , they might as well have offered their prayers and sacrifices there immediately to god , without the ministry and mediation of the high-priest ; and those who are in heaven in the immediate presence of god , if they offer up any prayers to god for themselves or others , they offer them immediately and directly to god , because they offer them to god in his immediate presence ; which is the true notion of christ's mediation , that he appears in the presence of god for us : and therefore whatever use there may be of the name of christ in heaven ; saints in heaven , who live in the immediate presence of god , have no need of a mediator to offer their prayers to god , as saints on earth have , because they are admitted to the immediate vision of god themselves . to offer up our prayers to god , in the name and mediation of christ , supposes , that we are at a distance from god , and not admitted into his presence to speak for our selves ; but those prayers , which are offered to god in his immediate presence , need no mediator to present them . and yet to say , that the saints in heaven offer their prayers to god in the name and mediation of christ , is to say , that when they are admitted to the immediate presence of god themselves , they still need a mediator ; that the prayers they offer to god , in his immediate presence , they do not offer immediately to him , but by the hands of a mediator ; which if it be sence , i am sure , is no good divinity , as neither agreeing with the types of the law , nor with the gospel-account of christ's mediation . and therefore if glorified saints appear for us in the presence of god in heaven , they are as much our mediators as christ is ; for this is the most essential character of this mediation , that he appears in the presence of god for us . the only objection i can fore-see against this , is , that some of the ancient fathers , though they did not pray to saints to pray for them , yet were inclined to believe , that saints departed did pray for the church on earth , especially for their particular friends , which they left behind them , and therefore to be sure did not think this any injury to the mediation of christ. but then we must consider , that as they spoke doubtfully of this matter , so those very fathers did not believe , that saints departed were received up into the highest heaven , into the immediate presence and throne of god ; though they thought them in a very happy state , yet not perfect , till the resurrection ; and therefore they prayed for saints departed , as well as believed , that saints departed prayed for them . now any mediation and intercession on this side heaven , is very consistent with the mediation of christ in heaven ; but to intercede in heaven is his peculiar office , which no other creature can share in , since his resurrection and ascension . this , i think , is sufficient to prove , that monsieur de meaux his exposition cannot reconcile praying to saints to pray for us , either with the peculiar worship of god , or with the glory and dignity of our great and only mediator and advocate jesus christ. the character of a papist represented . 3. of addressing more supplications to the virgin mary than to christ. monsieur de meaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of worship , which is paid in the church of rome to the virgin mary , as being sensible how hard it is to reconcile this with his bare ora pro nobis ; but the representer , who pretends to follow the bishops pattern , but wants his judgment and caution to manage it , undertakes to apologize for this too ; and it is worth the while to consider what he says . the papist mis-represented is said to believe the virgin mary , to be much more powerful in heaven than christ , and that she can command him to do , what she thinks good , and for this reason he honours her , much more then he does her son , or god the father , for one prayer he says to god , saying ten to the holy virgin. let us then consider how much of mis-representation there is in this ; and i shall begin with the last first , because mens actions are the best interpreters of their thoughts and belief . the papist for one prayer he says to god , says ten to the virgin mary : is this mis-represented ? let him but tell over his beads ▪ and see how many ave maries and pater nosters he will find upon a string , which are exactly ten for one . this he confesses , and thinks it as innocent to recite the angelical salutation now , as it was for the angel gabriel and elizabeth to do it . but did the angel use it as a prayer to the virgin mary ? is hail thou that art highly favoured , the lord is with thee , blessed art thou amongst women , when spoken to the virgin , who was then present to hear it , a friendly saluation , or a prayer ? was it delivering a message , or an act of devotion ? or is this the ave maria now in use in the church of rome ? as i remember , there are two or three little words , ora pro nobis , added to it , which make it a prayer , not the angelical salutation : and we do not read , that the angel said , holy mary , mother of god , pray for us sinners , now and in the hour of death . indeed were it lawful to pray to the virgin mary , i should have less to say against the frequent repetition of this prayer ; but yet a man might enquire , why the prayer to the virgin mary , is repeated so much oftner than the prayer to god ; is not this to honour her much more then he does her son , or god the father ? for is not prayer an act of honour and worship ? and do we not then honour that being most , to whom we pray oftenest ? no , says the representer , for he does not at any time say even so much as one prayer to her , but what is directed more principally to god. surely there must be some mystery in this . for do they not say a great many prayers , immediately directed to the virgin mary , and not at all directed to god ? is not their ave maria such a prayer , and do they principally pray to god in those prayers , which are immediately directed to the virgin mary ? when they pray to the virgin mary to pray to them , is this prayer princ●pally directed to god almighty ? what when the virgin is only named ; and the matter of the prayer is such , that it cannot be directed to god almighty , unless they think it proper to pray to god to pray for them ? yes , these prayers to the virgin are offered up as a thankful memorial of christ's incarnation , and an acknowledgement of the blessedness of jesus the fruit of her womb. the meaning of which can be no more than this , that when they pray to mary the mother of jesus , it is a tacite acknowledgement , that jesus was born of her , and that the son must be a very glorious prince , when the mother is so highly exalted upon account of her relation to him , as to have so many devout prayers and hymns offered up to her . but does this prove , that the prayers , which are immediately directed to the virgin mary , are principally directed to christ , because mary was his mot●●● , which is the whole mystery of the business . suppose christ should think himself honoured by those prayers , which are offered to his mother , yet is there no difference between praying to christ , and that honour we do him in praying to his mother ? a late author indeed tells us , that the veneration , which we give to mary , redounds to jesus : all honour given to the mother , tending to the glory of the son ; for as he communicates with her in flesh and blood ; so also doth he partake with her in her qualities and perfections , and therefore he is a sharer in that homage and observance , that is made to her . this is a new sort of consubstantiation , and communication of properties ; but yet how much soever we honour jesus , when we pray to mary , yet we do not pray to jesus , when we pray to mary ; and therefore these prayers are principally and immediately directed to mary , not to god or christ ; and therefore to offer ten prayers to mary , for one to god , look very like honouring mary much more than her son , or god the father . well , but she is the mother of god , and blessed amongst women ; but how does her being christs mother entitle her to a greater share in our prayers and devotions than christ himself ? it is indeed a great honour to her to be the mother of jesus , but does this entitle her to that worship and homage , which is due to her son ? she is the happiest mother among women , but does this advance her above angels and arch-angels ? for my part i see no reason to think , that her bearing christ in her womb , which was a singular favour conferred on her , but has nothing of merit in it , should advance her above the most eminent apostles and martyrs , who with undaunted courage and unwearied industry propagated the gospel throughout the world , and were the great ministers of his kingdom : i am sure our saviour does not seem to attribute any such mighty vertue to the maternity of mary , when a certain woman said unto him , blessed is the womb that bare thee , and the paps which thou hast sucked ; he answered , yea rather blessed are they , who hear the word of god and keep it . and in another place , when some told him , behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee , he answered and said unto him , that told him , who is my mother ? and who are my brethren ? and he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples , saying , behold my mother and my brethren , for whosever shall do the will of my father , which is in heaven , the same is my mother , and sister , and brother . which prefers his meanest disciples before the mother of his flesh , considered only as his mother ; which he would not have done , had the bare maternity of mary advanced her above all other creatures . well , but she is most acceptable to god in her intercession for us . did the angel tell them this too , as well as that she is blessed among women ? whence then do they learn it ? is it only because she is a mother ? have all mothers then such a natural authority over their sons , even when they are soveraign princes ? cannot the eternal son of god chuse an earthly mother , but he must admit her into the throne with him , and govern his kingdom , if not by her commands , yet by her importunities and requests ? this is thought a great weakness in earthly princes , and usually proves fatal to their government ; and yet it is much more tolerable in earth than in heaven . what has the mother of his flesh to do , to intermeddle in the affairs of his spiritual kingdom , which she is not capable of managing ? she had no authority in the church , while she was on earth , which methinks her maternity might give her as much right to , as to be queen-regent of heaven . when christ was a child he lived in subjection to mary and joseph , though he began early to give them a specimen of a superiour power he had , and such a work to do , as discharged him from subjection to earthly parents . when he was but twelve years old , he told his mother , how was it , that ye sought me , wist ye not that i must be about my fathers business ? when his mother at the marriage in cana of galilee acquainted him , that their wine was spent , and insinuated her desire , that he should help them , he rebukes her for it , woman what have i to do with thee ? my hour is not yet come . she was not to direct him , what to do in such matters ; and can we think then , that now he is advanced to the right hand of god , he will suffer her to intermeddle in the administration of his kingdom . but our author believes it damnable , to think the virgin mary more powerful in heaven than christ , or that she can in any thing command him . it is well the impera redemptori , command the redeemer , is at last disowned by them , though it may be some may think it a little too much to call it damnable ; because whatever papists believe now , there was a time , when this was used in the missals of the roman church ; and will he say , that it was damnable then to use that hymn ? i believe no papist ever thought the virgin mary to be-omnipotent , much less , that she can do more than christ can , or can command him by a direct and superior authority ; nor did any man , that i know of , ever charge them with this : and if it be only in this sense , that he denies the virgin to be more powerful in heaven than christ , it is nothing to the purpose ; for it is possible for a subject to be more powerful than his prince , though he cannot command him , and can do nothing but by his princes favour ; but if he have so much the ascendant of his prince , that he can deny him nothing , that he does whatever he will have him , and such things as no other consideration should incline him to do , but the desire of such a powerful favourite ; this man is really more powerful than the prince , because he has the direction and government of the princes power : he has the prince himself in his power , and therefore is more powerful than he . and if this be the case of the blessed virgin , that she has the disposal of christ's grace and mercy , though not by a direct authority , yet by her interest in her son , if he never denies that which she asks , but grants that at her intercession , which he would not grant without it ; if the papists believe this , they believe her to be more powerful than christ , and they have then good reason , as they do , to put up more frequent prayers to her , than to god or christ himself . and whether they do not believe this , and that at this very day , let any one judge , from these passages in the contemplations of the life and glory of the holy mary , which is lately published in english , permissu superiorum . there p. 7. he tell us , that god hath by a solemn covenant pronounced mary to be the treasury of wisdom , grace , and sanctity under jesus . so that whatever gifts are bestowed upon us by jesus , we receive them by the mediation of mary : no one being gracious to jesus , who is not devoted to mary , nor hath any one been specially confident of the patronage of mary , who hath not through her received a special blessing from jesus . whence it is one great mark of the predestination of the elect , to be singularly devoted to mary , since she hath a full power , as a mother , to obtain of jesus , whatever he can ask of god the father , and is comprehended within the sphere of man's predestination to glory , redemption from sin , and regeneration by grace . neither hath any one petitioned mary , who was refused by jesus , nor trusted in mary , and was abandoned by jesus . a little after he directs the devotes of the virgin , to have a firm and unshaken confidence in her patronage , amidst the greatest of our inward conflicts with sensuality , and outward tribulations from the adverse casualties of this life ; through a strong judgment of her eminent power , within the empire of jesus , grounded upon the singular prerogative of her divine maternity ; for by vertue thereof no state of man can be so unhappy , through the malice of satan , the heats of our passions , or the enormity of sin , which exceeds her love towards the disciples of jesus , or the efficacy of her mediation for us unto jesus : so that though the condition of some great sinners may be so deplorable , that all the limited excellency , merits and power of all the saints and angels , cannot effectually bend the mercies of jesus to receive them , yet such is the acceptableness of the mother of jesus to jesus , that whoever is under the verge of her protection , may confide in her intercessions to jesus . he denying no favour to her , whereby the wonders of man's predestination and redemption through jesus , may be magnified and promoted . so that the blessed virgin is more powerful than all the saints and angels in heaven ; she has all the power of christ , all his grace and mercy in her hands , and can dispense it to such sinners , whom christ would not pity and relieve without her , and therefore is a more powerful patroness of sinners , than christ himself is . and therefore he might well add in the next place , that all these blessings flow from jesus to all through mary , and may therefore justly refer them all to her , as to the most effectual instrument , channel , and conveyance of all . now if this be true representing , it is no mis-representation to say , that a papist believes the virgin mary , to be much more powerful in heaven than christ ; not that she has any power of her own , but that she can more powerfully and effectually bend the mercies of jesus to relieve sinners , than the mercies of jesus can bend themselves without her . sect . v. images . that the worship of images , as it was practised by the heathens , is idolatry , monsieur de meaux and the representer suppose ; and therefore their business is , to give such an account of the worship of images , as practised in the church of rome , as to distinguish themselves from heathen idolaters . to this purpose the bishop tells us , the council of trent forbids us expresly to believe any divinity or virtue in them , for which they ought to be reverenced , to demand any favour of them , or to put any trust in them ; and ordains , that all the honour which is given to them , should be referred to the saints themselves which are represented by them . that the honour we render images , is grounded upon their exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent . that by humbling our selves before the image of christ crucified , we show what is our submission to our saviour . so that to speak precisely , and according to the ecclesiastical stile , when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image . thus the pontifical tells us , and the council of trent expresses the same thing , when it says , the honour we render to images , has such a reference to those they represent , that by the means of those images which we kiss , and before which we kneel , we adore jesus christ , and honour the saints , whose types they are . to the same purpose the representer speaks , and almost in the same words . so that the sum of their apology is this , that they do not believe images to have any divinity in them , or to be gods , and therefore do not pray to , nor put their trust in the image , nor so much honour the image in those external expressions of reverence they pay to it , by kissing it , and kneeling before it , as christ , or the saint whom the image represents ; and the usefulness of images to excite in us the remembrance of those whom we love and honour , is a justifiable reason of that honour we pay to them . this is a matter of very great consequence , and deserves to be carefully stated ; and therefore i shall strictly examine , whether this exposition will justify the worship of images , and sufficiently distinguish the worship of the ch. of rome , from that worship which the heathens gave to their images . monsieur de meaux pretends , by his exposition of the doctrines of the church of rome , to cut off objections and disputes ; that is , so to state the matter , that there may be no place for those objections which protestants commonly urge against worshipping images . but i do not see , that he has made any essay of this nature in the point of image-worship , but has left both all the disputes among themselves , and with protestants , untouched . the objections which protestants urge against the worship of images , as taught and practised in the church of rome , are principally these four . 1. that it is expresly forbid by the second commandment , without any limitation or exception . 2. that the heathens are in scripture charged with idolatry in the worship of images . 3. that it is a violation of the divine majesty , crimen lesse majestatis , to represent god by a material and sensless image or picture . 4. that a visible object of worship , though considered only as a representation , is expresly contrary to the law of moses , and especially to the spiritual nature of the christian worship . now i do not see , how the bishop's exposition takes off any of these objections , which after all that he hath said , are in full force still , as i shall particularly shew . 1. then he tells us , that the council of trent forbids us expresly to believe any divinity or virtue in images , for which they ought to be reverenced . we grant , the council does forbid this ; and he knows that we never charge them with it ; though there are some practices of the church of rome , which look very suspiciously that way : but then we say , the second commandment forbids the worship of all images , without any such limitation ; for there is not any one word in the commandment to limit the prohibition of worshipping images , to such images , as are believ'd to have any divinity in them the words of the commandment are as general as can be , thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image , nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above , or in the earth beneath , or in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not how down to them , nor worship them . the commandment takes no notice of any divinity which is supposed to be in these images , but only of the representation made by them , that they are the likeness or representation of things in heaven , or things on earth , or things under the earth ; and therefore the whole dispute between papists and protestants about the sense of the second commandment , and the strict notion of an idol , is left untouch'd by this exposition . the roman doctors indeed tell us , that the heathens worshipped their images as gods , and did ascribe divinity to them ; upon which account monsieur de meaux tells us , all these words of the council are like so many characters to distinguish us from idolaters ; seeing we are so far from believing with them any divinity annexed to the images , that we do not attribute to them any virtue , but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent . but he knew very well , that protestants deny , that the heathens took their images for gods any more than papists do ; their philosophers despised the charge , and made the same apologies for themselves , which the divines of the church of rome now do ; and we may suppose , that common heathens had much such apprehensions about them , as common papists have : those who had any sense could not believe them to be gods ; and those who have none , may believe any thing : but there is no great regard to be had to such mens faith , whatever their religion be , who are void of common sense . however this dispute , whether the heathens did believe their images to be gods , or to have any more divinity in them , than papists attribute to their images , is a dispute still , and monsieur de meaux has not said one word to prevent it ; and therefore the condemnation of the heathens for worshipping images is still a good objection against the worship of images in the church of rome , till he prove as well as assert this difference between them . but indeed , tho i readily grant that the church of rome does not believe that there is any divinity in their images , and that the heathens did believe that consecration brought down the gods , whom they worshipped by such representations , and tied them by some invisible charms to their image , that they might be always present there to receive their worship ; yet this makes no material difference in their notion of images . the reason why the heathens thought it necessary by some magical arts to fasten their gods , or some divine powers to their images , was not to incorporate them with their images , but to secure a divine presence there , to hear their prayers , and receive their sacrifices , without which all their devotions paid to an image were lost ; which was very necessary , especially in the worship of their inferior daemons , whom they did not believe to be present in all places . as elijah mocked the priests of baal , and said , cry aloud ; for he is a god : either he is talking , or he is pursuing , or he is in a journy , or peradventure he sleepeth , and must be awaked . but now , those who believe that god is every where present to fee and hear what we do ; and that the saints , who are not present in their images , yet do certainly know ( by what means soever it be ) what prayers and homages are offered to them at their images , need not call down any divine powers constantly to attend their images , but only to procure their acceptance of those devotions , which are paid to them at their images . and this is the difference between the consecration of heathen and popish images : the first is to procure the presence of their gods in their images ; the other to obtain the favour of christ , and the saints , to accept those prayers and oblations , and other acts of devotion which are offered to them at their images ; as to give but one instance of it in a prayer used at the consecration of the cross. sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine pa ✚ tris & fi ✚ lii , & spiritus ✚ sancti , & benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt , sit in isto ligno ; ut orantes inclinantesque se propter deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis & animae sanitatem . let this wood be santified in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost ; and let the blessing of that wood , on which the holy members of our saviour hung , be on this wood ; that those , who pray and bow themselves before this cross , may obtain health both of body and soul. this peculiar virtue which consecration bestows on images to obtain the favour of christ and his saints , to those who pray and worship before them , is all that the heathens intended in calling down their gods to attend their images to hear and receive their prayers and sacrifices . they did not believe their images to be gods , but silver , or gold , wood , or brass , or stone , according to the materials they were made of , as the church of rome does ; but they thought their gods were present to hear the prayers they made before their images ; as the church of rome also believes , that christ and his saints have a peculiar regard to those prayers which are made before their images , as is evident from their forms of consecrating images to such an use . the heathens did not put their trust in an image of wood and stone , but in that god , who was represented by that image , and was there present to help them . and thus , tho the church of rome does not demand any favour of images , nor put any trust in them , yet she expects the relief and acceptance of christ and the saints for that worship she pays to their images ; and i would desire any man to show me the difference between these two , especially when we consider how much greater vertue is attributed to some images of the blessed virgin in the church of rome , than there is to others ; as to the image of the lady of loretto , &c. which can signify nothing less , than that the virgin is more pleased with , and will more graciously accept our worship before such an image , than any other ; or else me-thinks the devotoes of the virgin should not go so many miles in pilgrimage to the lady of loretto , as they often do , if they believed the images of the virgin which they had at home to be of equal power : which is as much trusting in images , and attributing a divine virtue to them , as ever the heathens were guilty of . for me-thinks those who strictly adhere to the letter of scripture to prove that the heathens believed their images to be gods , and did put their trust in them , because the scripture expresly says so , should consider also , that the scripture expresly tells us , that the idols of the heathens are silver and gold , the work of mens hands ; they have mouths , but they speak not ; eyes have they , but they see not ; they have ears , but they hear not , neither is there any breath in their mouths : and therefore we have as much reason to conclude , that the heathens did not put their trust in the material images , which they knew to be no better than stupid senseless matter , which could not of themselves hear or help them , as to confess , that in some sense they made gods of them . for if the heathens did not believe them to be dead senseless images , which could neither speak , nor see , nor hear , but that they were really animated by invisible spirits ; they were not such dull and sottish idolaters , as the psalmist represents them ; and if they did ( as the psalmist takes it for granted they themselves acknowledged ) than it is certain they could not believe the material images to be gods , nor the objects of their hope and trust , and therefore might ( as some of their philosophers in effect did ) as safely renounce believing any divinity or vertue in their images , for which they ought to be reverenced , or demanding any fav●ur of them , or putting any trust in them , as the council of trent does . so that their not believing any divinity in their images , does neither excuse them from the breach of the second commandment , nor sufficiently distinguish the church of rome's worshipping images , from that worship which the heathens gave them ; at least the bishop has said nothing to answer or prevent these objections against image-worship , which he pretends to be the design of his exposition . 2. as a fuller explication of the doctrine of the church about image-worship , monsieur de meaux adds , that the council of trent ordains , that all the honour which is given to them ( images ) should be referred to the saints themselves , which are represented by them : or , as the council expresses it , the honour we render to images has such a reference to those they represent , ( ad prototypa quae illae representant , to the prototypes which they represent ) that by the means of those images ( per imagines , by those images ) we kiss , and before which we kneel , we adore jesus christ , and honour the saints , whose types they are . quorum illae similitudinem gerunt ; whose likeness they are , or whom they represent . hitherto we have no exposition at all of the doctrine of the church about image-worship , but only a bare relation what the council says , that images must be worshipped only upon account of their representation ; and that the worship which is given to the image , is referred to the prototype : this all roman-catholicks agree in ; but yet there is an endless dispute among them , about the nature and degree of this worship , and it will be necessary to take a short view of it . they are all agreed , that at least the external acts of adoration are to be paid to images , such as kissing , kneeling , bowing , prostration , incense ; this durandus , and holcot , and picus mirandula allowed ; they all agreed , that the worship which was given to images , is upon account of representation , or as christ and his saints are represented by them , and worshipped in that worship , which is given to their images ; but then there was a threefold difference between them . 1. that some would not allow this worship in a proper sense to be given to the images , but improperly and abusively ; because at the presence of the image , which excites in us the remembrance of the object , we worship the object represented by it , christ or his saints , as if they were actually present ; this was the opinion of durandus , holcot , and picus mirandula , who could hardly escape the censure of heresy for it ; and that which excused them , as vasquez says , was , that they agreed with the catholick church in performing all external acts of adoration to images , and that they differed only in manner of speaking from the rest . 2. thomas aquinas , and his followers , and several great divines since the council of trent , teach , that the same worship is to be given to the image , which is due to the prototype ; and therefore as christ must be worshipped with latria , or a supream worship , so must the image of christ , because the image is worshipped only on account of its representation , and therefore must be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented : and the motion of the mind to an image , as an image , is the same with the motion to the thing represented . which seems the most reasonable account ; for if i worship christ by his image , i must give that worship to the image which i intend for christ , because in that case the image is in christ's place and stead to me . 3. the third opinion is , that though we must worship images , yet we must not give the worship of latria to them , no not to the image of christ himself , but an inferior degree of worship . this some divines asserted on the authority of the council of nice , which expresly determined , that latria is not to be given to images . but this is the most absurd opinion of all ; for if we must worship images only upon the account of their representation , we must give that worship to them , which is due to the thing represented by them ; and if we give any other worship to them , we must worship them for their own sakes . and what is that worship which is due to them as separated from the prototype ? what worship is due to carved and polished brass and stone ? whoever desires to see these three different opinions , with the proper reasons of them , explained more at large , may consult dr. stillingfleet's learned defence of his discourse of idolatry , part 2. chap. 1. pag. 575 , &c. now the council of trent only determines , that the honour we give to images , must be referred to the prototypes , that we must adore christ and his saints in that worship which we give to their images : which seems to countenance the second opinion , that the worship of latria is to be given to the image of christ , because that is the worship which we must give to christ : but then the council refers to the second council of nice ; which determines the quite contrary ; and i dare not undertake to reconcile the council with it self , since the fathers of that council would not plainly decide this controversy among their divines . let us then try , if we can discover , what monsieur de meaux thinks of this matter ; what worship that is which he allows to be given to images . now , as far as i can guess , he is of durandus his opinion , that all external acts of adoration are to be performed before the image , but that the image is not to be properly worshipped , but only christ in the presence of his image , as representing his person to us , and exciting in us the remembrance of him . thus he tells us , that while the image of christ crucified , being present before our eyes , causes so precious a remembrance in our souls , we are moved to testify by some exteriour signs , how far our gratitude bears us ; and by humbling our selves before the image , we show what is our submission to our saviour . so that he allows of humbling our selves before the image , that is , of paying the external acts of worship before it . well! but is this to worship the image ? for that he tells us , to speak properly , and according to the ecclesiastical stile , ( i suppose he means a new modern stile , for the old ecclesiastical stile did somewhat differ ) when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image : that is , this is not properly , but improperly and abusively called the worship or honour of the image : but christ , or his saints , are properly worshipped before , or in presence of their images , as representing them to us ; which was exactly the opinion of durandus . this certainly is the least that can be made of the worship of images ; and yet as far removed as this opinion seems to be from the opinion of st. thomas , who affirms , that the worship of latria is to be given to the image of christ ; i take them to be the very same , though very differently expressed . the right stating of this , will mightily tend to clear this perplexed controversy ; and therefore i shall do it with all the plainness i can . 1. then i observe , that to pay the external acts of adoration to , or before , or in presence of a representative object as representing , signify the very same thing ; it is all one kind of worship , because the formal reason is the same in all ; and that is , the representation . when i bow to the image of christ , i bow to it as representing christ to me , who is the ultimate object of my worship ; when i bow before , or in the presence of the image , i do the same thing , tho i give it a new name ; i bow before it , as representing christ to me , as if he himself were there personally present in the image . when i bow to the image , i do not bow to the wood or stone , but to christ as represented in the image : when i bow to christ before the image , i do the same thing , i bow to christ as represented in the image which stands before me . for suppose christ were there present instead of the image , would it make any difference in my worship , to say , that i bow to christ , or before him , or in his presence , when they all signify , that i direct my worship to him as personally present ; no more difference is there in bowing to , or before , or in the presence of the image , when i direct my worship to christ as represented by the image . there may indeed be a great difference between bowing to my prince , and in the presence of my prince , when these expressions signify different objects : for i may bow to another man in the presence of my prince , and in that act i do not bow to my prince ; but when to , and before , and in presence , do not distinguish the objects , the act is the same : if the presence of the image were an accidental thing , and had no relation to that worship which we pay to christ or the saints , where such images are present , there would be a great difference between bowing to , and in presence of the image ; but if these images be on purpose set up in consecrated places , and are themselves consecrated for that use , to represent christ and the saints to us ; whether we say we bow to them , or before them , we do the same thing , and with the same intention , to worship christ and his saints as represented by them . so that if we own , as the bishop does , that the honour done before the image , goes to the prototype , to christ , or the saints represented by such images , we need not dispute about the manner of expressing it ; he may take his own way of speaking , that he honours christ in the presence of his image , so he honours christ as represented by the image ; and therefore , in scripture , to fall down before and to the image , and to worship the image , are all equivalent expressions . there is indeed a vast difference between bowing to , or before an image , which represents god , or christ , or some divine being to us , as the object of our worship ; and bowing towards a place , or worshipping god towards a place , as the jews worshipped towards the temple , and in the temple towards the mercy-seat ; the one was absolutely forbid by the jewish law , the other allowed and practised by the devoutest worshippers of god : which argues , that there is some difference between them ; and it is not hard to say , wherein the difference consists , that one is a representative object , the other only a circumstance of worship . to bow to , or before an image , is to worship the image , or god or christ by the image , which makes the image as representing the prototype , the object of our worship ; but which way soever we look or bow , towards the east , or towards the west , god alone is the immediat object of our worship , the place only the circumstance of worship ; whenever we bow to god , we must bow towards some place or other : but the place does not represent god to us as an image does , and therefore is no object of worship : which shows what little reason the protestor had to compare bowing to the altar , and kneeling to the sacrament , as he calls it , with bowing to an image . there is no man of the church of england , that i know of , who bows to the altar ; i am sure the church no where teaches any such practice . she only recommends to her children bowing of the body to god , when they come in and go out of his house ; and though the communion table , or altar , is generally so scituated at the east end of the church , as to be opposite to the entrance of it ; for which reason some have called it , bowing towards the altar ; yet our church teaches us to have no regard at all to it . and arch-bishop laud , in his speech in the star-chamber , declares , that if there were no table standing , he would worship god when he came into his house : so that there is no need to find any hole , as the protestor speaks , to get out at with the altar , for that was never in yet , as far as this controversy is concerned ; and therefore i am like to make no breach for him to follow at with his image . nor does any man kneel to the sacrament , but only receive the sacrament kneeling ; and if he cannot distinguish between an act of worship to the sacrament , and a devout posture of receiving it ; yet the meanest son of the church of england can . why does he not as well say , that when we kneel at prayers , we worship the common-prayer book which lies before us , and out of which we read , as that we worship the bread , when we receive and eat it with devout passions upon our knees . but to return to the exposition . 2. i observe , that there is a great difference between a memorative sign , and the representation of an image : both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of something , but in such different manners , as quite alter the nature of them . it is necessary to take notice of this , because i find monsieur de meaux , and after him the representer , very much to equivocate in this matter : it is a very innocent thing to worship god or christ , when any natural or instituted sign brings them to our minds , even in the presence of such a sign : as if a man upon viewing the heavens , and the earth , and the creatures that are in it , should raise his soul to god , and adore the great creator of the world ; or upon the accidental sight of a natural cross , should call to mind the love of his lord , who died for him , and bow his soul to him in the most submissive adorations ; because , i say , this is very innocent , the bishop would perswade his readers , that this is the only use they make of images , to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent ; and mightily wonders at the little justice of those , who treat with the term of idolatry , that religious sentiment , which moves them to uncover their heads , or bow them before the image of the cross , in remembrance of him who was crucified for the love of us . and that it is sufficient to distinguish them from the heathen idolaters , that they declare , that they will not make use of images , but to raise the mind towards heaven , to the end that they may there honour jesus christ or his saints , and in the saints god himself , who is the author of all sanctity and grace . now it is certain , an image will call to our remembrance the person it represents , as the presence of the person himself will make us remember him ; but this vastly differs from a meer memorative sign . for the use of images in the church of rome , is not primarily for remembrance , but for worship , as the council of trent expresly teaches . that the images of christ , and the virgin the mother of god , and other saints , are especially to be had and kept in churches , and due honour and veneration to be given to them — because the honour given to them , is referred to the prototypes , which they represent ; so that by the images , which we kiss , and before which we uncover our heads , and prostrate our selves , we adore christ , and venerate the saints , whose likeness they bear . these are the words of the council , and it would be a very odd comment upon such a text to say , that images serve only for remembrance . a meer sign , which only calls christ to our minds , can deserve no honour or worship ; but a representing sign , which puts us in mind of christ by representing his person to us , as if he were present , whether it raises our hearts to him in heaven or not , yet according to the council of trent , it must direct our worship to him , as represented in his image . when men go to church to worship christ , or the virgin mary , before their images , it may be presumed they think of them before they see their images , and therefore do not go to be put in remembrance of them by their images , but to worship them before the images , in that worship which they give to the images . and therefore when the bishop speaks so often of the virtue of images , to excite in us the remembrance of the persons they represent , to reconcile him with himself , and with the council of trent , which he pretends to own , we must not understand him as if images were of no use but to be helps to memory , and are honoured for no other reason , ( which is no reason at all ) as the unwary reader will be apt to mistake him ; but that these visible images represent to us the invisible objects of our worship , and give us such a sense of their power and presence , as makes us fall down and worship them before those representations , which we honour for their sakes ; that is , tho they serve for remembrance , yet not as meer memorative signs , but as memorative or representative objects of worship . 3. i observe , that it is the very same thing whether we say , that we worship christ as represented by the image , or worship the image as representing christ , for they both signify that christ is worshipped in and by his image , that the honour and worship is given to the image , and referr'd to the prototype . if christ be worshipped as represented by the image , then the worship which is intended for christ is given to the image in his name , and as his representative ; if the image be worshipped as representing christ , then the worship which is given to the image , is not for it self , but for christ , whom it represents ; which differ just as much as a viceroy's being honoured for the king , or the king 's being honoured in his viceroy . and therefore i wonder , that any man of understanding and judgment , as monsieur de meaux certainly is , should think there is any great matter in saying , when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image ▪ as to honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image ; that is , in and by the image , as i have showed that ph●●se signifies , when it is referred to a representati●● 〈◊〉 for it is the very same thing to say , we honour the 〈◊〉 as representing the martyr , or we honour the martyr as represented by the image . having premised these things , let us now compare the opinion of monsieur de meaux , with the opinion of st. thomas aquinas about the worship of images ; and tho the first is thought by some men to say a great deal too little , and the other a great deal too much ; yet it will appear , that their opinions in this matter are the very same . they both agree , that christ and his saints are represented by their images ; they both agree , that christ and his saints are worshipped in their images , as represented by them ; they both agree , that no other worship is to be paid to , or before , or in presence of the image , but only that worship which is due to the prototype , to christ or his saints represented by such images : hence thomas asserts , that the image is to be worshipped with that worship which is due to the prototype ; the image of christ with latria , because that is due to christ ; and the images of the saints with dulia , because that degree of worship is proper to them ; and the bishop teaches , that when they honour the image of an apostle or martyr , their intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in presence of the image : that is , they perform no other act of worship in the presence of the images , but that which is proper to the apostle and martyr ; and therefore they both agree , that there is but one motion of the mind to the image , and to the prototype represented by it ; that is , as the bishop speaks , they have but one intention , and that is to honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image : and yet after all , they seem vastly to differ ; for thomas says , that they give the worship of the prototype to its image ; that is , that they worship the image of christ with latria , which is the worship due to christ ; but the bishop will not own , that they properly give any worship at all to images , but only worship christ , or the saints in the presence of the images ; christ indeed with latria , and the saints with dulia , but their images properly with neither : and yet this difference is only in words , as vasquez confesses concerning durandus and holcot , whom mr. de meaux follows , that they agreed with the catholick church , in performing all external acts of adoration to images , and that they differed only in manner of speaking from the rest . for , as i have already shew'd , to worship the image , or before , and in the presence of the image , when it signifies a representative object , is the same thing ; and there is no difference between worshipping the image as representing christ , and worshipping christ as represented by the image ; and yet this is all the difference between mr. de meaux and thomas aquinas : tho i think thomas speaks most properly ; for if christ be worshipped in his image , we must give the worship to the image , which we intended for christ , because christ is worshipped in that worship we give to his image ; and therefore he cannot be worshipped by his image , if his image be not worshipped ; of which more presently . durandus indeed , whose opinion mr. de meaux seems to follow , did in words oppose the doctrine of thomas , that the worship of the prototype ought not to be given to an image , because the image and the prototype were two distinct things ; and therefore what belonged to the exemplar could not be attributed to an image , however considered as an image ; and so the worship due to the exemplar could not be given to the image : but yet he plainly grants all that thomas intended by it ; that the image may be said to be worshipped with the same worship with the thing represented ; because at the presence of the image , we worship the object represented by it , as if he were actually present . but i have a better reason than this to believe that they were both of a mind , tho they expressed themselves very differently ; and that is , because their arguments , whereby they confirm their several opinions are the same , and then it is not likely that their opinions should much differ . durandus proves , that the images are not to be worshipped , but only improperly and abusively ; because at their presence we call to mind those objects represented by them , which are worshipped before the images , as if they were present , by such arguments as these : that worship properly belongs only to that being in whom the cause of worship is , and that only to his person , upon account of his adorable perfections , which are the cause of that worship ; and therefore latria , or supream worship can be due only to god , upon account of his deity . but that which is no subject capable of holiness and vertue , cannot in it self be the term of adoration ; and therefore proper worship can never be due to the image of christ , or to his cross ; for tho christ be represented by his image , there is a real difference in the thing , and in the conception between the image and the thing represented ; and therefore , properly speaking , the same worship is never due to the image , that is to the object represented by it . thomas aquinas on the other side proves , that the image must be worshipped with that worship which is due to the prototype , or the thing represented by it , by much the same arguments . 1. that no irrational creature is capable of worship , but with a respect to a rational being , which answers to durandus his reason , that worship properly belongs only to that being , in whom the cause of worship is ; and that which is no subject capable of holiness and vertue ( as no inanimate , or irrational creature is , and therefore no image ) cannot in it self be the term of adoration . from which it appears that they must agree , that no proper worship can be given to images . 2. because images are to be worshipped upon account of their representation ; therefore they are to be worshipped with the same worship of the thing represented . 3. because the motion of the mind towards an image , as an image , is the same with the motion towards the thing represented . so that thomas plainly allows , that the image is not to be worshipped at all upon its own account , but only as it represents ; and to worship the image as it represents , is the very same act with worshipping the object as represented by the image ; because the motion of the mind towards an image , as an image , that is , as it represents , is the same with the motion towards the thing represented : that to worship an image as representing christ , is the same thing with worshipping christ as represented by the image ; and therefore the same worship which is due to christ , must be given to his image , as representing him ; or to him as represented by the image . so that according to thomas his reasoning , there is no difference between his giving the worship of christ to his image , as representing him , and durandus his worshipping christ before his image , as represented by it , as if he were actually present . thomas could not have quarrelled with durandus , because he owns it is the same thing , tho durandus quarrels with thomas . and therefore vasquez , who seems to understand the doctrine of thomas as well as any man , acknowledges that durandus and holcot differed only in manner of speaking from the rest ; and freely declares his own opinion to be , that an image cannot be lawfully worshipped any other way than as in and by that the exemplar is made the term and next material object of adoration : and he gives this reason for it , because no inanimate thing is of it self capable of worship ; but an image considered as an image , but without the exemplar , is an inanimate thing . this is the doctrine of thomas according to vasquez , which allows no more worship to an image , considered in it self , then durandus does , and yet he says , that it may be delivered absolutely , that images are to be worshipped with latria , if by that be meant the same worship , which is given to the exemplar : and therefore bellarmine tells us , that to give the worship of latria to the image of christ , as representing christ , is to worship the image but improperly , and per accidens ; and this reconciles thomas and durandus , who grants that the image may be said to be worshipped improperly and abusively , as in presence of the image , the object is worshipped represented by it , as if it were actually present . as for durandus his argument against thomas his doctrine , that the worship of the prototype is to be given to the image , that there is a real difference in the thing , and in the conception between the image and the thing represented ; and therefore , properly speaking , the same worship is never due to the image , that is to the object represented by it . i think , if any worship of images were justifiable , this argument were ealy answered . for tho there be a great difference indeed in the nature of things , between the image and the object , between christ suppose , and his image which represents him ; yet in this case there is none in the conception ; for an image when it receives our worship in the place and stead of the prototype , does not represent according to the usual nature of an image by its likeness and similitude ; for so both in the thing and in the conception the image differs from the object it represents ; but it represents as a proxy and substitute , who in the eye of the law , is the same person with him , whom he represents . thus thomas must understand the representation of an image , when he says , that it is the same motion of the mind to the image , and the exemplar represented by it ; that is , that the image is supposed to supply the place of christ , and represent him present to us ; and therefore we worship the image as christ's representative with that worship we would give to him were he actually present ; this is not indeed the natural use of images , nor is it natural to worship them , but this is the true interpretation of thomas his doctrine ; and therefore gregorius de valentia expresly tells us , that the image is worshipped in christ's stead : and cardinal cajetan says , that christ himself is the reason of the worship of the image ; and his being in the image is the condition by which the reason of the worship doth excite men to worship and terminate it : that is , christ is in his image , as a king is in his viceroy , or any man in his legal proxy : this is what suarez meant by the esse reale , and esse representativum of the prototype ; that tho the image does not contain christ in the first sense in his own proper person , yet it does in the second sense as his legal proxy , and representative . and this durandus himself must acknowledg , if there be any sense in his words , that at the presence of the image , we worship the object represented by it , as if he were actually present . for why should he in the presence of the image , worship christ represented by it , as if he were actally present , unless he account the image the substitute and representative of christ , as if he were actually present ; and this , i think , reconciles that appearance of difference between thomas and durandus , occasioned by a misapprehension of thomas his doctrine . durandus owns the worship of christ in the presence of the image , as he is represented in the image , as if he were actually present , which is mr. de meaux his opinion also in this matter ; but he will not allow this , but only in an improper and abusive sense , to be the worship of the image , because the image is not christ , but both in the thing and in the conception is distinguished from him ; and therefore to worship the image of christ , would be to worship wood or stone , with the worship of christ : whereas thomas considers the image not as to its external matter or form , upon which account he denies any worship to be given to it , but as the proxy and representative of christ ; and thus it is christ represented in the image , and not the material image , which is worshipped ; which is the very same with durandus his way of worshipping christ as represented in the image , in the presence of the material image ; that is , he worships before the material image , but worships only the person of christ , as represented by the image . but this will be better understood by considering the nature and capacity of a legal proxy or representative . suppose a were to all intents and purposes a legal proxy for b , to do , and to receive whatever b might do and receive in his own person ; in this case a is not considered as a , in his own personal capacity , but a is b , as his proxy and representative . suppose now that c owes a sum of mony , or a certain homage to b , and pays it to a as b's proxy ; that is , not as he is a , but b. when c worships a as representing the person of b , he is properly said not to worship a , but b ; because he worships a not as a , but as a is b , in his representative capacity . now if you will suppose a to be the image , and b to be christ , this explains in what sense thomas worships the image for christ , not as the image is wood or stone , but as it is the representative of christ's person . now suppose d should scruple paying the worship of b to a , because a is a distinct person from b , and has no right to the same worship ; and therefore should only worship b in the presence of a , as representing him ; would not all the world see , that d and c meant and did the same thing , worshipped a as the representative of b , tho d is pleased to phrase it otherwise , and more improperly than c does ; for the personal capacity of a is not considered at all , when it is worshipped for b , but only his representative capacity ; and this is the only difference between thomas and durandus . thomas worships the image in christ's place and stead , as representing christ , without considering its natural capacity as an image of wood or stone ; as c worships a as b's proxy , without considering a's personal capacity : but durandus worships christ as represented by the image ( which is the same with the image representing christ ) in the presence of the image considered in its natural capacity ; as d worships b as represented by a , in the presence of a , considered in his personal capacity ; that is , he worships representative a in the presence of personal a , which is the same thing that c does , but is a more uncouth and absurd way of speaking . thus to proceed , when c worships a as b's proxy , in his name and stead , does he worship a or b ? he worships a indeed , but considered as b ; and therefore the worship given to a in the name of b , is not the worship of a , but of b ; and will any man say that a and b are two objects of worship ? when in this sense , a is b , and is considered only as b , that is , as b's proxy ; and therefore a considered as a , in his own personal capacity , is not worshipped at all , neither absolutely nor relatively , per se , nor per accidens ; but if a be worshipped only as b , to say , that a is worshipped relatively , or per accidens , is to say that b , who is worshipped in a , is worshipped both absolutely and relatively , properly and improperly , per se and per accidens ; which are some of the objections which catharinus and others use against thomas . much at the same rate others compare thomas his doctrine of worshipping the image with the worship of the prototype , as represented by it , with worshipping a sign , and the thing signified ; or worshipping the king and his robes , which are very remote from the business , and perplex and confound a doctrine , which is very easy to be understood , and easily rescued from those scholastick absurdities which are charged on it , if that were its only fault . for the true representation of it , is by considering the nature of a proxy , and legal representative , which acts in another's name and stead . having thus considered what is the notion of image-worship , according to thomas , and durandus , and monsieur de meaux , that it is a worshipping the image in the name and stead of the prototype , as its proxy and representative , worshipping the image as representing christ , as thomas speaks , or worshipping christ before his image as represented by it , as durandus and m. de meaux speak . we have now some foundation to build on ; and i think they have no reason to complain that i have stated it in this manner , which grants them all they can desire or ask for , viz. that they do not worship images , as an image signifies a figure of wood or stone ; but they worship the image as representing christ ; or if they like that better , christ as represented in his image ; that when they honour the image of an apostle or martyr , they do not so much intend to honour the image , as the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image . let us then consider whether this will justify them ; and if this will not , i doubt their cause is desperate . and in order to this , i shall do these three things . 1. show you , that this is the only intelligible notion of worshipping god , or christ , or the saints , by images ; that images are a kind of legal proxies and representatives , to receive our worship in the name and stead of christ , or the saints . 2. that this is the scripture notion of image-worship ; and that in this sense it is the scripture condemns the worship of images , as practised by the heathens . 3. i shall show , wherein the evil of worshipping images according to this notion consists . 1. that this is the only intelligible notion of worshipping god , or christ , or the saints , by images ; that images are a kind of legal proxies and representatives to receive our worship in the name and stead of the prototype , or the being represented by them . the reason of worshipping images , is to do honour to some divine being represented by these images : for the true occasion of image-worship , is that fondness men have for a visible object of worship ; and because they cannot see the gods they worship , therefore they set up images , as visible and representative deities , to receive their worship in the name and stead of their gods. now if we grant , that men intend to worship their gods , in that worship they pay to , or before their images , we must grant that these images are instead of visible gods to them , or supply the place of their gods , and receive worship in their names . for to worship god , or any divine being , by an image , can signify neither more nor less , than to worship god , or christ , or the saints , in that worship which we give to their images : for god cannot be worshipped in an image any otherwise , than as the worship which is given to the image is his worship , and given in his name : for b can be worshipped in a , only as a is b's representative , and is worshipped in his name and stead . to worship any being , is to worship his person ; and therefore we must either worship him in his own natural person , or in his representative , who is his legal person . as to shew you this particularly . if any men were ever so sottish as to believe their images themselves , that is , the visible figures of wood , or stone , or brass , to be gods , and to worship them as gods , such men cannot be said to worship god by an image , but to worship an image-god ; for the image it self is their god , and the worship terminates on the image as god. they may be said to worship false gods , gods , in a strict and proper sense , of wood and stone ; but to worship god by an image , and to worship the image it self for a god , are very distinct things : and if the scripture forbids the worship of god by an image , it will not justify image-worship , to say , that some heathens were such sots , as to believe their images themselves to be gods ; for men who are not such sots , may worship their gods by images , as all those heathens did , who acknowledged their images to be only symbols and representations of their gods , and therefore not to be gods themselves ; for the same thing cannot be a symbol and representation of it self ; which is as good sense as to say , that a sign , and the thing signified by it , is the same . to give a proper , though inferiour degree of worship to images themselves , is not to worship god or christ by his image , because in this case , the worship they give to the image of christ , is not such a worship as is proper for christ , and is terminated not on christ , but on his image . no worship is proper to be given to christ , but the worship of latria , or supream and soveraign worship : but the roman doctors , who embrace this opinion , deny with the second council of nice that latria may be given to images , and in general reject the doctrine of thomas , that the image is to be worshipped with the worship due to the prototype : and how then can christ be worshipped in his image , if no worship is given to the image , which is fit for christ to receive ? when the image has no worship given it , but such as is proper to its self , considered as christ's image , will they call this the worship of christ ? especially since this worship which is given to the image , is terminated on the image as its own proper and peculiar worship , as catharinus and bellarmine , and all of this way acknowledg ; who reject thomas his doctrine of worshipping the image , with the worship of the prototype represented by it , because this is not properly the worship of the image , but of the prototype ; and therefore that the image may be sure to be worshipped , they give it an inferior degree of worship , which terminates on it self . now how christ should be worshipped in that worship which terminates on his image ; that is , how that worship which ends in the image , and goes no farther , should pass through the image , and end in christ , as it must do , if christ be worshipped in the image , is past my understanding , as all contradictions are . but they refer the worship of the image to the prototype . but it is worth enquiring how they do it ; do they intend the worship they give to the image for christ ? that is , do they intend to worship christ in that worship they give to his image ? no : they can't do that , because they give only an inferior degree of worship to the image , which is not worthy of christ ; not a worship proper for him , but only for his image : but they worship the image for the sake of christ ; and this they take to be an honour to christ to worship his image : but this is not to worship christ in or by his image ; for in this way christ is not worshipped in that worship we give to his image , but it is to worship the image for christ's sake , which is , by interpretation , an honour to christ ; as any respect we show to the image of the king , argues our esteem and honour for our king , whose image it is : but these two differ as much as to honour christ in our actions , and to worship him , as to do something which is , by interpretation , an honour to christ , and to make our immediate addresses , to offer up our prayers and thanksgivings to him . every thing we do for the honour of christ , is not presently an act of worship ; and therefore though we should grant , that we honour christ in the worship of his image , it does not follow , that therefore we worship him in worshipping his image , when we give no worship at all to him , but only to his image ; which plainly shows , that in this way they do not worship christ by his image , but only worship the image for christ's sake . which is a plain argument to me , that though this way has very great and learned advocates , yet it cannot be the meaning of the council of trent , because it is not reconcileable with the practice of the church of rome ; which prays every day to christ , and the blessed virgin , to saints and martyrs , before their images , in such terms as are proper only to be used to themselves ; which besides the other faults of it , is horrid non-sense , if they do not intend to worship christ and the saints in their images . much less do those worship the prototypes in their images , who only use images as helps to memory , and to excite devout affections in them , that at the sight of the image they may offer up more fervent prayers to god or christ : for though this practice may and has a great many other faults in it , yet this is neither in the intention of the worshipper , to worship the image , nor the exemplar by the image . monsieur de meaux , by some expressions he uses , would perswade his readers , that this is all the church of rome intends in the use of images ; and yet he owns the doctrine of the council of trent , that the honour of the image is referred to the prototype , because by the images which we kiss , and before which we uncover our heads , and prostrate our selves , we adore christ , and worship the saints , whose likeness they bear . which plainly signifies , that we worship christ and the saints in the worship of their images ; and therefore though images may be helps to memory also , yet they must be honoured and worshipped , that christ and his saints may be worshipped in them , and by them ; which is a very different thing from being bare signs to help our memories , and quicken-our devotions . there is no need of consecration for this end ; and the church takes no notice of this use of them in her forms of consecration . these are all the pretences i have met with for the use of images in religious worship : and it is evident from what i have said , that there is no other sense , wherein god or christ can be said to be worshipped by an image , but only as the image receives the worship due to christ in his name and stead , as if it were his legal proxy and representative ; which , as i have shewed , is the true interpretation , both of the doctrine of durandus , and monsieur de meaux , and thomas in this matter . 2dly . i am now to show , that it is in this notion the scripture forbids the worship of images , as the representatives of god , or any divine being , to receive our worship in god's name and stead . it is true indeed , the 2d commandment , which forbids the worship of images , takes no notice of the distinctions of the schools , in what notion an image is worshipped , or what kind and degree of worship is given to it ; but the words are so large and general , as to exclude all use of images in religious worship . the worship which is expresly forbidden in the commandment to be given to images , is only the external acts of worship , such as to bow down to them ; which is the very least that can be done , if men make any use of images in religious worship : the images which are forbidden to be worshipped , are all sorts of images whatever ; the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above , or in the earth beneath , or in the water under the earth . and how extravagant soever mens fancies are , they cannot well form any image , but must be like to some of these things , either in whole or in part . but the commandment takes no notice of mens different opinions about images , whether they look upon them as gods , or representatives of god , or helps to memory and devotion : for since the design of the commandment is to forbid the use of images in religious worship , it was dangerous to leave any room for distinctions ; which is to make every man judg , what is an innocent , and what is a sinful use of images ; which would utterly evacuate the law : for men of wit can find out some apology or other for the grossest superstitions . as for instance ; i find a notable criticism in the advertisement to monsieur de meaux his exposition , ( p. 14. ) that the images forbidden in the second commandment , are those which are forbidden to be made , as well as to be worshipped . the consequence of which is , that the worship of such images as may be lawfully made , is not forbidden in this law ; and then indeed there is room enough for the worship of images : unless he will say , that it is unlawful to make the images of any thing in heaven or earth , or under the earth ; but then they can have no images to worship . tertullian indeed , and some others , condemned the very arts of painting and carving images , as forbid in the second commandment : and it is certainly unlawful to make any image in order to worship it . but i desire to know of this author , whether it be lawful to make an image or picture of the sun , and moon , and planets ; of birds and beasts , of men and women , which are the likeness of things in heaven , and things on earth ? if it be , then the making of those images is not forbid in the second commandment , and then the worship of them is not forbid neither . but he says , he means such images as are made to represent god , and those which are made to show him present , and which are worshipped with the same intention as full of his divinity . but is this the work of the carver , or the painter , to make a god ? can the pencil , or the knife , put divinity into a picture or image ? this is the work of him that consecrates , and him that worships . qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus non facit ille deos , qui colit , ille facit . he had forgot the brazen serpent which hezekiah broke , the making of which , i suppose , was not forbid in the second command , but it seems the worship of it was . but to return : though the second commandment forbids the worship of all sorts of images , and every act and degree of worship , without leaving room for any exceptions or distinctions ; yet we may learn from scripture , what was the currant notion of image-worship at that time , viz. that they worshipped their images , not for gods , but for symbols and representations of their gods ; that is , they set them up as visible objects of worship , to receive their worship in the name and stead of their gods : they did not worship the images themselves , but their gods in and by their images . indeed , this is the only notion of image-worship that any men ever had , till christians began to worship images , and then were forced to defend it , and to distinguish away the idolatry of it . this is the account the heathens gave of their worship of images , that they did not believe them to be gods , but only worshipped their gods in their images . thus cicero ascribes the making images of their gods in humane shape , to their superstition , vt essent simulacra , quae vener antes deos ipsos se adire crederent , that they might have images to make their addresses to , as if the gods themselves were present . and maximus tyrius gives a large account of their images to the same purpose , that they are all but so many pictures and representations of the deity , to bring us to the conception of him ; and it matters not what the image be , so it bring god to our thoughts , and direct our worship to him ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . celsus and julian deny that they thought their images to be gods ; and so did the heathens in arnobius , athanasius , and st. austin , as those fathers acknowledg . and julian tells us , that a lover of god loves the representations of the gods ; and beholding their images , doth secretly fear and reverence them , which although invisible themselves , do behold him . and dio chrysostom , in his olympick oration , gives this account why men are so fond of images , which they know cannot express the invisible and inexpressible nature of god , because mankind doth not love to worship god at a distance , but to come near and feel him , and with assurance sacrifice to him , and crown him . nay , those very heathens who believed that some invisible spirits after consecration were , not incorporated with their images , ( which it does not appear to me , that any of them thought ) but present in them ; did not therefore worship the material figure , but through the visible image , worshipped those invisible spirits which were hid in it . non hoc visibile colo , sed numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat . and therefore arnobius says , that they formed the images of their gods , vicariâ substitutione , that is , to set them in the place of god , to be a vicarious object of worship , to receive their worship in the name of their gods ; and that god receives their worship by images , per quaedam fidei commissa , by way of trust ; as if they were intrusted to receive their worship for god in his stead . hence st. austin tells us , that no image of god ought to be worshipped , but only christ , who is what he is ; and he not to be worshipped instead of god , but together with him ; which shows plainly what notion the father had of proper image-worship ; that it is to worship the image instead of god : and therefore tho christ be such an image of god as must be worshipped , yet he must not be worshipped as an image ; that is , not in the stead , but together with god. and st. hierom on rom. 1. gives the same notion of image-worship , quomodo invisibilis deus per simulacrum visibile coleretur ; that it is to worship the invisible god by a visible image : and therefore falling down before their images is called by arnobius , deorum ante ora prostrati , prostrating themselves before the face of their gods ; which is aptly expressed by caesar , ante simulacra projecti victoriam a diis exposcerent , falling down before their images , they begged victory of their gods. and in those days before they were acquainted with school-distinctions , to pray to their gods before their images , and fixing their eyes on them , was thought to be image-worship ; thus st. austin expresses it by adorat vel orat intuens simulacrum , adoring , or praying , looking upon an image : and so does ovid , summissoque genu vultus in imagine divae fixit , with bended knees he fixes his eye upon the image of the goddess : and indeed all the arguments of the ancient fathers against the worship of images are levelled against this notion of it , that they worshipped their gods by images , not that they thought their images to be gods. this then being the received notion of image-worship among the heathens , in which they all agreed , as far as we have any account of their opinions , and being the only intelligible account that can be given of the worship of images , we have reason to believe , that the second commandment , which forbids the worship of images , had a principal regard to it ; but i have other arguments from the scripture it self to confirm this opinion . 1. the first is from the first example of image-worship among the israelites after the giving this law ; that is , the worship of the golden calf , which aaron made while moses was in the mount : that this calf was intended only as a symbolical representation of the god of israel , and that they worshipped the lord jehovah in the worship of this calf , is so evident from the whole story , that i confess i do not think that man fit to be disputed with , who denies it ; for he must either want understanding , or honesty , to be convinced of the plainest matter , which he has no mind to believe . the occasion of their making this calf , was the absence of moses , who was a kind of a living oracle , and divine presence with them . they said to aaron , vp , make us gods , which shall go before us : for as for this moses , the man who brought us up out of the land of egypt , we wot not what is become of him : so that they wanted not a new god , but only a divine presence with them , since moses , who used to acquaint them with the will of god , and govern them by a divine spirit , was so long absent , that they thought him lost ; when the calf was made , they said , these be thy gods , o israel , which brought thee out of the land of egypt : which they could not possibly understand of the calf , which was but then made . for tho we should think them so silly , as to believe it to be a god , it was impossible they should think that the calf brought them out of egypt , before it self was made : nor could they think any egyptian gods delivered them out of egypt to the ruine and desolation of their own country ; especially , since they certainly knew , that it was only the lord jehovah , who brought them out of egypt by the hand of moses ; and therefore aaron built an altar before it , and proclaimed a feast to the lord , or to jehovah , as the word is : which makes it very plain to any unprejudiced man , that they intended to worship the lord jehovah in the worship of the golden calf , which they made for a symbolical representation and presence of god ; which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion the egyptians had of their images , from whom they learn'd this way of worship ; and i need not tell any man how displeasing this was to god. 2. another argument of this , is , that images are called gods in scripture ; isa. 44. 10. who hath fashioned a god , or molten a graven image , which is profitable for nothing . — he maketh a god and worshippeth it ; he maketh it a graven image , and falleth down thereto . — the residue thereof he maketh a god , even his graven image , and worshippeth it , and prayeth unto it , and saith , deliver me , for thou art my god. i need not multiply places for the proof of this ; for this is own'd by all the advocates of the church of rome , and relied on as the great support of their cause . from hence they say , it is plain in what sense god forbids the worship of images , viz. when men worship their images for gods , as the text asserts the heathens did . but tho the church of rome worships images , yet she does not worship them for gods , but only worship god , or christ , or the saints in and by their images . this is the reason of their great zeal to make the first and second commandment but one : because the first commandment forbidding the worship of all false gods , if that which we call the second commandment , which forbids the worship of images , be reckoned only as part of the first , then they think it plain in what sense the worship of images is forbid viz. only as the worship of false gods ; and therefore those cannot be charged with the breach of this commandment , who do not believe their images to be gods. now besides what i have already said , to prove that the heathens did not believe the images themselves to be gods , which is so sottish a conceit , as no man of common sense can be guilty of ; i have several arguments to prove , that the scripture does not understand it in this sense . 1. the first is , that the golden calf is called gods of gold , exod. 32. 31. and yet it is evident , they did not believe the calf to be a god , but only a symbol and representation of the lord jehovah , whom they worshipped in the calf . 2. the very name of an image , which signifies a likeness and representation of some other being , is irreconcileable with such a belief , that the image it self is a god ; that the image is that very god , whom it is made to represent ; which signifies , that the likeness of god , is that very god whose likeness it is : especially , when the scripture , which calls such images gods , calls them also the images of their gods. which is proof enough , that tho the scripture calls images gods , it does not understand it in that sense , that they believe their material images to be gods : for it is a contradiction to say , that the image of baal , is both their god baal , and his image at the same time ; for the image is not the thing it represents . 3. the arguments urged in scripture against images , plainly prove , that they were not made to be gods , but only representations of god. one argument is , because they saw no similitude of god when he spoke to them in horeb out of the midst of the fire : another , that they can make no likeness of him. to whom then will ye liken god , or what likeness will ye compare to him ? — to whom then will ye liken me , or shall i be equal , saith the holy one ? thus st. paul argues with the philosophers at athens ; for as much then as we are the off-spring of god , we ought not to think the godhead to be like to gold , and silver , and stone graven by art , and man's device . now what do all these arguments signify against making a god ? for if they can make a god , what matter is it who their god be like , so he be a god ? it is a good argument against making any image and representation of god , that it is impossible to make any thing like him ; but it is enough for a god to be like it self . in what sense then , you 'l say , does the scripture call images gods ? there is but one possible sense , that i know of , and that is , that they are vicarious and substituted gods ; that they are set up in god's place , to represent his person , and to receive our worship in his name and stead , and so are gods by office , tho not by nature . they are visible representations of the invisible god , they bear his name and receive his worship ; as the golden calf was called jehovah , and the worship of the calf was called a feast unto the lord : and this is some reason for their being called gods ; as the proxy and substitute acts in the name of the person he represents : which proves that this is the scripture notion of image-worship , that the image is worshipped in god's name and stead . and to this purpose i observe , that tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or an idol , signifies a false god ; yet it signifies such a false god as is only the image and figure of another god ; for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , fignifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a likeness or similitude . thus tertullian tells us , eorum imagines idola , imaginum consecratio idolatria . that their images are idols , and the consecration of them is idolatry . thus the author of the book of wisdom attributes the original of idolatry , to fathers making images for their children who were dead , and appointing solemnities to be kept before them as if they were gods ; and thus by degrees princes passed these things into laws , and made men to worship graven images ; and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of idols began . which shews what he means by idols , images consecrated for the worship of god. and therefore he distinguishes the worship of idols , from the worship of the elements and heavenly bodies , when this was done without an image : and therefore no god is in scripture called an idol , but with respect to its image . thus idols and molten gods are join'd together , as expounding each other . and the psalmist tells us , the idols of the heathens are silver and gold , the work of mens hands . so that an idol is a false god , as it signifies a material image made to represent some god , as a visible object of worship , to receive the worship of that god whose name it bears , in his place and stead . to the same purpose the scripture charges these image-worshippers with changing the glory of god into the likeness and similitude of those creatures whereby they represented him . the israelites made the image of a golden calf , as the symbolical representation and presence of the lord jehovah ; and the psalmist tells us , that by so doing , they changed their glory ( i. e. the lord jehovah , who was the glory of israel ) into the similitude of an ox which eateth grass . which necessarily supposes , that they intended to represent the lord jehovah in the image of the calf ; not that they thought their god to be like the calf , but as they made a vicarious and visible god of it , and worshipped it in the name of the lord jehovah . thus st. paul describes the idolatry of the heathens , that they changed the glory of the incorruptible god , into an image made like to corruptible man , and four footed beasts , and creeping things . but of this more presently ; this is sufficient to show , what the scripture notion of image-worship is , and in what sense it condemns it . 3dly . let us now consider wherein the evil of this image-worship consists . which will greatly contribute to the right understanding of this whole dispute . now the account of it in general is very short and plain , that the evil of image-worship when we worship the true god by an image , does not so much consist in the kinds , or degrees , or object of worship , as in representation ; and if this prove the true account of it , as i believe it will appear to be to all considering men , before i have done , it will quite alter the state of this controversie , and put m. de meaux , and the representer , to find out some new expositions and representations of their image-worship . 1. that the evil of image-worship when men worship the true god by an image , does not principally consist in the kinds , or degrees , or object of worship . such men indeed are said in scripture to worship images , and idols , and molten gods , and that their idols are silver and gold , wood and stone ; for when they worship god by an image , they must worship the image ; or else they cannot worship god in it , tho' they worship the image not for it self , but for the prototype , as the council of trent determines , which is more properly worshipping god or christ in or before his image , as m. de meaux expounds it , than worshipping the image ; and they are said to worship images rather with respect to the manner than to the object of worship , as you shall hear more presently . the church of rome indeed , as her doctrine and practice is expounded by her most famed divines , may justly be charged with worshipping images in the grossest sense ; as that signifies giving religious worship to the material image of wood and stone ; which is strictly to worship stocks and stones as gods. this charge may be easily made good against all those who teach that the image is to be properly worshipped , and that either a relative latria , or some proper infer●●r worship is to be terminated on the image as its material object ; and yet most of the roman doctors atttibute one or t'other to the image , as distinct from that worship they give to the prototype ; and dispute very learnedly , that this is the doctrine both of the second council of nice , and of the council of trent , that a proper worship must be given to the image , distinct from that worship which is given to the prototype ; but they cannot yet agree , whether it be a relative improper analogical latria , which must be given to the image of christ , or only dulia , or an inferiour degree of religious worship . this has hitherto been the chief seat of the controversy between protestants and papists about image-worship ; and m. de meaux seems very sensible , that attributing a proper worship to images , so as to terminate it on them , gives too just occasion for the charge of idolatry , and puts them to hard shifts to vindicate themselves from it ; and therefore he owns no worship due to the image for it self , but only as it represents the prototype , which therefore is not so properly the worship of the image , as of the prototype by the image ; and here i perfectly agree with him , that the true notion of image-worship is not to worship the image at all , considered in it self , as a material figure of wood and stone , but only to worship god or christ in the image . and therefore i shall set aside this dispute , in what sense , or how far a papist may be charged with worshipping the material image , which has occasioned eternal wranglings , and yet does not properly belong to the controversie of image-worship . to worship a material image , is to give the worship of god to creatures , to wood and stone ; but image-worship is in its strict notion , not giving divine worship to images , but worshipping god in and by the image which represents him , which in scripture is called worshipping images : and therefore tho we should grant , that m. de meaux his exposition avoids the first charge of giving religious worship to wood and stone , because he denies that they properly worship the image , but only the prototype in the image ; yet the whole guilt of image-worship , as that signifies the worship of god by images , not the worship of the material image , is chargeable upon him still , that is , the worship of the prototype by the image , which is all that is forbid in the second commandment . this , it may be , will be thought a giving up the cause , to grant , that the church of rome may worship god or christ by images , and yet not be chargeable with worshipping the images themselves , or the material figures of wood or stone ; and therefore it will be necessary to shew , that the true notion of idolatry or image-worship is not giving religious worship to the images themselves , but worshipping god by images , and what the difference between these two is . 1. and the first thing i shall observe to this purpose , is the difference between the first and second commandment , which all protestants own and defend against the church of rome , which makes the second commandment only a branch and appendix of the first . now the first commandment forbids all false objects of worship , the worship of all creatures and fictitious deities , and therefore the worship of all beings besides god , whether rational , animate or inanimate , is a breach of the first commandment , and must be reduced to it ; and consequently the second commandment which forbids the worship of images , cannot forbid them as false objects , ( for all such are forbid in the first commandment ) but as a false and corrupt way of worship ; and therefore image worship as it is forbid in the second commandment , cannot signifie worshipping the image it self , as distinguished from the prototype , for that would make it a false object of worship against the first commandment ; but only a false and superstitious way of representing and worshipping god by an image . 2ly . and therefore i observe , that an image does not alter the object of worship , which yet it must necessarily do , if it were essential to the notion of image-worship to worshipt the image it self , which would make the image a new object of worship . now it is plain , that men who do not dispute themselves into endless subtilties and distinctions , intend no more in the worship of images , than to worship that god whose image it is , and therefore the object of worship is the same with or without an image . they who worship the true god with an image , and they who worship him without an image , worship the same god though in a different manner ; and besides what judgment men make of their own actions , and what they intend to do , the scripture it self acknowledges this . when the israelites made a golden calf , aaron proclaims a feast to the lord jehovah , which proves that they intended to worship the same god still in the golden calf , which they did before without it . thus the two calves which jeroboam set up , were made in imitation of the golden calf , and for symbolical representations of the god of israel , who was worshipped by them ; for it is plain that jeroboam did not intend to change their god , but only to prevent their going up to jerusalem to worship god there ; and therefore he tells them , it is too much for you to go up to jerusalem , behold thy gods , o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of aegypt ; that is , the lord jehovah . now we may observe , that god himself , though he was grievously offended with the sin of jeroboam , yet he makes a great difference between the sin of jeroboam and the sin of ahab , who introduced the worship of baal a false god , whereas jeroboam retained the worship of the true god , though he worshipped him in a false and idolatrous manner . if the calves of don and bethel had been false gods , as baal was , the sin had been equally provoking ; but the worship of the calves did not change their god , as the worship of baal did ; and therefore elijah distinguishes the israelites into the worshippers of god and of baal . how long halt ye between two opinions ? if the lord be god , follow him ; but if baal , then follow him ; and yet most of those who are said to be worshippers of god , did worship god at the calves of dan and bethel , which was the established religion of the kingdom . and thus jehu , tho' he departed not from the sin of jeroboam , the golden calves in dan and bethel , yet he calls his zeal in destroying baal out of israel , his zeal for the lord jehovah . now if the worship of an image do not change the object of our worship , neither in the intention of the worshipper , nor in the account of scripture , as i have now proved , it evidently follows , that the image is not worshipped as an object , but as a medium of worship ; it receives no worship for it self , but only for god whom it represents . and that which is so offensive to god in it , is not that they set up any rival and opposite gods against him , but that they worship him in a reproachful and dishonourable manner , which makes him abhor and reject the worship ; and because he will not receive this worship himself , he calls it worshipping idols and graven images , and molten gods , that is , vicarious and representative gods , which though they receive the worship in god's name , yet are an infinite reproach to his majesty by that vile and contemptible representation they make him . this is the strict notion of idolatry , not the giving the worship of god to creatures ; which is the breach of the first commandment in making new gods , but the worship of god by an image , which makes such images gods by representation , but not the objects , but only the medium of worship ; and therefore though we should grant m. de meaux that he does not worship images , but only christ and the saints in or before their images , this does not excuse him from idolatry , which does not signifie worshipping an image in a strict sence ; but only worshipping god in an image , which terminates all the worship not on the image but on god. 2ly . let us now consider wherein the evil of this idolatry or image-worship does consist ; and that i said was in representation ; which i shall briefly explain in these particulars . 1. that it is an infinite reproach to the divine nature and perfections , to be represented by an image : to whom will ye liken god ? or what likeness will ye compare to him ? the workman melteth a graven-image , and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold , and casteth silver chains . he that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation , chuseth a tree that will not rot : he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image that shall not be moved . have ye not known ? have ye not heard ? hath it not been told you from the beginning ? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth ? it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth , and the inhabitants thereof are as grashoppers ; that stretcheth cut the heavens as a curtain , and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in . how incongruous and absurd is it , to make a picture or image of that god who is invisible ? to represent a pure mind by matter , dull sensless matter ! to give the shape and figure of a man , or some viler creature , to that god who has none ! to make an image for the maker of the world , and to bring that infinite being to the scantlings and dimensions of a man , who fills heaven and earth with his presence ! if it be the glory of god to be what he is , a pure , infinite , eternal , invisible mind ! it is a contradiction and dishonour to him to be represented by a material visible image like to some of his own creatures , but inferior to the meanest living creatures , because without life and sense : thus st. paul argues , acts 17. 29. forasmuch then as we are the off-spring of god , we ought not to think that the godhead is like unto gold or silver , or stone graven by art , and mans device . if we think god to be like to such images , we know nothing of him ; and if we make such images as we know are not like to god , nay a reproach to his nature and perfections , we wilfully affront him . and tho christ conversed in this world in human nature , which is representable by an image , yet an image is not a proper representation of christ , as the object of worship , because it cannot represent the divine nature , which is the reason and foundation of worship . and as for saints , they ought not to be worshipped at all , and therefore not worshipped by images : and indeed , that very law which forbids the worship of images without any exception , and yet upon such reasons as are peculiar to the infinite nature of god , are a plain argument to me , that no being which is representable by human art , is an object of worship . 2. to set up an image in the place of god , has a great appearance and suspicion of worshipping a material and visible god , of giving divine honours to gold and silver , and the work of mens hands ; for the men pretend to worship god in the image , yet how does the image come to be worshipped for god ? what likeness ? what relation is there between them ? how easily may men slip into the worship of images themselves , and forsake god , or never mind him , for the sake of a fine picture , or some beautiful or wonder-working image ? for tho there is a great deal of difference between worshipping god by an image , and worshipping the image it self , yet to all appearance they are so like one another , and there is so easie a passage from one to the other , that gods displeasure against this sin is expressed in scripture by jealousie ; a passion which expresses both suspicion and caution ; while they profess to worship god by their images , they do not change their god , but yet their worshipping a visible image , looks very like it , and is an easie introduction to it . thus in the second commandment , the reason with which god inforces his prohibition against worshipping images is , for i the lord thy god , am a jealous god. thus psal. 78. 58. for they provoked him to anger with their high places , and moved him to jealousie with their graven images . and therefore he expresses himself with some passion and concernment in this matter . i am : he lord , that is my name , and my glory will i not give to another , neither my praise to graven images , isa. 42. 8. the church is called gods spouse , and the worship of false gods is called woredom and adultery , going after other gods ; and the worship of the true god by images , tho it be not whoredom , yet it is such a kind of spiritual wantonness and incontinency , as excites his jealousie 3. especially when we consider , that the worship of images does naturally expose us to the cheats and impostures of wicked spirits ; for this reason i observed before , god fordids the worship of any other invisible being but himself ; for it men were allowed to worship inferior spirits , bad spirits who inhabit these lower regions , would soon have the greatest share in their worship ; and thus it is with images , which are such an offence and dishonour to god , that we cannot expect that he will ever show himself present in them , or guard them from the possession of evil spirits . it is evident that in the heathen world , evil spirits possessed their images , and abused mankind with their lying wonders , and lying oracles ; and i have some reason to believe , that if any miracles are wrought still at images , they are not by good spirits , because images are an abomination to god ; and therefore , rom. 1. st. paul attributes the general corruption of mens lives and manners to the worship of images ; they changed the glory of the incorruptible god into an image made like to corruptible man , and to birds and fourfooted beasts , and creeping things ; wherefore god gave them up to uncleanness — for this cause god gave them up to vile affections — and even as they did not like to retain god in their knowledge , god gave them over to a reprobate mind to do these things which are not convenient . the meaning of which is , that god gave them over to the delusions of wicked spirits , who lurked in their images , and first corrupted their religion , and then their lives by impure and barbarous rites of worship . 4. if there were no other hurt in image-worship , yet it debases human nature to fall down before a sensless image : as it is a dishonour to god to be worshipped by an image , tho the worship be intended for himself , and not for the image , because it makes so mean and vile representation of him ; so it is a reproach to a man , who is a reasonable creature , and made after the image of god , to fall down before stocks and stones , with all external submissions and adorations , tho he intends not to worship the material image , but god by it ; because the visible object before which we pay our worship , is so much below the honour and dignity of humane nature , is a reproach to the understanding of a man to think that a material image is a decent representation of god , and a fit medium of worship ; and he must have a mean and beggarly spirit , who can be contented to bow down before it : thus arnobius aggravates the madness of this : supplicare tremebundum facttitatae abs te rei ; to fall down trembling , and to supplicate that which thou thy self hast made . and a greater than arnobius tell us , they that make them , are like unto them , so is every one who putteth their trust in them . 5ly . the worship of god by images is contrary not only to the law of moses , but to the reason of mankind ; it gratifies indeed a fleshly and sensual mind to have a visible object of worship , but god is the only natural object of worship ; and reason tells us , that god is invisible ; and reason will tell us , that it is contrary to the nature of an invisible being , to be worshipped under a visible representation ; it is not only a reproach to the divine nature , but an absurd and unreasonable worship . for what considering man can think it reasonable to worship a visible image instead of an invisible god ? reason can never justifie a worship so contradictory to the divine nature , and therefore reason can never teach men to worship an image . for what is it they intend by worshipping images ? have they a mind to see the god they worship ? but how unreasonable is this , when they know he is invisible , and would not be a god if he could be seen ? and how absurd is it to represent him by an image , when they know they can make no image like him ? no worship can be natural , which contradicts the nature of that being whom we worship ; and if it be not natural , it must be instituted worship ; and then , tho it were forbid by no law , it must be commanded by some law to make it reasonable , at least if it be possible that a law could make that an act of honour and worship , which is a dishonour to the divine perfections . 6ly . it is more especially contrary to the nature of the christian worship , which teaches us to form a more spiritual idea of god , and to worship him in spirit and in truth ; in opposition not only to all sensible representations , but to all symbolical presences . there are two things principally , for which images are intended , to be visible representations , and a visible presence of the deity . the first of these is so great a reproach to the divine nature , that it was forbid by the law of moses , which was at best a less perfect dispensation , as being accommodated to the carnal state of that people ; but as to the second , god himself gratified them in it , for he dwelt among them in the tabernacle , and afterwards in the temple of jerusalem , where he placed the symbols of his presence . but now when the woman of samaria asked our saviour about the place of worship , whether it was the temple at jerusalem , or samaria : he answers , the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain , nor yet at jerusalem worship the father . but the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth , for the father seeketh such to worship him . god is a spirit , and they that worship him , must worship him in spirit and in truth . where christ opposes worshipping in spirit and in truth , to worshipping in the temple , not as a temple signifies a place separated for religious worship , which is a necessary circumstance of worship in all religions ; but as it signifies a symbolical presence , a figure of gods residence and dwelling among them , in which sense the primitive christians denied that they had any temples . for god dwelling in human nature , is the only divine presence under the gospel , of which the temple was but a type and figure . now if the spiritual worship of the gospel does so withdraw us from sense , as not to admit of a symbolical presence , much less certainly does it admit of images , to represent god present to us , which is so gross and carnal , that god forbad it under the legal dispensation . we must consider god as an infinite mind , present in all places to hear our prayers , and receive our worship , and must raise our hearts to heaven , whither christ who is the only visible presence of god is ascended , and not seek for him in carved wood or stone , or a curious piece of painting . 7ly . but since m. de maux , and the representer think it sufficient to justifie the worship of images , that they are of great use to represent the object of our worship to us , and to affect us with suitable passions ; it will be needful briefly to consider this matter . for i confess i cannot see how a material and visible image should form a true idea in us of an invisible spirit ; it is apt to corrupt mens notions of god and religion , and to abate our just reverence , by representing the object of our worship under so contemptible an appearance . an image cannot tell us what god is ; if we are otherwise instructed in the nature of god , we know that an image is not like him , but a reproach to the divine perfections ; if we are not better instructed , we shall think our god like his image , which will make us very understanding christians . but the representer has drawn this argument out at large , and therefore we must consider what he says of it . that pictures and images serve to , 1. preserve in his mind the memory of the things represented by them , as people are wont to preserve the memory of their deceased friends by keeping their pictures . but i beseech you , the memory of what does a picture preserve ? of nothing that i know of , but the external lineaments and features of the face or body ; and therefore the images and pictures of god and the holy trinity ( which yet are allowed in the church of rome ) cannot serve this end , unless they will say , that god has an external shape as man has . and suppose we had the exact pictures of christ and the virgin mary , the apostles and other saints and martyrs , this might gratifie our curiosity , but of what use is it in the christian religion ? to remember christ , is not to remember his face , which we never saw , but to remember his doctrine and his life ; to call to mind his great love in dying for us ; to remember him not as a man , but as a god incarnate , as our mediator and advocate , as our lord and judge ; and therefore the gospel ; which contain the history of his life , are a much better picture of christ , than any drawn by the most curious pencil ; and i doubt , the christian religion will not gain much by taking the gospels out of peoples hands , and giving them a picture to gaze on . yes , says our author , 2. he is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the pictures or images , and thence to raise his heart to the prototypes , and there to imploy it in meditation , love , thanksgiving , imitation , &c. as the object requires . but he is a very sorry christian , who never thanks of christ , but when he sees his picture . and how can the sight of a picture raise our hearts to the love of christ ? the sight indeed of a lovely picture may exci●e a sensible passion , but not a divine love ; the sight of his picture can only put us in mind , that there was such a person as christ in the world ; but if we would affect our hearts with his love and praise , we must not gaze on his face , which is all that a picture can show us , if it could do that , 〈◊〉 meditate on what he has done and suffered for us , which may be done better without a picture , than with it . if they want something to put them in mind , that there is such a person as christ , which is all that his picture can do , the name of christ written upon the church walls would be more innocent , and altogether as effectual to this end . but pictures are very instructive , as that of a deaths head and old time painted with his f●rel●ck , hour-glass , and sythe ; and do inform the mind at one glance , of what in reading requires a chapter , and sometimes a volume ; which is so far from being true , that a picture informs a man of nothing , but what he was informed of before . the picture of a crucifix may put a man in mind of what he has heard or read of christs dying upon the cross ; but if he know nothing of the history of christs sufferings , the bare seeing a crucifix can teach him nothing . children may be taught by pictures , which make a more strong impression on their fancies than words ; but a picture cannot teach ; and at best this is but a very childish way of learning . 3. but devout pictures are of great use in prayer , the sight of which cures distractions , and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object , and as certainly brings some good things into his mind , as an immodest picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness . but can men read their prayers , as well as learn the articles of their creed , in a picture too ? for even good thought are a distraction in prayers , when they call us from attending to what we ask of god ; and it is to be feared then , that pictures themselves may distract us , unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time , but what are in our prayers ; the church of rome indeed teaching her children such prayers as they do not understand , and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts , may make pictures very necessary to entertain them ; but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together , as it must be if the devotion of prayers consists in praying devoutly , an image which cannot speak , and a prayer which is not understood , are like to make men equally devout ; should men when they look upon a cruci fix , run over in their minds all the history of our saviours sufferings ! should the sight of our saviour hanging on the cross affect us with some soft and tender passions at the remembrance of him ! ( which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such pictures cannot do ) yet what is this to prayer ? such sensible passions as the sight of a picture can raise in us , are of little or no account in religion , true devout affections must spring from an inward vital sense , which the picture cannot give to those who want it , and is of no use to those who have it . thus i have , as briefly as the subject would permit examined the doctrine of praying to saints , and worshipping images according to the exposition of the bishop of cond●m , to whom our author appeals in these points , and this i hope will satisfie him , what we think both of the bishops authority and his exposition , and how little we like popery in its best dress . and now it is time to return to our protester . and i hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the matters in controversie between us , than barely m. de meax his authority ; and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the exposition delivered by this prelate , i might here very fairly take my leave of him ; but i cannot do this , tho' he be a perfect stranger to me , without dismissing him civilly with a complement or two more . 1. then as to the invocation of saints , he observes that i deny the bishop has limited it only to their prayers , which i own is a mistake ; and this is such a complement as must never be expected from a doctor of the infallible church , for he had occasion enough for it , had he had a heart to do it ; but i hope i have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular examination of the bishops exposition as to that point ; and indeed m. de meaux himself gave the occasion for this , by not owning it in its due place , when he expounded the decree of the council , which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the saints as well as to their prayers , but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance , where no man would expect it : when expositors dodge at this rate , they may thank themselves if they are mistaken . 2ly and 3dly , he takes sanctuary again in the bishops authority to justifie his renouncing the popes personal infallibility , and the deposing doctrine , as no articles of faith : but tho' the bishop indeed do wave some things , as he says , which are disputed of in the schools , as no articles of faith , yet he does not say what they are , much less name the popes personal infallibility , and the deposing power ; and one would think he could not mean the deposing power , which is determined by general councils , and therefore must be an article of faith. the truth is , the bishop has here plaid a very cunning game , and men may make what they please of his words , as their interest or inclination leads them ; if protestants object the doctrine of the popes infallibility and deposing power , he can easily tell them that these are school disputes , and not articles of faith ; if the pope or roman doctors quarrel at it , he has then said nothing in disparagement of the popes infallibility and deposing power , but has taught that fundamental principle on which these doctrines depend , as in truth he has , when he makes the primacy of peter , the cement of unity , and gives this primacy to the bishops of rome , as successors of the prince of the apostles , to whom for this cause we owe that obedience and submission which the holy councils and fathers have always taught the faithful ; though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them ; especially when we consider what he means by the primacy of the pope , that he is a head established by god to conduct his whole flock in his paths ; which gives him a supremacy over bishops and secular princes ; and how naturally this infers infallibilty , and a power of deposing heretical princes , every one sees , and we have reason to believe the bishop expounded his doctrine to this orthodox sence in his letters to the pope , from the popes testimonial , that his letters shewed his submission and respect to the apostolick see. as for the popes personal infallibility , our author in his reflections ( p 8. ) denies it to be an article of faith , because it is not positively determined by any general council ; in my reply ( p. 47. ) i told him this is no proof , that it is not an article of faith , because the infallibility of the church it self , which they all grant to be an article of faith , was never positively determined by any general council ; and therefore some doctrines may be articles of faith , which never were determined by any general council ; and i added , that if the church be infallible , the pope must , if he be the head of the church ; for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute power ; but our author thought fit to let fall this dispute , and to resolve all into the bishop of condoms authority . his proposal which follows , i have already answered without a smile , but i cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing ; which he says belongs not to the representer , who being to represent and not to dispute , is not concerned with those tedious arguments . the case is this ; in the character of a papist represented , he had denied the deposing power to be an article of faith ; the answerer proved it was an article of faith , because it was decreed by general councils ; to this , in his reflections he answers , that every thing approved in general councils , is not an article of faith , but only doctrinal points , and those decreed with an anathema ; and therefore the deposing power not being declared as a doctrinal point , and the decrees relating only to discipline and government , and not being decreed neither with an anathema , it does not appear to be an article of faith : in answer to this , in my reply ( p. 49 ) i proposed three enquiries , 1. whether nothing be an article of faith , but what is decreed with an anathema ? 2. whether the deposing decree be a doctrinal point , or only matter of discipline and government ? 3. what authority general councils have in decretis morum , or such matters as concern discipline and government ? this is the disputing he complains of , and i confess he has some reason for it ; for arguments that cannot be answered , how short soever they are , are very tedious ; but how i could answer his argument without disputing , or how he comes to be unconcerned to defend his own arguments , i cannot tell ; but tho disputing is not his province , yet in civility he will go out of his way with me , and in civility i will keep him company . 1. he confesses , i prove at large that all definitions of faith declared in general councils are not concluded with anathema's , and in this he willingly agrees with me . but this does not at all prove , that whatsoever is declared in such a council without an anathema , is an article of faith ; and therefore nothing against us deserving any farther answer . and thus he has very prettily altered the state of the question ; he said the deposing doctrine tho approved by general councils , was not an article of faith , because not decreed with an anathema : now if this argument be good , then nothing must be accounted an article of faith , but what is decreed with an anathema : in opposition to which i proved that several doctrines which they themselves account articles of faith , have been decreed by general councils without anathema's ; and he grants that i have proved this ; and if i have , i am sure his argument is lost , for then the deposing doctrine may be an article of faith , tho it be not confirmed with an anathema : and now instead of proving , that no doctrine is an article of faith which is not decreed with an anathema , he complains that i have not proved that every doctrine which is decreed without an anathema , is an article of faith , which is nothing at all to the purpose : we knew not where to find the articles of the romish faith , but in the decrees of their councils ; and finding the popes power to depose heretical princes there , we took it for an article of their faith : no , says the reflecter , that is a mistake , it is no article of faith , because it is not decreed with an anathema : we examine the matter , and find it otherwise , that articles of faith are decreed without anathema's : yes , says the protester , this may be , but you must prove still that every doctrine which is decreed without an anathema is an article of faith ; which is a very easie matter to do after this ; for if being decreed with or without an anathema , make no distinction as to this matter , then the decree it self in doctrinal points must make an article of faith ; if some doctrines which are acknowledged to be articles of the romish faith are decreed without anathema's , then it is no argument against any doctrine , being an article of faith , that it has no anathema annexed to it ; so that our author is wonderful uncertain what to call an article of faith ; if we call the decrees of their councils articles of their faith , no , says he , every decree is not an article of faith , but only what is decreed with an anethema ; if we confute this distinction , and prove that articles of faith are decreed without anathema's , then he can distinguish no further ; but requires us to prove , that every doctrine decreed without an anethema is an article of faith , that is , that the decree of their church makes an article of their faith : and if that don 't , i would desire to know of him , what does . and had i not reason then to say , that it is wonderful hard to know what their faith is , when he himself cannot tell what it is that makes an article of faith , and their most learned divines so much differ about this matter ; some allowing that to be an article of faith , which others reject . 2ly . the second enquiry was , whether the deposing decree be a doctrinal point , or only matter of discipline and government ; and in answer to this i told him , that a decree what shall be done , includes a virtual definition of that doctrine on which that decree is founded . to this he opposes what i say under the next head , that in the council of the apostles at jerusalem , there was a decree of manners , yet it contained no definition of doctrine . not expresly indeed , but virtually it does , as i said before . my business there , was to vindicate the authority of councils in those decrees which relate to manners , as not less obligatory than the decrees of faith ; and i observed that the only apostolical council we have an account of in scripture , viz. the council at jerusalem , acts 15. was of this nature ; for the only decrees made in it , were to abstain from meats offered to idols , and from blood , and from things strangled , and from fornication ; and i observed , they might as well object here , ( to invalidate this decree ) as they do against the deposing decree , that there is no point of doctrine determined in it . and how does this contradict what i before asserted ? that a decree what shall be done , includes a virtual definition of that doctrine on which that decree is founded . but however he saies , this decree of what was to be done , did not include a virtual definition of that doctrine on which the decree was founded ; for if it had , then the doctrine of abstaining from blood and strangled meats , had been an article of faith. but what does he think of abstaining from fornication , and from meats offered to idols , which are contained in the same decree ? is not that a necessary doctrine , and virtually contained in that decree ? i never said , that every decree of manners must be immediately founded on an article of faith : but i said , every decree of manners is founded on some doctrine , ( whether it be in a strict sense an article of faith , or not ) and includes a virtual definition of that doctrine . the decree to abstain from fornication includes this doctrine , that fornication is unlawful under the gospel ; and the decree for gentile converts to abstain from meats offered to idols , supposes the same ; and the decree to abstain from blood , and from things strangled , includes this doctrinal definition , that it was unlawful for gentile christians at that time to use their christian liberty in those matters , to the offence and scandal of believing jews . the matter in short is this : every decree which commands the doing any thing , must contain a virtual definition that such a thing may be lawfully done : and every decree which forbids the doing any thing , does withal define , that such a thing is either absolutely unlawful in it self , or highly inexpedient , and therefore unlawful in such circumstances to be done : this is as necessary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful , and to forbid nothing but what is either unlawful , or highly inexpedient and therefore when the church of rome decrees the deposing heretical princes , or the favourers of hereticks : she virtually defines , that it is lawful to depose princes , which is a doctrinal definition , and may in a large sense be called an article of faith , as that signifies all doctrinal points proposed to us to be believed , as i observed in my reply ( p. 50 ) . 3. the third enquiry was , whether the authority of the church be not as sacred in decrees of manners , as in articles of faith ? for the proof of which , i urged the council at jerusalem , and shew'd , that rules of discipline and government to direct the lives and manners of men , is the only proper subject of ecclesiastical authority , p. 55. and here where he should have taken notice of the council of jerusalem , he says nothing of it , but only says , ( p. 32. ) that i urge out of canus and bellarmine , that general councils cannot err even in such decrees , when they relate to things necessary to salvation , and which concern the whole church . and when i have proved the deposing decree to be of this nature , and esteemed as such by their church , i may then deserve a farther consideration . what their church will esteem , if he may be the expounder of it , is nothing to the purpose , for we argue not from their private esteeming , but from their publick definitions ; and if a general decree for the government of the whole church , concern the whole church , and if to command a sin concerns mens salvation , then the deposing decree does ; for if it be unlawful to depose heretical princes , it is more than a single sin to do it : and if they will grant ▪ that general councils cannot command a sin , then they must grant , that it is lawful to depose heretical princes : and i agree with him , that this does deserve a farther consideration , and shall be glad to hear his thoughts of it . this author in his reflections ( p. 10. ) proves that popes themselves own , that the deposing power is no article of faith , in letting so many open and positive asserters of the no-deposing power pass without any censure of heresie . this in my reply ( p. 57. ) i attribute to their want of power . for princes will not be deposed now , nor suffer those to be censured who deny the deposing power . this in his protestation ( p. 32. ) he says , is spoke like an oracle , but he expects some better argument than my bare assurance of what the pope would do if he had power . and i thought i had given him a better argument than my bare word for it , viz. the experience of former ages , what popes did when they had power : for tho the infallible chair may dissemble a little , when circumstances of affairs require it , yet sure it is not given to change . what follows about the worship of saints and images , i suppose has been sufficiently answered already , but i cannot but observe a very pleasant argument he has against what i assert , that no intention can alter the nature of actions , which are determined by a divine or human law. whereby i prove , that if they do such things , as in the account of the divine law are idolatrous , their intention not to commit idolatry will not excuse them : this he says ( p. 36. ) a quaker might as reasonably make use of for the justifying his yea's and his nay's , and his other points of quakerism . for if he should say , no intention can alter the nature of actions , which are determined by a divine or human law , but swear not at all , neither be ye called masters ; and let your communication be yea , yea , nay , nay , are actions or things determined by the divine law , therefore the intention of doing no evil in them , cannot excuse the d●ing otherwise than is there determined , from the guilt of sin . but will our protester say , that the divine law does forbid all swearing ? then i grant that the quakers are in the right , and no intention will justifie swearing ; but st. james must be expounded so as to reconcile his words with other passages in scripture , which allow of swearing ; and could he show us where bowing , and kissing , and kneeling , and praying before an image is in any sence allow'd in scripture , then we would grant also , that the direction of the intention would justifie such a use of these actions , as the scripture allows : but what is absolutely forbid to be done , no intention can excuse , which is our present case here . he concludes all with two or three requests , which must be briefly consider'd . 1. that he ( the replier ) will use his interest with protestants , to hold to what he saies they do , ond charge us with nothing but what we expresly profess to believe and practice . now i can assure him there is no need of using my interest with protestants to do this , for i hope they are naturally inclined to to be honest : but there are so many us's among them , that possibly some protestants may mistake one us for another . they practice indeed generally much alike , but they believe differently , and they represent differently , and they expound the doctrine of their councils differently ; and i hope protestants may without any offence say how and wherein they differ , and i think we cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting , while we relate matter of fact truly , what their practice is , and what their different sentiments and opinions are about these matters . 2. that they ( protestants ) pick not up the abuses of some , the vices and cruelties of others , the odd opinions of particular authors , and hold these forth for the doctrines and practices of our church ; and that in charging any practises , they charge no more than are concerned . now this is very reasonable , if he speaks of such abuses as are not allowed and countenanced by the church ; and of such cruelties as are not practised , encouraged , commended by the governours of the church , and justified by the decrees and canons of popes and councils ; or of such odd opinions of particular authors , as steal into the world without publick authority , and are censured as soon as they are known ; but as far as the church gives any countenance and authority to such abuses , cruelties , odd opinions , i see no reason why protestants may not complain of these things , and charge the church of rome with them , and not like that church ever the better , which suffers such abuses , and applauds such cruelties , as papists themselves , who have not put off all humanity , cannot but abhor . 3. that as often as they tell , what they think of our doctrines and practices , they would likewise at the same time inform their hearers , that those thoughts are , as the replier says , opinions , interpretations , and consequences of their own concerning our doctrine , and not our avowed doctrine . but this is a very needless caution , as i observed before ; for our people do not think , that the papists themselves believe all that ill of their own doctrines and practises which we charge them with ; and i cannot easily see , how our disputing against the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , and answering the arguments whereby they justify themselves , should betray people into such a mistake ; for it is no natural proof , that two men are of the same mind because they dispute against one another . thus much for the protester . and to conclude the whole , i shall give my readers a short view of the whole progress of this dispute , that they may see what shuffling adversaries we have to deal with . when the book entituled , a papist misrepresented and represented , was exposed to publick view , and mightily applauded by those of the roman communion , and industriously dispersed , and earnestly recommended to the perusal of protestants , a very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true representation of the doctrines and practises of the church of rome , which he performed with such full and plain evidence , that the misrepresenter hath not so much as attempted to charge him with any one false citation , nor to show in any one particular , that he has misrepresented their doctrines and practises ; but instead of this , in his reflections on the answer ( if the reflecter and misrepresenter be the same person , as he owns himself to be ) he makes fresh complaints of protestants misrepresenting papists ; which if it had been true , is no confutation of that representation which the answerer had made of popery ; the question then was , whether the church of rome believes and practises , as the answerer says she does , and proves by unquestionable authorities that she does . but this was too plainly proved , to be a question any longer , and therefore he rather chose to debate that general question about the rules of representing , and how we must know what is the faith of the church of rome , and whether the bishop of condom's exposition have not a sufficient authority given to it by the pope and cardinals , and bishops of france , and what the authority of private doctors is , and the like ; but has not in any one particular shown wherein the answerer has misrepresented them , that the authorities he alledges are not good , that he has put any forced and unnatural sense upon the words of their council , or catechism , or doctors , or that their church has by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her doctrine or practise . this he has not done , and therefore we have reason to believe this he could not do , and this is reason enough to conclude , that the answer contains a true representation of the doctrines and practises of the church of rome . i did not think such reflections as these worth the notice of the learned answerer , and therefore undertook to reply to them my self , and particularly examined every thing he had said ; in return to this , he publishes another answer , which he calls papists protesting against protestant popery ; and i thought it would come to bare protesting at last , for his reason and argument run very low before ; this i have now considered , and i think have not suffered any thing to escape without an answer ; but that the reader may the better understand what a formidable adversary this is , i shall briefly compare the reply with his answer , and then leave him to judg of the ingenuity and honesty of the protester . in answer to his fresh complaint of misrepresenting , in my reply i considered what it is to misrepresent , viz. to charge them with such doctrines and practises as the church of rome d●sowns ; and proved from his own character of a papist misrepresented , that we are no misrepresenters ; for what he makes us charge them with believing and doing , in the character of a papist misrepresented , that he owns and defends in the character of a papist represented ; and the only difference in most cases between these two characters is this , that in the character of a papist misrepresented he puts in all the ill things which protestants say of their faith and worship , and in the character of a papist represented he says all the good things he can of it ; but this i told him does not belong to representation , but dispute , and therefore whatever guilt we charge their doctrines and practises with , this is not to misrepresent , while we charge them with nothing but what is their faith and practise ; to represent in this sense is only to report matter of fact ; and he who reports truly , cannot misrepresent . if we charge them with any guilt , which they think they are not chargeable with , this becomes matter of dispute ; and it is not enough to confute such a charge , to tell the world , that they do not believe so ill of their own doctrines and practises as we protestants do . by this rule i examined the thirty seven particulars of his character , and carefully distinguished between matters of representation and dispute , and all this he grants , and yet in his answer falls a protesting against protestant popery , as if we had made a new religion for them ; whereas we only tell them what the faults of their religion is ; and this he calls protestant popery , that is , the judgment of protestants concerning popery ; and this he protests against , which is a much easier way than to confute it . and now instead of defending his own characters , wherein he had charged us with misrepresenting papists , and which i had proved , and he in effect granted to be no misrepresentation ; he seeks about to find out some new protestant misrepresenters , and fills up several pages with citations out of the manual of john archbishop of york , mr. sutcliff , and others . now in the first place he ought to have shown , that the distinction between matters of representation and dispute , by which i answer'd his own characters , will not justify these misrepresenters also , as most certainly it will , and a hundred more if he can find them ; but he saies not one word of this , but only cites their words , and calls it misrepresenting . but besides this , he has used very foul play to make misrepresenters of them ; the archbishop only transcribes out of popish authors , and cites his authorities ; the protester sets all down as the archbishops words , without letting his reader know that papists teach these things , and that the archbishop only repeats them after them . but besides concealing the popish authorities to which they refer , he has taken another course with mr. sutcliff , has set down only half sentences , and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he saies , which is in a strict and proper sense to misrepresent . all that he answers to that distinction between representing and disputing , which he allows to be good , is this , that the common people do not distinguish these matters , but look upon all to be equally the faith of papists ; that is , if they hear any man call the worship of images idolatry , they do as verily think that papists believe idolatry lawful ( as he saies in his character ) as that they worship images , risum teneatis ! and thus much for representing . the next dispute is about the rule of representing . in his introduction to a papist misrepresented , &c. he appeals to the council of trent , and catechism ad par●chos ; this the answerer likes well , but tells him , 1. that he shows no authority he hath to interpret that rule in his own sense , against the doctrine of many others as zealous for their church as himself , as he does in the popes personal infallibility , and the deposing power , which he saies , are no articles of faith , though other zealous papists say they are , and asks what authority he has to declare the sence of the council of trent , when the pope has expresly forbidden all prelates to do it , and reserved it to the apostolical see. 2. the answerer tells him , that he leaves out , in the several particulars , an essential part of the character of a papist since the council of trent , which is , that he doth not only believe the doctrine there defined , to be true , but to be necessary to salvation . 3. that he never sets down what it is , which makes any doctrine to become a doctrine of their church . 4. that he makes use of the authority of particular divines , as delivering the sense of their church , when there are so many of greater authority against them : whereas , if we proceed by his own rule , the greater number is to carry it . these were all very material objections , and did deserve to be considered ; but as for the three last , he takes no notice of them in his reflections , and says very little to the first . the answerer had asked , how the council of trent comes to be the rule and measure of doctrine to any here ( in england ) where it was never received ? ( p. 4. ) to this he answers in his reflections , ( p. 5. ) that the council of trent is received here , and all the catholick world , as to all its definitions of faith. but i told him in my reply , ( p. 51. ) that the meaning of that question was not , whether it was owned by private catholicks , but by what publick act of church or state it had been received in england , as it had been in other catholick countries ; and this he says nothing to , and therefore might as well have let it alone at first . i reinforced the bull of pope pius 4th , against any private mans interpreting the council according to his own private sense ; shewed the reason and policy of it , and what a presumption it is for a private man , when their divines differ in their opinions about any doctrine , to call one opinion popery represented , and the other popery misrepresented , as our author has done in the articles of the popes personal infallibility , and the deposing power , as if bellarmin and suarez must not pass for good catholicks , but for misrepresenters , because they do not believe in these points , as our representer does ? and this he takes no further notice of . but to prove that he has not interpreted the council according to his own private sense , he appeals to the bishop of condom's exposition , which is approved by the pope himself , and therefore has the authority of the see apostolick . to this i answered , that bellarmin's controversies had as great an attestation from pope sixtus 5. as the bishop of condom's from this present pope ; to which he gives no answer ; and i observed from canus , that the popes private approbation is not the authority of the see apostolick , but only his judgment , ex cathedra ; and to this he gives no answer , but shuffles a little about a private , malicious , and inconsiderate judgment , which i have now answered , and makes a new flourish about the several translations , and great approbation which has been given to this exposition , which i have again said something to , tho i need not have said any thing , had i before seen the preface to the answer to the bishop of condom , and i guess our author will never mention it more , and then what becomes of his characters . he denied the popes personal infallibility to be an article of faith because not positively determined by any general council . in answer to which i told him , that other roman divines did believe it an article of faith. that the churches infallibility was not determined by any general council , no more than the popes infallibility , and yet was owned by them as an article of faith ; that if there be any infallibility in the church , the pope as the supreme pastor , has the fairest pretence to it . for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute power ; and this he has passed over silently . next comes the deposing power , which has as evidently been declared in general councils , as transubstantiation ; and how comes this to be no article of faith ? to this he answers , that it wants an anathema , and that it is not decreed as a doctrinal point , but as a matter of discipline and government . this i examined at large in my reply , and he is much concerned at it , that i put him out of his representing humour by disputing ; but he thought himself bound in civility to say something to it , and truly he has been wonderfully civil , as appears from what i have already said in answer to him . the answerer in his introduction had proved the deposing doctrine on him , from two sayings of his own , that the orders of the supreme pastor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not , and that popes have own'd the deposing doctrine , and acted according to it : and others are bound to obey their orders , and consequently to act when popes shall require it , according to the deposing doctrine : to this he answers in his reflections , that he only made a comparison between civil and ecclesiastical power , and therefore it is as unjust from hence to infer , that all the orders of the pope must be obey'd , as it would be to say , that subjects must obey their princes in every thing they command , whether it be good or bad : and this i told him in my reply , i would acknowledg to be a good answer , if he would grant the deposing doctrine to be a sin : but this i suppose he was unwilling to do , and therefore we hear no more of this matter . in the next place in his reflections he finds great fault with the answerers way of proceeding , which i reduced to four heads , 1. that the answerer in some points owns the doctrine ( which he has represented to be the faith of a roman-catholick ) to be the established belief of the church of england . this i proved not to be true , by a particular examination of those instances he gave . 2. he charges the answerer with appealing from the definitions of their councils , and sense of their church , to some expressions found in old mass-books , rituals , &c. this i showed also , that the answerer has not done . 3. that he appeals from the declarations of their councils , and sense of their church , to some external action , as in case of respect shewn to images and saints , upon which from our external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of idolatry . whereas he thinks we must not judg of these actions without respect to the intention of the church who commands them , and of the person who does them . 4. that he appeals from their councils and sense of their church , to the sentiments of their private authors . these objections i answered at large in my reply , but he has returned not one word to any of them , excepting the third , and how he has answered that , you have already heard . this is the new way of answering books a la-mode of rome ; but the greatest wits can do no more than the cause will bear , tho a little prudence would teach men to say nothing in such a cause as will admit of no better a defence . finis . errata . page 2. l. 32 for seem , r. been . p. 5. l. 24. for bulgradus , r. busgradus . p. 26. l. 32. dele to p. 27. l. 27. for fine r. fierce p. 35. l. 14. for keep . r. help . l. 34. for you , r. them . p. 100. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ p. 110. l. 13. for 2ly , r 3ly . the pages mistaken from 58. to 73. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59784-e230 pap. p. 12. papists protesting , &c. p. 17. p. 1● . reply , p. 4. p. 23. p. 20. p. 21. pag. 5. card. bona's letter . papists protest . p. 29. condom ' s expos . p. 51. condom ' s expos . p. 51. pag. 4. pag. 4. see a late tract of the object of religious worship . pag. 6. papist misrepresented , p. 3. ed. 2. bellarm. de sanct . beatit . l. 1. c. 20. &c. 18. pag. 6. papists protest . p. 33. pag. 35. p. 35● see d. stillingfleet's defence of the discourse concerning idolatry p. 216. &c. st. aug. de . civit . dei p. 8. c. 27. pag. 9. pag. 6. nam si propterea subsidiis sanctorum uti non liceat , quod unum patronum habemus jesum christum , nunquam id commisisset apostolus , ut se deo tanto studio fratrum viventium precibus adjuvari vellet ; neque enim minus vivorum preces , quam eorum , qui in coelis sunt , sanctorum deprecatio , christi mediatoris gloriam & dignitatem immi●uerent . catech. rom. part . 3. tit. de cultu & vener . sanct . heb. 4. 14. heb. 7. 16. 26. heb. 9. 24. heb. 7. 25. pag. 4. contemplations on the life and glory of holy mary p. 24. ibid p. 5. luke 11. 27. matth. 12. 46. &c. luke 2. 48. 49. john 2. 3 , 4. pag. 7. pag. 9. pag. 9. pag. 9. see dr. stillingfleet's defence of the discourse of idolatry , p. 466 , &c. 1 king. 18. 27. pontif. in bened . nov . erucis . psalm 135. 15 , 16 , 17. vasquez d●sp . 106. c. 1. pag. 9. see dr. stillingst . defence of the disc. of idol . p. 703 , &c. and several conferences between a romish priest , &c. p. 211 , &c. durand . in sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. vasquez disp. 106. c. 1. idem disp. 108. c. 3. c. 9. disp. 109. c. 1. bellarm. de cultu imag. l. 2. pag. 5. greg. de valent . de idolol . l. 2. c. 7. cajent . in aq. 3 p. q. 25. art . 3. suarez disp. 54 sect. 4. de natura deorum , l. 1. c. 27. max. tyrius , dissert . 38. see dr. stillingfleet's defence of the discourse of idolatry , p. 466 , &c. dio chrys. orat. 12. st. aug. in psal. 113. arnob , l. 6. aug. ep. 119. c. 11. arn. l. 1. caesar de bell● civ . l. 2. ovid. fast. 4. exod. 32. 1. see dr. stillingfl . defence of disc. of idolatry , p. 747 , &c isa. 44. 10 , 15 , 17. deut. 4. 15. isa. 40. 18 , 27. acts. 17. 29. tertul de idolo . c. 4. wisdom c 14. v. 15. c. 13. v. 6. levit. 19. 4. psalm . 13515. rom 1. 23. 1 king. 12. 28. 1 king. 16. 31 , 32. 1 king. 18 , 21. 2 king. 10. 16. isa. 40. 18 , 19 , &c. arnob. l. 6. psal. 135. 18. joh 4. 21 , 23 , 24. papists protesting &c. p. 27. p. ●8 . exposition p. 3● . p. 37. doctrines and practises of the church of rome truly represented , p. 6. ed. 2. bulla pii quarti super confirm . concil . trid. reflect . p. 7. reply , p. 44. papists prot. p. 25 reflect . p 8. reply , p. 47. refl . p. 8 , 9. rep. p. 49 , &c refl . p 15 , 16 reply , p. 55. ibid. p. 58. p. 61. p. 63. p. 67. a preservative against popery. [parts 1-2.] being some plain directions to unlearned protestants, how to dispute with romish priests, the first part / by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1688 approx. 376 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 97 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a71330 wing s3326 wing s3342 estc r14776 12336465 ocm 12336465 59803 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a71330) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 59803) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 823:10) a preservative against popery. [parts 1-2.] being some plain directions to unlearned protestants, how to dispute with romish priests, the first part / by will. sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 90, [6], 91, [2] p. printed for william rogers ..., london : m dc lxxxviii [1688]. separate t.p.: the second part of the preservative against popery, shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion ... / by william sherlock ... -london : printed for william rogers ... 1688. "books lately printed for will. rogers": p. [91]-[92] at end of first part. "books lately printed for w. rogers": p. [1] at end of second part. errata: p. 91. reproduction of original in union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -england -controversial literature. anti-catholicism -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-02 john latta sampled and proofread 2005-02 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur liber cui titulus , a preservative against popery , &c. febr. 2 : 1687. guil. needham , r. r. in christo p. ac d.d. wilhelmo archiepisc. cant. à sacr. domest . a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to vnlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part . by will. sherlock , d.d. master of the temple . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . m dc lxxxviii . a preservative against popery . the introduction . while so many learned pens are employed to such excellent purpose , in answering the writings , and confuting the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , i cannot but think it a very useful work to give some plain directions to those , who are vnlearned , who have neither time to read , nor money to buy , nor abilities to vnderstand more learned controversies . our divines indeed have taken great care to write short tracts , with great plainness and perspicuity , and with as little unnecessary shew of learning as may be , to fit them the better for vnlearned readers ; and they have had , by the blessing of god , wonderful success ; popery was never so generally understood , as it is at this day ; the meanest tradesmen can now dispute against popery with sufficient skill and judgment , and need not be beholding to the prejudices of education to secure them : and therefore my business shall not be at present downright to state any one controversie between us , and the church of rome , but to direct our people , how to secure themselves against the attaques of our roman adversaries , to check their conferring and disputing humour , or to baffle them . i shall reduce all into as plain a method and as short a compass as i can , and show . first , how to stop them at the beginning of their dispute . secondly , give some rules about the topicks , from which they dispute , such as reason , scripture , and the authority of the ancient fathers and writers of the church . thirdly , how to answer some of their most popular pretences , such as the vncertainty of the protestant religion , the misrepresentations of popery , &c. fourthly , to give some short directions as to particular controversies . chap. i. how protestants may prevent disputing with papists . now i do not by this mean , that they should always avoid their company , and run away from them where-ever they meet them , which is very ill manners ; though it is not adviseable neither to court such acquaintance , or to make them our intimates , when neither the obligations of nature , nor other civil or political reasons make it necessary ; for conversation many times prevails more than arguments can do , and will as soon corrupt mens faith , as manners . nor do i mean , that protestants should obstinately refuse to discourse with papists when they meet them ; to hear what they have to say for themselves , and to give a reason for their own faith ; this is not agreeable to protestant principles , to prove all things , and to hold fast that which is good ; and yet this ought to be done with great prudence and caution too ; for there are a sort of perverse disputers , who are to be avoided according to the apostolick precept , if any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholsome words , even the words of our lord jesus christ , and to the doctrine which is according to godliness , he is proud , knowing nothing , but doting about questions and strife of words , whereof cometh envy , strife , railings , evil surmizing , perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds , and destitute of the truth , supposing , that gain is godliness , from such withdraw thy self , 1 tim. 6. 3 , 4 , 5. men of weak judgments , and who are not skilled in the laws of disputation , may easily be imposed on by cunning sophisters , and such as lie in wait to deceive : the church of rome is very sensible of this , and therefore will not suffer her people to dispute their religion , or to read heretical books , nay not so much as to look into the bible itself ; but though we allow all this to our people , as that which god not only allows , but requires , and which all considering men will allow themselves , whoever forbids it ; yet we do not allow them to be perpetual seekers , to be always doubtful of their religion , to be like children tossed too and fro with every wind of doctrine . and therefore the liberty of judging and inquiring , which we allow , is only that they may understand the true reasons of their faith , and be well grounded in it , which men may be , who are not able to answer every cavilling objection ; but it is an abuse of this liberty , when men have itching ears , and hearken after all novelties of opinions , and grow wanton and seeptical disputers ; and therefore it is very consistent with that liberty , which protestants allow , to advise christians to be very careful , how they , hearken to such , as preach any new doctrine , which they have not been taught , that the weak in faith and knowledge , should not venture upon doubtful disputations : that they should not be hasty to question , what they have believed , nor to give heed to new doctrines ; that they should not rely on their own understanding in these matters , but when they meet with any difficulties , should consult their spiritual guides , not to be finally determined by their authority , as the church of rome requires , but to hear their reasons , and what answers they can give to such difficulties , as they themselves cannot answer : with such cautions as these , we dare venture our people to hear and read , and enquire , as much as they please , and have not found yet , that our roman adversaries have been able to make any great impression upon such honest and prudent inquirers . but that which i intend at present is of another nature , to teach our people a way to make these men sick of disputing themselves , to make them leave off those impertinent and noisy squabbles , with which they disturb all company they come into : and this is no such mighty secret neither , as may be expected , but is very plain and obvious at the first proposal . for when you are assaulted by such troublesome disputers , only ask them , whether they will allow you to judge for yourselves in matters of religion ; if they will not , why do they trouble you with disputing ? for the end of disputing is to convince , and you cannot be convinced , unless you may judge too : would they dispute with a stone , that can neither hear , nor understand ? or would they make a speech to convince a horse , that he is out of his way , and must take another road , if he would return home ? and do they not talk to as little purpose , and spend their breath as vain upon a man , who can hear indeed , and understand somewhat , but must not follow his own understanding ? if they say , that you must judge for your selves , ask them , whether this be the doctrine of their church , that private men may judge for themselves ? whether this do not resolve our faith into a private spirit , which they say , is the protestant heresie , and the foundation of protestant uncertainty ? if they once open this gap to hereticks into the church , there is great danger , that more will run out at it , than will come in ; and it is well if the church itself staies behind ; for what becomes of the church of rome , if all their glorious cant of the infallibility of church , and popes , and general councils , be at last resolved into a private spirit ! while these men go about to dispute hereticks into their church , they unavoidably give up the cause of the church , and of infallibility , which is the way to dispute a great many good catholicks out of it , who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite faith. here then let our protestant fix his foot , and not stir an inch , till they disown infallibility , and confess , that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of religion , according to the proofs , that are offered to him . for will a wise man dispute with one , who , he knows , banters him all the while ? who appeals to his private judgment ( as all men do , who dispute with one another ) and at the same time cries down this private spirit as the cause of schisms , and heresies , and blasphemies , and every thing that is evil : no man of any spirit , but will scorn to dispute with one , who intends only to put a trick on him , and to out wit him if he can ; and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into popery , when the fundamental principle of popery is , that we must not reason and dispute , but believe ; that we must take our faith upon the authority of the church , without asking any questions about it . there are two or three things , which may be answered to this . 1. that though disputing be not a proper way for papists to take , yet it is the only way , that can be taken with protestants , who are all for disputing , and will believe nothing without a reason , and therefore protestants ought not to blame papists for disputing , unless they would be good catholicks without it . now in answer to this , i have something to say to papists , and something to protestants . 1. as for the papists , what necessity soever they be in of disputing , i desire to know with what face they can reproach protestants with adhering to their own private judgments , when they themselves are such zealous disputants , which is an appeal to every private mans judgment : if ever they make any converts , they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it , for i think men cannot change their opinions without exercising a private judgment about it ; and i suppose when they dispute with men to make them papists , they intend to convert them by their own private judgments . now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn papists , or to turn protestants : one indeed may be false , and the other true , but private judgment is private judgment still , and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments , it is as great a fault in a papist , as it is in a protestant . so that at least as to converts , the church of rome has no advantage in this particular over protestant churches ; some by the exercise of their own reason and judgment go over to the church of rome , and some to the church of england ; some are disputed into popery , and some into protestantism : and therefore for the sake of their beloved converts , and their beloved disputations , they ought to be more favourable to a private spirit : the truth is , by disputing with hereticks , they give up their cause , and confess , that in all disputes of religion , there lies an appeal to every mans private judgment and conscience ; and should they lose this point by their disputing , all the converts they make , cannot recompence such a loss . 2. as for protestants , though they have no other way to satisfie themselves , or to convince others , but by reason and discourse ; yet this is no reason why they should dispute with those men who disown the judgment of reason , as a private spirit . for why should i dispute with any man who uses such arguments to convince me , as he himself does not think a sufficient reason of faith ? ask then one of these disputers , who alledges scripture , reason , and antiquity , to prove any doctrines of the romish faith ; do you , sir , believe transubstantiation , the worship of images , the invocation of saints , purgatory , mass for the dead , upon the bare authority of these scriptures and fathers , you have produced for them ? if these doctrines were not defined by the church , should you think these arguments sufficient to prove them ? or could you suppose , the church had defined the contrary , should you think the arguments good still ? in short , can any reason , any authority of scripture , or fathers , be any foundation for a divine faith , but onely the authority of the church ? he that says , they can , is no papist ; and he that says , they cannot , confesses , that he uses such arguments , as he himself does not build his faith upon : if you will believe them , you may ; but though you do , you are no sound believer , without resolving your faith solely into the authority of the church . and , i think , he must love disputing well , who will dispute with such men as these ; and those must have a good degree of assurance , who will be troublesome with their disputes , after such a discovery . the end of disputing , i suppose , is either toconvince , or to be convinced : but should you answer and baffle all such a man's arguments , if he be modest , it may be he may blush a little , but is not to be moved ; for his faith , after all , is not built upon these arguments , but upon church-authority : and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these arguments , for it will not make you a good catholick , without resolving your faith wholly into the authority of the church . it is certainly a very surprizing thing for a protestant to be disputed into popery ; for as soon as he is converted , he must renounce the very means of his conversion : he must use his own judgment to turn papist , and as soon as he is turned , he must renounce his own judgment , and confess it to be of no authority : now though it may be such a private judgment as leads a man to popery , may as well deserve to be renounced , as any ; yet it is an odd kind of contradiction , to renounce our own private reason and judgment , and yet to own our conversion ; methinks such men should renounce their conversion too at the same time they renounce their reason : for if their conversion be good , it is a sign their judgment was so ; but if their judgment be not fit to be trusted , methinks this should make them question their conversion : and therefore they should either maintain the reputation of their judgment and conversion together , and then they cannot be good catholicks , while they adhere to their own judgment , or they should renounce them both together : nay , they must not onely renounce their own judgments , as soon as they are converted , but they must renounce the authority and validity of those very arguments whereby they are converted , whether from scripture , reason , or fathers ; they must confess , that these arguments are not a sufficient foundation for a divine faith , without the authority of the church ; for it is a dangerous thing to allow any authority to scripture or fathers , without the church , for that may make men hereticks ; and yet , i suppose , when hereticks are converted by these arguments , it must be the force of the arguments , and not the authority of the church , which converts them , unless they believed the authority of the church before they were converted ; and that was a little to early for it . now methinks when protestants turn papists , as they pretend , from the conviction of their own reason and judgment , and as soon as they are converted , are taught , that there is no relying upon their own judgment , and that the reasons whereby they were converted , are not good in themselves without church authority ; if it were possible for them ever to use their reason more after such a change , it would certainly make them disown their conversion ; which , it seems , was the effect of a very fallible judgment , and very uncertain and inauthentick reasons . 2. there is another pretence for these disputes , which may seem to answer this difficulty , that the intention of these disputes , is onely to lead you to the infallible church , and set you upon a rock ; and then it is very natural to renounce your own judgment , when you have an infallible guide . our own judgment then must bring us to the infallible guide , and when we have found him , we have no farther use for our own judgment . i answer , 1. should we grant this , it puts an end to all the particular disputes of religion between us and the church of rome : we may dispute on about an infallible judge , but they cannot , with any sence , dispute with us about the particular articles of faith , such as transubstantiation , the sacrifice of the mass , the worship of images , and the like ; for these are to be learnt onely from the church , and cannot be proved by scripture or fathers , without the authority of the church . and if they would confess this , they would save us , and themselves , a great deal of trouble : for why should they be at the trouble of writing such arguments , or we to answer them , when they themselves confess , that the arguments are not good , unless they be confirmed by the churches authority ? i confess , i have often wondered to see such volumes of controversies written by the roman divines , for i could never imagine to what end they are writ . is not their faith wholly resolved into the authority of the church ? what need reasons and arguments then , which cannot work faith in us ? either these arguments are sufficient to confirm the articles of their faith without the authority of the church , or they are not : if they are , then there is no need of infallibility , since all the articles of faith are confirmed by such reasons , as are a sufficient foundation for faith without it : and thus they give up all their arguments for an infallible judge , from the necessity of such a judge . if they be not , of what use are they ? does the decision of the church need to be confirmed by such arguments ? if they are not good arguments without the authority of the church , they can no more give authority to the church , than an infallible church can want any authority , but it s own : are they to convince hereticks ? but how if hereticks should confute them ? if they be not in themselves good arguments , they may be confuted ; and they know , by sad experience , that there are hereticks , as they call them , who have wit and learning enough to confute , what is to be confuted ; and if they fall into such hands ( which has been their hard fate of late ) they are sure to be confuted : and , i doubt then , they had better have let them alone ; for the catholick cause may suffer much in the opinion of the world , when all their arguments are confuted . all then that they can design by such arguments , is to impose upon the weak and ignorant , when learned men are out of the way , which is no very commendable design ; and that design will be spoiled too , if unlearned men do but learn to ask them the question , whether they build their faith upon such arguments ? for then they must either quit the authority of their church , or the strength of their arguments : the first reduces them to protestant uncertainty , for then they have no other foundation for their faith , than protestants have ; which resolves it self into the reasons and arguments of faith : the second puts an end to disputing about these matters ; for no man needs answer any arguments , which the disputant himself acknowledges not to be good . 2. there is nothing left then for dis●utation , and the exercise of our private reason and judgment , but the inquiry after an infallible judge . and here also , before you dispute , it will be necessary to ask them , whether the belief of an infallible judge , must be resolved into every mans private judgment ? whether it be not necessary to believe this with a divine-faith ? and whether there can be any divine faith without an infallible judge ? certainly if ever it be necessary to have an infallible faith , it is so to be infallibly assured of an infallible judge , because this is the foundation of all the rest : for though the judge be infallible , if i be not infallibly assured of this , i can never arrive to infallibility in any thing ; for i cannot be more certain , that his determinations are infallible , than i am , that he himself is infallible ; and if i have but a moral assurance of this , i can be but morally assured of the rest ; for the building cannot be more firm than the foundation is : and thus there is an end to all the roman pretences to infallibility . now if we must believe the infallibility of the church , or pope of rome , with an infallible faith , there is an end of disputing ; for no reasons or arguments , not the authority of the scripture it self , without an infallible judge , can beget an infallible faith , according to the roman doctors : for this reason they charge the protestant faith with uncertainty , and will not allow it to be a divine , but humane faith , though it is built upon the firmest reasons , the best authority , and the most express scripture that can be had for any thing ; but because we do not pretend to rely on the authority of a living infallible judge , therefore , forsooth , our faith is uncertain , humane , and fallible : and this , they say , makes an infallible judge necessary , because without him we have no infallible certainty of any thing . now if nothi●● but an infallible judge can be the foundation of an infallible faith , then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a judge ; for disputing is nothing else but weighing reason against reason , and argument against argument , or scripture against the pretence of scripture ; but whoever gets the better of it this way , no reasons , or arguments , or scripture proofs can beget an infallible certainty , which is necessary in this case ; and therefore this is all lost labour , and they do but put a trick upon you , when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an infallible judge ; for they themselves know , and must confess , if you ask them , that the best and must convincing arguments cannot give us an infallible assurance of this matter ; and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible judge , it is all to no purpose . 3. i can think but of one thing more , that can be said in this cause , viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the church of rome , that liberty which all men and churches challenge , to dispute for themselves , and against their adversaries : for when two men , or two churches differ in matters of faith , there is no other way to end the controversie , but by disputing it out ; whereas this discourse will not allow them to dispute , nor any protestants to dispute with them . in answer to this , i grant , that the charge is in a great measure true , and shews the absurdity of that church and religion , but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method . if men will embrace such a religion as will not admit of disputing , it is their own and their religions fault , not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them . now a religion which leaves no room for the exercise of reason and private judgment , leaves no place for disputes neither ; for how shall men dispute , who must not use their own reason and judgment ? they ought not to dispute themselves , if they be true to their own principles ; and no man ought to dispute with them , who will not be laugh'd at by them , and by all the world : for to dispute without reason , is a new way of disputing , ( though it is the only thing that can justifie the romanists , and our late disputants have been very careful to observe it ; ) and to dispute with reason , is to use our private reason in religion , which is protestant heresie . infallible men ought not to dispute , for that is to quit their infallibility ; and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them , because no good can come of it : for reason can never confute their infallible adversaries , nor make themselves infallible believers . but for the better understanding of this , i have two things to say . 1. that papists may dispute against protestant heresies , as they call them , but cannot dispute for their own religion . 2. protestants may dispute against popish doctrines , and to vindicate their own faith , but cannot reasonably be disputed into popery . 1. that papists may dispute against protestant heresies , but cannot dispute for their own religion : and the reason of this difference is plain , because protestants allow of reason and discourse in matters of religion ; and therefore they may be confuted , if good reasons can be produced against them : and here the romanists may try their skill ; but the religion of rome is not founded on reason , but on infallibility ; and therefore is not the subject of a dispute , because the truth and certainty of those doctrines , is not resolved into the reasons of them . they ought to alledge no other ground of their faith , but the infallibility of the church ; and they ought not to dispute about this neither : but those who will believe it may , and those who won't , may let it alone , because infallibility is not to be proved by reason ; for reason proves nothing infallibly , and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the churches infallibility . but you will say , if they have other arguments for the truth of their faith , besides the infallibility of the church , why may they not urge those other reasons and arguments to convince those , who will not own the churches infallibility ? i answer , because whatever other reasons they have , their faith is not resolved into them ; and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the reasons of their faith , which are not the reasons why they believed : for let me ask them , suppose they may have very good reasons for some of their doctrines , do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable ? if they say they do , then they believe just as protestants believe ; and there is no need of infallibility , when men believe nothing but what is reasonable ; and it is pity that so good a thing as infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable faith. let me ask them again , can they have a sufficient certainty , that these reasons are good , without an infallible judge ? if they can , then the faith of protestants , which is grounded upon rational evidences , may be very certain too , though it be not infallible ; if they cannot , then their reasons are none , since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible authority ; and therefore they are no certain reasons , that is , not such as a man may rely on , when they are separated from infallibility ; and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from infallibility , because they themselves do not think them good reasons , that is , not a sufficient foundation of faith alone : and then i know not why they should be urged at all ; for infallibility can stand by it self , without the support of any reasons . i ask them again , would they reject those doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident reasons , did they see those reasons as evidently confuted ? if they would not , then it is plain , they do not believe them for the sake of those reasons ; for if they did , they would reject them , when all their reasons were confuted : they only impose upon the world with a pretence and flourish of reason , and set up a man of straw for protestants to shoot at ; but whatever becomes comes of their reasons , they have a safe retreat into infallibility . if they believed any doctrine because it is reasonable , if they will be true to themselves , they ought to reject all doctrines , which are unreasonable , or contrary to sense and reason : he who believes for the sake of reason , can never believe against it ; for if reason makes a thing credible , then what is unreasonable is incredible too ; and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by reason , as believe what reason contradicts : and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of reason in any case , who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable doctrine as transubstantiation . now whatever opinion protestants have of reason , papists ought not to pretend to it , because their faith has nothing to do with reason : it is a reproach to an infallible church and infallible faith , to need the supports of reasons . and the truth is , those who will have nothing to do with reason , reason commonly has as little to do with them , but owes them a shame , whenever they pretend to her ; and therefore they had as good let her alone . 2. protestants may dispute against popish doctrines , and to vindicate their own faith , but they cannot reasonably be disputed into popery . when papists alledge scripture , reason , or humane authority for any doctrines of their religion , protestants , who allow of the use of reason in religion , may examine and confute them : when papists dispute against protestant doctrines , protestants are concerned to vindicate their own faith , or to renounce it ; but if a protestant understands himself and his own principles , all the disputes in the world can never make him a papist . for to be a papist does not signifie meerly to believe transubstantiation , or the worship of saints and images , and such-like popish doctrines ; but to resolve our faith into the infallible authority of the church , and to believe whatever the church believes , and for no other reason , but because the church teaches it . this is the peculiar and distinguishing character of the church of rome , which divides it from all other churches and sects of christians ; and therefore our late popish writers are certainly in the right , to endeavour to bring the whole controversie to this issue ; not to dispute about particular doctrines , which follow on course , when once you believe the church to be infallible ; but to perswade men that the church is infallible , and that the church of rome is that infallible church . now i say , no understanding protestant can be disputed into this kind of popery , and that for two plain reasons . 1. because no arguments or disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the church . 2. because it is impossible by reason to prove , that men must not use their own reason and judgment in matters of religion . 1. no arguments can give me an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the church . the great motive to any man to forsake the other communions of christians , and to go over to the church of rome , is to attain an infallibility in faith , which is a wonderful good thing , if it were to be had ; but though the church of rome were infallible , and i should be convinced that there were some reason to think so , yet unless i can be infallibly assured of it , my faith is still as fallible as the protestant faith is ; and i am no nearer to infallibility in the church of rome , than in the church of england . for as i observed before , unless i can have an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the church , i can have no infallibility at all : though the church were infallible in all her decrees , i can never be infallibly certain of the truth of her decrees , unless i be infallibly certain that she is infallible . it is a known rule in logic , that the conclusion must follow the weaker part , and therefore it is impossible to infer an infallible faith from the fallible belief of the churches infallibility . and yet the best reasons in the world ( which is all that disputing can do , to offer reasons for our faith ) cannot give us an infallible certainty , because reason it self is not an infallible principle , at least the church of rome dares not own , that any mans private reason and judgment is infallible ; for then protestants may set up for infallibility as well as papists . no man , by reason and argument , can arrive at a greater certainty than protestants may have , and yet no man can arrive at greater certainty in the way of disputing , than reason and argument can give him ; and then a popish convert , who is reasoned into the belief of infallibility , though he has changed his opinion , yet has no more infallibility now , than he had when he was a protestant . protestants , without an infallible church , may have all the certainty that reason and argument can give them ; and a convert has no greater certainty ( if he have no more than what disputing could give him ) for his infallible church : and how is it possible then , that a reasonable man can be disputed out of the church of england into the church of rome , upon such vain hopes of a more infallible certainty ? for let him go where he will , if he be lead to rome it self by his own fallible reason and judgment , ( which is the only guide he has in disputing ) he will be the same fallible creature that ever he was . but to represent this the more familiarly , let us hear a short conference between a sturdy protestant , and a new convert . prot. o , my old friend ! i am glad to meet you , for i have longed to know what change you find in your self , since you are become an infallible believer . conv. i find , sir , what i expected , very great ease and satisfaction of mind , since i am delivered from all doubtful disputes in such an important concernment as the salvation of my soul , and have a firm and sure rock to trust to , such an infallible church as cannot err it self , nor mis-guide me . prot. this , i confess , is a very great advantage ; and therefore as we have been formerly of the same church and communion , i would be glad to keep you company also in so advantageous a change . pray therefore tell me , how you came to be so infallibly perswaded of the infallibility of your church . conv. with all my heart ; and i shall be very glad of such company : and indeed there are such powerful reasons for it , as i am sure must convince so free and ingenuous a mind , as you always carry about with you . for christ has promised to build his church upon st. peter , and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it — prot. hold , good sir ! reason ! are you got no farther than reason yet ? will reason ever make a man infallible ? i have considered all the reasons that are used to this purpose , and know what to say to them , if that were our business ; and the truth is , i have a great deal of unanswerable reason , to stay where i am ; and am a little surprized , to think that you , or any man , should leave the church of england for want of reason , or go to the church of rome for it : and therefore pray tell me the secret , for there must be something else to make converts , besides reason . conv. then i perceive you take me for a knave , who have changed my religion for base secular ends , without reason . prot. you know that best ; but that was not my meaning : but the reason of my question was , because you changed for an infallible faith. now if you rely still upon reason , i don't see how your faith is more infallible than mine : for i am as confident , as you can be , that i have as good reasons for my faith , and in my opinion much better , than you have for yours . conv. i beg your pardon for that : i rely upon the authority of an infallible church , you trust to your private reason . prot. and i beg your pardon , sir : for i rely on the authority of scripture , which is as infallible as your church . conv. but you rely on your own reason for the authority of scripture , and those particular doctrines you draw from it . prot. and you rely on your own reason and judgment , for the infallibility of your church , and consequently of all the doctrines of it ; and therefore your infallible faith is as much resolved into your own fallible judgment , as the protestant faith is : so that the difference between us is not , that your faith is infallible , and ours fallible ; for they are both alike , call it what you will , fallible or infallible ; but the dispute is , whether your reason and judgment , or ours , be best : and therefore if you think your reason better than ours , you did well to change ; but if you changed your church , hoping to grow more infallible by it , you were miserably mistaken , and may return to us again : for we have more rational certainty than you have , and you have no more infallible certainty than we . you think you are reasonably assured that your church is infallible , and then you take up your religion upon trust from your church , without , and many times against sence and reason , according as it happens ; so that you have onely a general assurance of the infallibility of your church , and that no greater than protestants pretend to in other cases , viz. the certainty of reason and argument ; but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular doctrines : that if you be mistaken about the infallibility of your church , you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else , which you have no other evidence for . but now we are in general assured , that the scriptures are the word of god , and in particular are assured , that the faith , which we profess , is agreeable to scripture , or expresly contained in it , and does not contradict either sence or reason , nor any other principle of knowledge . so that we have as much assurance of every article of our faith , as you have of the infallibility of your church ; and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have . but if you know the reasons of your conversion , i desire to know of you , what made you think , that you wanted certainty in the church of england ? conv. because with you every man is left to his own private reason and judgment , the effects of which , are very visible in that infinite variety of sects among you , which shews what an uncertain thing your reason is , that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same reasons . prot. and were you not sensible at the same time , that you were left to your own reason and judgment , when you turned papist ? are you not sensible , that men do as little agree about your reasons for infallibility , as they do about any protestant reasons ? do not i know the reasons alledged by you for the infallibility of your church , as well as you do ? and do we not still differ about them ? and is not this as much an argument of the uncertainty of those reasons , which make you a papist , that they cannot make me a papist , as the dissent of protestants in other matters , is of the uncertainty of their reasons ? could you indeed be infallibly assured of the infallibility of your church , i grant you would have the advantage of us , but while you found your belief of infallibility upon such an uncertain principle , as you think reason is ; if certainty had been your onely aim , you might as well have continued in the church of england , as have gone over to rome . this abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a protestant to be disputed out of his church and religion , upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the church of rome : were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance , that the church of rome is infallible , there might be some pretence for this ; but an infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private reason , and private judgment , is no infallibility , but has all the same uncertainties , which they charge on the protestant faith , and a great deal more , because it is not founded upon such great and certain reasons . the plain truth is , men may be taught from their infancy to believe the church infallible , and when they are grown up , may take it , without examination , for a first and self-evident principle , and think this an infallible faith : but men who understand the difference between the evidence of reason and infallibility , can never found an infallible faith on reason , nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the infallibility of the church , is more infallible in his faith , than a protestant is : and such a man will see no reason to quit the church of england , for the sake of an infallible faith ; for though they had an infallible guide , yet reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it , but can rise no higher at most than a protestant certainty . 2. it is impossible also by reason to prove , that men must not use their own reason and judgment in matters of religion . if any man should attempt to perswade you of this , ask him , why then he goes about to dispute with you about religion ? whether men can dispute without using their own reason and judgment ? whether they can be convinced without it ? whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your reason , does not prove him ridiculous and absurd ? for if you must not use your reason , why does he appeal to your reason ? and whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he , if by his reasons and arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of reason in religion ? which would be in the same act to do , what you condemn , to use your reason when you condemn it . if you must not use your reason and private judgment , then you must not by any reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of reason ; for to condemn is an act of judgment , which you must not use in matters of religion . so that this is a point which no man can dispute against , and which no man can be convinced of by disputing , without the reproach of self-contradiction . this is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous disputants , to let them see , that their principles will not allow of disputing , and that some of their fundamental doctrines , which they impose upon the world , are a direct contradiction to all disputes , for the very admitting of a dispute , confutes them ; and the meanest man may quickly say more in this cause , than their greatest disputants can answer . chap. ii. concerning the several topicks of dispute . sect . i. concerning arguments from reason . 2. the next direction relates to the topicks from which they dispute ; which are , either reason , scripture , or the authority of the ancient fathers and writers of the christian church ; for the infallible authority of popes , or general councils , is the thing in dispute between us , and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by something else . 1. to begin then with reason : now we do allow of reason in matters of religion ; and our adversaries pretend to use it , when they think it will serve their turn , and rail at it , and despise it , when it is against them . not that we make natural reason the rule or the measure of our faith ; for to believe nothing but what may be proved by natural reason , is to reject revelation , or to destroy the necessity of it : for what use is there of a revelation , or at least what necessity of it , if nothing must be revealed , but what might have been known by natural reason without revelation ; or at least what natural reason can fully comprehend , when it is revealed ? but though we believe such things , when they are revealed by god , which natural reason could never have taught us , and which natural reason does not see the depths and mysteries of ; and therefore do not stint our faith , and confine it within the narrow bounds of natural reason ; yet we use our reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit revelation , and we use reason to understand a revelation ; and we reason and argue from revealed principles , as we do from the principles of natural knowledge : as from that natural principle , that there is but one god , we might conclude , without a revelation , that we must worship but one god : so from that revealed doctrine of one mediator between god and man , we may as safely conclude , that we must make our applications , and offer up our prayers and petitions to god , onely by this one mediator ; and so in other cases . now to direct protestants how to secure themselves from being imposed on by the fallacious reasoning of roman priests : i shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their way of reasoning ; and when these are once known , it will be an easie matter for men of ordinary understandings , to detect their sophistry . 1. as first , we must allow of no reason against the authority of plain and express scripture : this all men must grant , who allow the authority of scripture to be superiour to natural reason ; for though scripture cannot contradict plain , and necessary , and eternal reasons , i. e. what the universal reason of mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth ; yet god may command such things , as we see no natural reason for , and forbid such things as we see no natural reason against ; nay , it may be , when we think there are plausible reasons against what god commands , and for what he forbids : but in all such cases a divine law must take place against our uncertain reasonings ; for we may reasonably conclude , that god understands the reasons and natures of things , better than we do . as for instance , when there is such an express law as , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve : no reason in the world can justifie the worship of any other being , good or bad spirits , besides god , because there is an express law against it , and no reason can take place against a law. the like may be said of the second commandment , thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image , nor the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above , or in the earth beneath , or in the waters under the earth , thou shalt not bow down to them , nor worship them . which is so express a law against image-worship , that no reason must be admitted for it . no man need to trouble himself to answer the reasons urged for such practices , for no reasons ought to be allowed , nor any dispute admitted against such express laws . this , i suppose , all men will grant : but then the difficulty is , what is an express law ? for the sence of the law is the law ; and if there may be such a sence put on the words , as will reconcile these reasons with the law , we must not say then , that such reasons are against the law , when , though they may be against the law in some sence , yet they are consistent with other sences of the law ; and it is most likely , that is the true sence of the law , which has the best reason on its side . it must be confessed , there is some truth in this , when the words of the law are capable of different sences , and reason is for one sence , and the other sence against reason , there it is fit , that a plain and necessary reason should expound the law : but when the law is not capable of such different sences , or there is no such reason as makes one sence absurd , and the other necessary , the law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the words , though it should condemn that , which we think , there may be some reason for , or at least no reason against ; for otherwise it is an easie matter to expound away all the laws of god. to be sure all men must grant , that such reasons as destroy the law , or put an absurd or impossible sence on it , are against the law , and therefore must be rejected , how plausible soever they appear : as for instance , some there are , who to excuse the church of rome from idolatry in worshipping saints , and angels , and the virgin mary , positively affirm , that no man can be guilty of idolatry , who worships one supreme god ; as a late author expresly teaches : as for the invocation of saints , unless they worship them as the supreme god , the charge of idolatry is an idle word ; and the adoration it self , which is given to them as saints , is a direct protestation against idolatry , because it supposes a superiour deity ; and that supposition cuts off the very being of idolatry . now , not to examine what force there is in this reason , our present inquiry is onely , how this agrees with the first commandment , thou shalt have none other gods before me ? before my face , as it is in the hebrew : which supposes an acknowledgment of the supreme god , together with other gods ; for otherwise , though they worship other gods , they do not do it before the face of god , while they see him , as it were , present before them : to worship other gods in the presence of the supreme god , or before his face , as that phrase signifies , is to worship them together with him ; and therefore this is well expressed by the septuagint , by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me ; which supposes that they worshipped him too . and our saviour expounds this law by , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him onely shalt thou serve . so that this reason , that there can be no idolatry , where the lord jehovah is worshipped as the supreme god , contradicts the very letter of this law. how then does this author get rid of the first commandment ? truly by laying it all aside : for he gives this as the whole sence of the first commandment , that god enjoyns the worship of himself , who , by his almighty power , had delivered them from their aegyptian bondage . but is this all that these words , thou shalt have no other gods before me , signifies ? the worship of god indeed is supposed in them ; but the express words of the law , are not for the worship of the lord jehovah , but against the worship of any other gods , before him , or besides him : but according to our new expositor , this is no part of the law , though according to the express words , it is the principal , if not the whole meaning of it . if this argument be good , viz. that idolatry is nothing else , but the worship of other beings besides the lord jehovah , as supreme gods , then other gods , in this commandment , must signifie other supreme gods ; and then the commandment runs thus : thou shalt have no other supreme gods before me . now this is a very absurd sence , because it supposes , that men may believe and worship more supreme gods than one ; for if there can be but one supreme god , and by gods in the commandment , be meant supreme gods , then it is absurd to forbid any man to have other supreme gods , because no man can acknowledge two supremes : it should have been , thou shalt not have any other god besides me , not gods : for though it had been possible for them to have acknowledged some other god to be supreme , and rejected the lord jehovah from being supreme , yet they could not have other supreme gods. but it is evident , that god here forbids the worship of a plurality of gods , of other gods ; and therefore they could not all be supreme gods. but suppose it had been any other god in the single number , yet to understand this of a supream god , is very absurd ; because there is no other supream god , but the lord jehovah , and those who worship but one supream god , worship him , and none else . for a supream god is not to be pointed at , is not to be distinguished by his person or features , as one man is distinguished from another : indeed a prince may properly say to his subjects , you shall own none but me for your king , because they know his person , and can distinguish him from all other men . but the jews never saw god , nor any likeness or similitude of him ; they were not acquainted with his person , nor could they distinguish him from other gods , by any personal characters ; they knew him only by his notion and character of the supream being , who made the world and all things in it , and brought them by a mighty hand out of the land of aegypt . now does it not found very strange , that the supream god , who is known only by this character , that he is supream , the great creator and soveraign lord of the world , should make a law , that we should worship no other supream god but himself ; when it is absolutely impossible , that he who worships a supream and soveraign god , should worship any other god but himself ▪ because he alone is the supream god ; and therefore those who worship the supream god , under this notion as supream , worship him , and no other being . so that if we will make sense of it , the meaning of the first commandment is plainly this : thou shalt not give divine honours to any other beings , as to inferiour gods , as the idolatrous practice of the world now is , which worships a great many things for gods ; but thou shalt worship only one supream and soveraign being , the maker and soveraign lord of the world , which is i my self , the lord jehovah , who brought thee out of the land of aegypt , out of the house of bondage . when the supream god commands us to worship himself , the meaning must be , that we pay our worship and adorations to a supream being , considered as supream ; and he who worships such a supream being , worships the true god , whom we can distinguish from false gods only by this character , that he is supream : and when this supream being forbids us to worship any other gods , it must signifie , that we must worship nothing which is not supream , not that we must not believe that which is not supream to be the supream god ; which would be ridiculous nonsence , to command them not to own that being for the supream god , which they know not to be supream . but it may be said , that the heathens did worship some beings , who were not the supream god , as supream , as this author tells us , they did the sun , though no body told him so , that i know of ; for macrobius , whom he cites in this cause , does not say , that they worshipped the sun as supream god , though he says that most of the gods they worshipped did signifie the sun : but suppose the sun were the chief object of their worship , and look'd on as the greatest and most principal god , this does not prove that they worshipped it as the supream god : for these are two very different things to be worshipped as the chief god , which such a people have , and to be worshipped under the notion of absolutely supream . some pagan idolaters might worship a creature as their chief and greatest deity , and might call it their great , their greatest god , because it is the greatest god they have ; their king and prince of gods , as mr. selden tells us , they called the sun , as being the chief planet who directed and governed the influences of the rest , not as the maker of the world , as this author asserts : but those who direct their worship to a supream and soveraign being , considered as absolutely supream , infinite in all perfections , the maker and governour of the whole world , can under this notion worship no other but the lord jehovah , because there is no other supream god but he . which shews that the first commandment is so far from forbidding the worship of other supream gods , besides the lord jehovah , that to make sense of it , these other gods must be expounded not of supream , but inferiour deities ; and it is so far from being the notion of idolatry , to worship other supream beings ▪ besides the lord jehovah , that it is nonsence to suppose it . the true notion of idolatry in the first commandment , is to worship some inferiour beings , together with the supream god : it is a grosser sort of idolatry , when men wholly neglect the worship of the supream god , and worship some creature for their greatest and chiefest god ; and it is worse still , when men worship bad spirits , than when they worship good spirits , together with the supream god : but it is evident this law condemns the worship of any inferiour beings , though we do also worship the supream god. i shall give but one instance more of this nature , and that is , the second commandment , which in such express words forbids the worship of all images , of what kind or nature soever . now whatever reasons men may imagine there are for the worship of images , they can be of no force against an express law : and if these words be not express , thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image , &c. i despair of ever seeing an express law ▪ for had god intended by this law to forbid the worship of any images , under what notion or respects soever , i would desire to know what more significant and comprehensive words could have been used to have declared his mind , unless he had expresly rejected those false interpretations , which the patrons of image-worship have since invented , but were never thought on at that time . the same author , whom i have so often mentioned , having expounded the first commandment only to a positive sence , not to forbid the worship of other gods , but only to command the worship of the lord jehovah , expresly contrary to the very letter and plain sense of the law ; agreeably to this , he makes the second commandment only to forbid the worship of idols or false gods , and not that neither , unless they take them for the supreme deity . his words are these : in the next place , he forbids them the worship of all idols , i.e. as himself describes them , the likeness or similitude of any thing that is in heaven above , or in the earth beneath , or in the water under the earth . a plain and indeed a logical definition this , that idolatry is giving the worship of the supream god to any created , corporeal , or visible deity , or any thing that can be represented by an image , which nothing but corporeal beings can , and to suppose such a being the supream deity , is the only true and proper idolatry . now let any man judge , whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys the text. as for his worship of idols , there is no such word in the law , but images , likenesses , similitudes ; but yet i will not dispute about this , for an idol does not only signifie a false god , but the images either of false gods , or false and corporeal images of the true god. for the idols of the heathens , as the psalmist tells us , are silver , and gold , the work of mens hands ; which can relate to nothing but images and pictures : for corporeal deities , which were made by god , are not the work of mens hands . now idolatry , he says , is giving the worship of the supream god to any created , corporeal , or visible deity , or any thing which can be represented by an image , which nothing but corporeal beings can . now how plain and logical soever this definition of idolatry be , there is not a word of it in the text. that forbids not the worship of any created , corporeal , or visible deity , ( which is forbid in the first commandment ) but only the worship of images , the likeness of any thing in heaven , or earth , or in the water under the earth . now an image differs from the thing whose image it is . and it is a very strange exposition of the second commandment , which forbids nothing else but the worship of images , to take no notice of the worship of images as forbid in it . according to this gloss upon the law , a man may worship ten thousand images and pictures , so he do not worship any visible and corporeal deity , and not break this commandment ; which i think is not to give the sense of the law , but to expound it away . but how does the worship of corporeal and visible deities , and nothing else , appear to be forbid by this law , which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in heaven , and earth , and water ? why , our learned author imagines that no images can be made , but only for corporeal and visible deities , because nothing but corporeal beings can be represented by an image : which conceit is worth its weight in gold ; for it evidently proves , that there are no pictures of god the father , nor of the trinity , in the church of rome , because they are not corporeal deities , and therefore cannot be represented by an image : so miserably have all travellers been mistaken , who tell us of a great many such pictures , and not very decent ones neither . there can indeed be no picture or image to represent the likeness and similitude of an incorporeal god , but yet the visible parts of heaven and earth , and the visible creatures in them , may be represented by images , and the images of such visible things may be made the symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal deities ; and such invisible and incorporeal deities may be worshipped in the likeness and similitude of corporeal things ; and then i am sure to forbid the worship of images may signifie something more than meerly to forbid the worship of some visible and corporeal deities ; for it may signifie the worship of invisible and incorporeal deities , by visible images . but i perceive he imagined , that when god forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in heaven , in earth , or in the waters under the earth , he only forbad the worship of those beings , whose likeness or images they made ; whereas all men know , that those very idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the creation , did not represent them in their proper likenesses and figures ; and that those who worshipped invisible and incorporeal beings , did it by material and visible figures : which plainly proves , that when god forbad the worship of images , he had not respect meerly to visible and corporeal deities , but forbad image-worship , whether they were the images of visible and corporeal , or of invisible and incorporeal deities . our author durst not say ( as the roman advocates do ) that god in the second commandment only forbids the worship of images as gods ; which is such glorious nonsence , that he could not digest it : and therefore he supposes , that god does not forbid the worship of images at all , but only of such corporeal deities as may be represented by images ; which is a more gentile way of discarding the second commandment , than to leave it out of their books of devotions . but if he will stand to this , he condemns the popish worship of dead men and women , for they are corporeal deities ; nay , of christ himself , considered as a man , who might be represented by an image or picture . and thus i doubt he has done the church of rome no kindness at all : for this is a demonstration against the worship of saints , and the virgin mary , because they are created , corporeal , and visible beings , who may be represented by images ; and he has thought of an argument against images , which neither the scripture , nor the church of rome , know any thing of : the church of rome thinks it a good argument for the images of christ , and the saints , and the virgin mary , that they are representable by images and pictures ; and therefore there can be no hurt in such images : and the scripture perpetually urges that argument against images , that the deity cannot be represented by an image ; but neither of these arguments are good , if our author's notion be good : for then to worship such corporeal beings , as may be represented by images , is to worship corporeal gods , which is idolatry . and there is no danger in the images of an incorporeal deity , which cannot represent the god for which they are made ; for whatever the image be , this is not to worship a corporeal god , since we know him to be incorporeal , and therefore it is not idolatry . but he has one salvo still to excuse those from idolatry , who worship even corporeal gods , ( for he speaks not a word of worshipping the images of any gods ) that they are not idolaters , unless they worship such corporeal gods , supposing them to be the supream deity ; whereby he explains what he means by giving the worship of the supream god to any created , corporeal , or visible deity ; viz. to think such a god to be the supream god , is to worship it as supream . and thus those who worshipped the sun , not thinking him to be the supream god , but the chief minister of providence under the supream god , with reference to this lower world , as most of the sun-idolaters seemed to do , were not idolaters . nay , very few of the philosophers , though they worshipped their country gods , were idolaters , because they either did not believe them to be any gods , or at least not to be the supream ; as it is certain socrates , and plato , and tully , and many others did not . but it is plain , that to worship the supream god , is not meerly to suppose him to be supream ; for st. paul tells us , that there were some , who knew god , but did not worship him as god ; and therefore there is an external and visible . worship , which is due to the supream god , as well as the belief , that he is supream : and if this worship which is due to the supream god , be given to any being which we our selves do not believe to be supream , we are idolaters ; and then though we do not believe the gods we worship to be supream , any kind or degree of religious worship , ( or which is used as an act of religion , not as common and civil respects ) is idolatry . this commandment brings it as low as meerly bowing to an image , and then i doubt no other act of religious worship can escape the charge of idolatry . but though it is not my business to persue this author , i cannot pass over the very next paragraph , where he observes , though there may seem to be two sorts of it , ( this idolatry in worshipping corporeal beings ) first either to worship a material and created being , as the supream deity : or secondly , to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the divine nature , yet in result , both are but one ; for to ascribe unto the supreme god any corporeal form , is the same thing as to worship a created being , for so is every corporeal substance . which is a very wonderful paragraph : for thus some of the ancient christians , who believed god to be corporeal , ( as tertullian himself did ) but yet did not believe that he was created , but that he created all things , were as very idolaters , as those who worshipped the sun or earth : and i would gladly know , who those men are , who ascribe unto the supreme god , a corporeal form , and yet think , that he was created . i am apt to think they differ a little in their philosophy from our author , and did believe that a corporeal supreme deity might be uncreated ; and then , i suppose , there may be some difference also between their worshipping a corporeal created , and a corporeal uncreated god , at least if mens belief and opinions of things makes a difference , as this author must allow ; for , if i understand him , to worship a corporeal being , without believing it to be supreme , does not make them idolaters , but if they believe it supreme , it does ; and by the same reason , thô to worship a supreme corporeal created deity ( if that be not a contradiction ) be idolatry , yet to worship a corporeal , which they believe to be an uncreated deity , is no idolatry : for though i believe with our author , that all corporeal beings are created , yet , i suppose , those who believed god to be corporeal , did not believe , that every thing , that is corporeal , was created . so that the first and second commandments are very plain and express laws , the one forbidding the religious worship of all inferiour beings , corporeal or incorporeal , with or without the supreme god , or forbidding the worship of all other beings but the supreme god ; the other forbidding the external and visible worship of any material images and pictures : and though i am certain , there can be no good arguments to justifie such practices as are forbid by these laws , yet no christian need trouble himself to answer them , for be they what they will , it is a sufficient answer to them , to say , that they are against an express law. 2. another rule is , in matters of faith , or in such things as can be known onely by revelation , not to build our faith upon any reasons , without the authority of scripture . that this may be the better understood , i shall briefly shew what these things are , which can be known onely by revelation , and therefore which every protestant should demand a plain scripture proof for , before he believes them , whatever reasons are pretended for them : as , 1. whatever depends solely upon the will and appointment of god , which god might do , or might not do , as he pleased . in such cases our onely inquiry is , what god has done ? and this can be known onely by revelation ; for reason cannot discover it , because it depends not upon any necessary reason , but on the free and arbitrary appointment of god : as st. paul tells us , that as no man knows the things of a man , but the spirit of man , that is in him ; so no man knoweth the things of god , but the spirit of god : that is , as no man can tell the secret thoughts and purposes of a man , nor how he will determine himself in matters of his own free choice and election : so what depends purely upon the will of god , is known onely to the spirit of god , and therefore can be made known to us onely by revelation . many such things there are in dispute between us and the church of rome , which depend so intirely upon the will of god , that they may be , or may not be , as god pleases . as for instance , no man , nor company of men , can be infallible , unless god bestow infallibility on them ; for infallibility is not a natural endowment , but a supernatural gift ; and therefore no reason can prove , the bishop of rome , or a general council to be infallible . god may make them infallible , if he pleases , and if he pleases , he may not do it : and therefore our onely inquiry here is , what god has done ? and this can be known onely by revelation . thus that the church of rome onely , and those churches that are in communion with her , should be the catholick church , and the bishop of rome the oecumenical pastor , and the center of catholick unity must depend wholly upon institution , for nothing but the will and appointment of god , can give this preheminence and prerogative to the church and bishop of rome , above all other churches and bishops . no reason then can prove this without plain and express scripture to prove such an institution . were there nothing in scripture or reason to prove , that the sacrament of the lord's supper is not a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead , yet no reason can prove , that it is : for the vertue and acceptation of a sacrifice , intirely depends upon the will and appointment of god , at least so far , that no sacrifice can be propitiatory without it : and therefore there can be no other proof , that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice , but the declaration of god's will and institution , that it shall be so . 2. those things also can be proved onely by scripture , which are done in the other world , which is an unknown and invisible state to us , any farther than the scripture has revealed it : and men may more reasonably expect to find out , by the power of reason , what is done every day in china , or the most remote and unknown parts of the earth , than what is done in the other world. and then there are a great many things wherein you must reject all pretences to reason , any farther than it is supported by plain and evident scripture . as to give some instances of this also : 1. no reason can prove , that there is such a place as purgatory , for that is an invisible place in the other world ; if there be any such place , no man living ever saw it ; and then how can any man know , that there is such a place , unless it be revealed ? to attempt to prove , that there is such a place as purgatory , meerly by reason , is just as if a man , who had some general notion of an inquisition , but never had any credible information , that there actually was any such place , should undertake to prove , by reason , that there is and must be such a place as the inquisition ; though he would happen to guess right , yet it is certain his reasons signified nothing ; for some countries have the inquisition , and some have not ; and therefore there might have been no inquisition any where , how strong soever the reasons for it might be thought to be . we may as well describe , by the power of reason , the world in the moon , and what kind of inhabitants there are there , by what laws they live , what their business , what their pleasures , and what their punishments are , as pretend to prove , that there is a purgatory in the next world , for they are both equally unknown to us ; and if reason cannot prove that there is such a place as purgatory , nothing else which relates to purgatory , can be proved by reason . 2. nor can we know what the state of saints in heaven is , without a revelation , for no man has been there to see : the state of the other world is such things as neither eye hath seen , nor ear heard , neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive . and then i cannot understand how we should know these things by reason . the church of rome teaches us to pray to saints , and to flie to their help and aid : and there are a great many things which a wise man would desire to know , before he can think it fit to pray to them ; which yet it is impossible to know , without a revelation : as , whether the saints we direct our prayers to , be in heaven ? which is very fit to be known , and yet can certainly be known but of a very few of that vast number , that are worshipped in the church of rome ; the apostles of christ , and the virgin mary , we have reason to believe are in heaven , and we may hope well of others , but we cannot know it : no man can see who is there , and bare hope , how strong soever , is not a sufficient foundation for such a religious invocation of unknown saints , who , after all our perswasions that they are in heaven , may be in hell , or at least in purgatory , where they want our prayers , but are not in a condition to interceed for us . thus it is very necessary to know , what the power and authority of the saints in heaven is , before we pray to them ; for it is to no purpose to pray to them , unless we know they can help us . the council of trent recommends to us the invocation of saints , as of those who reign with christ in heaven , and therefore have power and authority to present our petitions , and procure those blessings we pray for . and if i could find any such thing in scripture , it would be a good reason to pray to them ; but all the arguments in the world cannot prove this without a revelation : they may be in heaven , and not be mediators and advocates . thus , whatever their power and authority may be , it is to no purpose to pray to them , unless we are sure , that they hear our prayers ; and this nothing but a revelation can assure us of ; for no natural reason can assure us , that meer creatures , as the most glorious saints in heaven are , can hear our soft , nay mental prayers , at such a vast distance , as there is between heaven and earth . such matters as these , which reason can give us no assurance of , if they be to be proved at all , must be proved by scripture ; and therefore as the pretence of proving these things by reason is vain , so no protestant should be so vain , as to trouble himself to answer such reasons . but you 'll say , the papists do pretend to prove these things by scripture . i answer , so far it is very well ; and i onely desire our protestant to keep them to their scripture proofs , and to reject all their reasons ; and then let them see , what they can make of it . as for scripture-proofs , they shall be considered presently . 3. more particularly you must renounce all such reasons , as amount to no more than some may-bes and possibilities ; for what onely may be , may not be , and every thing that is possible , is not actually done . as for instance : when you ask these men , how you can be assured , that the saints in heaven can hear our prayers ? they offer to shew you by what ways this may be done : they may see all things in the glass of the trinity , and thereby know all things , that god knows . which is but a may-be ; and yet it is a more likely may-be , that there is no such glass as gives the saints a comprehensive view of all that is in god. well , but god can reveal all the prayers to the saints , which are made to them on earth . very right ! we dispute not god's power to do this , but desire to know , whether he does it or not ; and his bare power to do it , does not prove that : but the saints in heaven may be informed of what is done on earth , by those who go from hence thither , or by those ministring angels who frequently pass between heaven and earth : but this may not be too ; and if it were , it would not answer the purposes of devotion : for in this way of intercourse the news may come too late to the saints , to whom we pray , for the saints to do us any good : as , suppose a man pray to the virgin mary in the hour of death , or in a great storm at sea , the man may be dead , and ship wrackt before the virgin knows of his prayers , and may carry the first news of it into the other world himself . such kind of may-bes and conjectures as these , are a very sorry foundation for an infallible church to build her faith on . 4. you must reject also all such reasons in divine and spiritual things , as are drawn from earthly patterns . a considering man would a little wonder , how a papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other world , without speaking with any one who has seen it , and without having any revelation about it , as i have already observed ; but whoever considers many of their arguments , will soon find that they make this world the pattern of the next , and reason from sensible to spiritual things . thus the true foundation of saint-worship is , that men judge of the court of heaven by the courts of earthly princes : the most effectual way to obtain any request of our prince , is to address our selves to some powerful favourite ; and they take it for granted , that all saints and angels in heaven are such favourites , and can obtain whatever they ask ; and therefore they pray very devoutly to them , and beg their intercession with god and their saviour . especially in earthly courts the queen mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young prince her son ; and therefore they do not doubt but the virgin mary , the mother of christ , can do what she pleases with her son ; and since it is generally observed , that women are more soft , and tender , and compassionate , than men , they hope to gain that by her intercession , which he , who died for them , would not grant without it ; and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a mother , that is , to take the authority of a mother upon her , and command her son. thus princes and great men love to have their pictures set up in publick places , and to have all civil respects paid to them , which redounds to the honour of those whose pictures they are ; and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to christ and the saints , as it is to men ; as if the other world were nothing else but a new scene of sense and passion . mankind is very apt to such kind of reasonings as these ; and indeed they can have no other , when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things : but if there be any difference between the court of heaven and earth , if pure spirits , who are separated from flesh and sense , have other passions and resentments than men have , that is , if we must not judge of spiritual things by sense , of the government of god by the passions of men , then such reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish superstitions , but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded acts of worship . 5. never admit any arguments meerly from the usefulness , conveniency , or supposed necessity of any thing , to prove that it is . as for instance : a supream oecumenical bishop , and an infallible judge of controversies , are thought absolutely necessary to the unity of the church , and certainty of faith , and confounding of schisms and heresies . if there be not a supream pastor , there can be no unity ; if there be not an infallible judge , there can be no certainty in religion ; every man must be left to his own private judgment , and then there will be as many different religions , as there are faces . now if i thought all this were true , ( as i believe not a word of it is ) i should only conclude , that it is great pity that there is not an universal pastor and infallible judge instituted by christ ; but if you would have me conclude from these premises , ergo , there is an universal bishop and head of the church , and an infallible judge of controversies , i must beg your pardon for that ; for such arguments as these do not prove , that there is such a judge , but only that there ought to be one , and therefore i must conclude no more from them . indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning , because what we may call useful , convenient , necessary , may not be so in it self ; and we have reason to believe it is not so , if god have not appointed what we think so useful , convenient , or necessary : which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning , than to conclude that god has appointed such a judge , when no such thing appears , only because we think it so useful and necessary , that he ought to do it . these directions are sufficient to preserve all considering protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious reasonings of papists . sect . ii. concerning scripture-proofs . 2. let us now consider their scripture-proofs , though it is not choice , but necessity , which puts them upon this tryal : when they have good catholicks to deal with , a little scripture will serve the turn , but hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else ; and therefore in disputing with them , they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their doctrines by scripture ; but they come very unwillingly to it , and make as much of a little , as may be . the truth is , there is evidence enough , that they have no great confidence in the scripture themselves , and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor hereticks , when they make their boasts of scripture . for did they believe that their doctrines which they endeavour to prove from scripture , were plainly and evidently contained in them , why should they deny the people the liberty of reading the scriptures ? if the scriptures be for them , why should they be against the scriptures ? the common pretence is , that those who are unlearned , put very wild sences upon scripture , and expound it by their own fancies ; which in many cases indeed is too true : but why should the church of rome be more afraid of this , than other protestant churches ? if they think the scripture is as much for them , as we think it is for us , why dare not they venture this as well as we ? we are not afraid men should read the scripture , though we see what wild interpretations some put on them , because we are certain we can prove our faith by scripture , and are able to satisfie all honest men , who will impartially study the scriptures , that we give the true sence of them ; and if they believed , they could do so too , why do they avoid this tryal , when ever they can ? for though they admit people to dispute from the scripture in england , where they cannot help it , yet they will not allow them so much as to see the scriptures in italy or spain , where they have power to hinder it : nay they themselves do in effect confess , that the peculiar doctrines and practices of their religion , wherein they differ from all other christian churches , cannot be proved by scripture . and therefore to help them out , where the scripture fails , they fly to unwritten traditions , which they make of equal authority with the scriptures themselves ; which they would never do , were they not convinced , that the scriptures are not so plain on their side , as to satisfie any man , who has not already given himself up to the church of rome with an implicite faith. and therefore , before you enter into any debate about the sence of any particular texts of scripture , and their way of proving their particular doctrines from scripture , ask them two questions , without a plain answer to which , it is to no purpose to dispute with them out of scripture . ask 1. whether they will allow the holy scriptures to be a complete and perfect rule of faith ; that no christian ought to receive any doctrine for an article of faith , which cannot be proved from scripture ? this to be sure they must not allow , unless they will reject the council of trent , which gives as venerable an authority to tradition , as to scripture it self : since then they have two rules , scripture and tradition ; when they pretend to dispute from scripture , it is reasonable to know of them , whether they will stand to scripture , and reject such a doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of scripture : for if they will not stand to this , they give up their cause , and there is no need to dispute with them : for why should i dispute with any man from scripture , who will not stand to the determination of scripture ? we protestants indeed do own the authority of scripture ; and what we see plainly proved out of scripture , we must abide by : which is reason enough for us to examine the scripture-proofs which are produced by our adversaries . but it is sufficient to make them blush , if they had any modesty , to pretend to prove their doctrines from scripture , when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the authority of scripture , and dare not put their cause upon that issue ; which gives a just suspicion , that they are conscious to themselves , that their scripture-proofs are not good , and should make protestants very careful , how they are imposed on by them . to dispute upon such principles as are not owned on both sides , can establish nothing , tho' it may blunder and confound an adversary ; it is onely a tryal of wit , where the subtilest disputant will have the victory ; and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute upon these terms . this is not to reject the authority of scriptures , because the papists reject it , which no protestant can or will do , but it is an effectual way for men , who are not skilled in disputations , to deliver themselves from the troublesome importunities of popish priests , when learned men , who can detect their fallacies , are out of the way . let them but ask them , whether all the peculiar doctrines of the church of rome can be proved by plain scripture-evidence ? if they say , they can ; then they must reject the necessity of unwritten traditions , and acknowledge the scripture to be a complete and perfect rule of faith. a point , which i believe , no understanding priest will yeild . if they say , they cannot ; ask them , with what confidence they pretend to prove that from scripture , which they confess is not in it ? why they go about to impose upon you , and to perswade you to believe that upon the authority of scripture , which they themselves confess , is not , at least not plainly , contained in scripture . 2. ask such disputants , who alledge the authority of scripture to prove their popish doctrines , how they themselves know what the sence of scripture is , and how you shall know it ? for it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by scripture , unless there be a certain way of finding out the sence of scripture . now there can be but three ways of doing this , either by an infallible interpreter , or by the unanimous consent of primitive fathers , or by such humane means as are used to find out the sence of other books . i. if they say , we must learn the sence of scripture from an infallible interpreter : tell them , this is not to dispute , but to beg the cause . they are to prove from scripture , the doctrines of the church of rome ; and to do this , they would have us take the church of rome's exposition of scripture . and then we had as good take her word for all , without disputing . but yet , 1. they know , that we reject the pretences of an infallible interpreter : we own no such infallible judge of the sence of scripture . and therefore , at least , if they will dispute with us , and prove their doctrines by scripture , they must fetch their proofs from the scriptures themselves , and not appeal to an infallible interpreter , whom we disown : which is like appealing to a judge in civil matters , whom one of the contending parties tlhinks incompetent , and to whose judgment they will not stand ; which is never likely to end any controversie : and yet they cannot quit an infallible interpreter , without granting , that we may understand the scriptures without such an interpreter ; which is to give up the cause of infallibility . 2. one principal dispute between us and the church of rome , is about this infallible interpreter ; and they know , that we will not own such an interpreter , unless they can prove from scripture , that there is such an one , and who he is . the inquiry then is , how we shall learn from scripture , that there is such an infallible interpreter ? that is , who shall expound those scriptures to us , which must prove that there . is an infallible interpreter ? if without an infallible interpreter we cannot find out the true sence of scripture , how shall we know the true sence of scripture , before we know this infallible interpreter ? for an interpreter , how infallible soever he be , cannot interpret scripture for us , before we know him ; and if we must know this infallible interpreter by scripture , we must at least understand these scriptures , which direct us to this infallible interpreter , without his assistance . so that of necessity some scriptures must be understood without an infallible interpreter , and therefore he is not necessary for the interpretation of all scripture : and then i desire to know , why other scriptures may not be understood the same way , by which we must find out the meaning of those texts which direct us to an infallible interpreter ? there are a hundred places of scripture , which our adversaries must grant , areas plain and easie to be understood , as those : and we believe it as easie a matter to find all the other trent-articles in scripture , as the supremacy and infallibility of the bishop of rome . if ever there needed an infallible interpreter of scripture , it is to prove such an infallible interpreter from scripture ; but upon this occasion he cannot be had , and if we may make shift without him here , we may as well spare him in all other cases . 3. suppose we were satisfied from scripture , that there is such an infallible interpreter , yet it were worth knowing , where his infallible interpretation is to be found ; for if there be such an interpreter who never interprets , i know not how either they or we shall understand scripture the better for him : now , have either popes or general councils given us an authentick and infallible exposition of scripture ? i know of none such : all the expositions of scripture in the church of rome , are writ by private doctors , who were far enough from being infallible ; and the business of general councils , was not to expound scripture , but to define articles of faith : and therefore we find the sence of very few texts of scripture synodically defined by any general council ; i think , not above four or five by the council of trent . so that after all their talk of an infallible interpreter , when they undertake to expound particular texts , and to dispute with us about the sence of them , they have no more infallibility in this , than we have ; for if they have an infallible interpreter , they are never the better for him , for he has not given them an infallible interpretation , and therefore they are forced to do as protestants do , interpret scripture according to their own skill and understanding , which , i suppose , they will not say , is infallible . but you 'll say , though the church has not given us an infallible interpretation of scripture , yet she has given us an infallible exposition of the faith , and that is an infallible rule for expounding scripture . i answer , there is a vast difference between these two : for our dispute is not about the sence of their church , but about the sence of the scripture ; we know what doctrines their church has defined , but we desire to see them proved from scripture : and is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal , when the dispute is , how their faith agrees with scripture , to make their faith the rule of expounding scripture ? though , i confess , that is the only way i know of , to make their faith and the scriptures agree ; but this brings the scriptures to their faith , does not prove their faith from scripture . ii. as for expounding scripture by the unanimous consent of primitve fathers : this is indeed the rule which the council of trent gives , and which their doctors swear to observe ; how well they keep this oath , they ought to consider . now as to this , you may tell them , that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of fathers , could you tell how to know it ; and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many fathers makes an unanimous consent : for you have been told , that there have been as great variety in interpreting scripture among the ancient fathers , as among our modern interpreters ; that there are very few , if any controverted texts of scripture , which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the fathers . if this unanimous consent then signifie all the fathers , we shall be troubled to find such a consent in expounding scripture ; must it then be the unanimous consent of the greatest number of fathers ? this will be a very hard thing , especially for unlearned men to tell noses : we can know the opinion onely of those fathers who were the writers in every age , and whose writings have been preserved down to us ; and who can tell , whether the major number of those fathers who did not write , or whose writings are lost , were of the same mind with those whose writings we have ? and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men ? and if they were not , the consent of a few wise men , is to be preferred before great numbers of other expositors . again , ask them , whether these fathers were infallible or traditionary expositors of scripture , or whether they expounded scripture according to their own private reason and judgment : if they were infallible expositors , and delivered the traditionary sence and interpretation of scripture , it is a little strange , how they should differ in their expositions of scripture , and as strange how private doctors and bishops should in that age come to be infallible , and how they should lose it in this ; for now infallibility is confined to the bishop of rome , and a general council . if they were not infallible expositors , how comes their interpretation of scripture to be so sacred , that it must not be opposed ? nay , how comes an infallible church to prescribe such a fallible rule of interpreting scriptures ? if they expounded scripture according to their own reason and judgment , as it is plain they did ; then their authority is no more sacred than their reason is ; and those are the best expositors , whether ancient or modern , whose expositions are backed with the best reasons . we think it a great confirmation of our faith , that the fathers of the church in the first and best ages did believe the same doctrines , and expound scripture in great and concerning points , much to the same sence that we do ; and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them , but yet we do not wholly build our faith upon the authority of the fathers ; we forsake them where they forsake the scriptures , or put perverse sences on them ; and so does the church of rome too , after all their boast of the fathers , when they contradict the present roman-catholick as they do very often , though i believe without any malicious design , because they knew nothing of it . however , ask them once more , whether that sence which they give of those texts of scripture , which are controverted between us and the church of rome , be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient fathers : whether , for instance , all the ancient fathers did expound those texts , thou art peter , and on this rock will i build my church , and feed my sheep , &c. of the personal supremacy and infallibility of peter and his successors the bishops of rome ? whether they all expounded those words , this is my body , of the transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the natural flesh and bloud of christ ? and those words , drink ye all of this , to signifie , let none drink of the cup but the priest who consecrates ? and so in other scriptures . if they have the confidence to say , that all the fathers expounded these and such-like scriptures , as the doctors of the church of rome now do , tell them , you have heard and seen other expositions of such scriptures cited from the ancient fathers by our divines , and that you will refer that cause to them , and have it tried whenever they please . iii. there is no other way then left of understanding scripture , but to expound it as we do other writings ; by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases , the scope and context of the place , the reasons of things , the analogie between the old and new testament , and the like : when they dispute with protestants , they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding scripture , because we admit of no other ; and yet if they allow of this , they open a wide gap for all heresies to come into the church ; they give up the authority of the church , and make every man his own pope , and expose themselves to all the senseless rallery of their admired pax vobis . by this they confess , that the scripture may be understood by reason , that they can back their interpretations with such powerful arguments , as are able to convince hereticks , who reject the authority of an infallible interpreter ; and then they must unsay all their hard sayings against the scriptures , that they are dark and obscure , dead letters , unsenced characters , meer figured ink and paper ; they must recant all their rallery against expounding scripture by a private spirit , and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it , and to chuse what he pleases : for thus they do themselves when they dispute with hereticks about the sence of scripture ; and i am pretty confident , they would never speak against scripture nor a private spirit more , if this private spirit would but make us converts ; but the mischief is , a private spirit , if it have any tincture of sence and reason , seldom expounds scripture to a roman-catholick sence . so that in truth it is a vain , nay a dangerous thing for papists to dispute with protestants about the sence of scripture ; for it betrays the cause of the church , and vindicates the scriptures and every mans natural right of judging from the usurpations and encroachments of a pretended infallibility : but yet dispute they do , and attempt to prove their doctrines from scripture . and because it is too large a task for this present undertaking , to examine all their scripture-proofs , i shall only observe some general faults t●y are guilty of , which whoever is aware of , is in no danger of being imposed on by their pretences to scripture : and i shall not industriously multiply particulars , for there are some few palpable mistakes , which run through most of their scripture-proofs . 1. as first , many of their scripture-proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase , without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in scripture , or to the matter to which it is applied : as for instance , there is not a more useful doctrine to the church of rome , than that of unwritten traditions , which are of equal authority with the scriptures ; for were this owned , they might put what novel doctrines they pleased upon us , under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten traditions . well , we deny that there are any such unwritten traditions , which are of equal authority with the scripture , since the canon of scripture was written and perfected , and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten traditions . now they think it sufficient to do this , if they can but find the word tradition in scripture ; and that we confess they do in several places : for tradition signifies only the delivery of the doctrine of the gospel , which we grant was not done perfectly in writing , when those epistles were written , which speak of traditions by word , as well as by epistle . but because the whole doctrine of the gospel was not written at first , but delivered by word of mouth , does it hence follow , that after the gospel is written , there are still unwritten traditions of equal authority with the scripture ? this is what they should prove ; and the meer naming of traditions in scripture , before the canon was perfected , does not prove this : for all men know , that the gospel was delivered by word of mouth , or by unwritten tradition , before it was written ; but this does by no means prove , that there are unwritten traditions , after the gospel was written . to prove this , they should shew us where it is said , that there are some traditions which shall never be written , that the rule of faith shall always consist partly of written , partly of unwritten traditions . thus we know how zealous the church of rome is for their purgatory-fire , wherein all men , who are in a state of grace , or delivered from the guilt of their sins , must yet undergo that punishment of them , which has not been satisfied for by other means . as profitable a doctrine as any the church of rome has , because it gives great authority to sacerdotal absolutions , and sets a good price upon masses for the dead , and indulgences : and yet the best proof they have for this , is that fire mentioned , 1 cor. 3. 13 , 14 , 15. every mans work shall be made manifest : for the day shall declare it , because it shall be revealed by fire , and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is . — if any mans work shall be burnt , he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved , but so as by fire . now here is mention of fire indeed ; but how does it appear to be the popish purgatory ? suppose it were meant of a material fire , though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad actions , a true and orthodox or heretical faith , yet this fire is not kindled till the day of judgment , which is eminently in scripture called the day , and is the only day , we know of in scripture , which shall be revealed by fire , when the lord jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire , 2 thess. 1. 7 , 8. so that here is nothing but the word fire , applied to another fire , than st. paul ever thought on , to prove a popish purgatory . thus they make confession to a priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the forgiveness of our sins ; and have no better scripture-proofs for it , but that we are often commanded to confess our sins , sometimes to god , and sometimes to another , but never to a priest. they have made a sacrament of extream unction , wherein the sick person is anointed for the forgiveness of sins ; and though a sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution , both as to the matter , and form , and use , and end of it , yet the only proofs they produce for this , is the disciples working miraculous cures by anointing the sick with oyl , 6 mark 13 , which methinks is a little different from the sacrament of extream unction , which is not to cure their sickness , but to forgive their sins ; and st. james his command , is any sick among you , let him call for the elders of the church , and let them pray over him , anointing him with oyl in the name of the lord : and the prayer of faith shall save the sick , and the lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins , they shall be forgiven him . where anointing with oyl , joyned with servent prayer , is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again ; and therefore is not the popish extream unction , which is to be administred only to those who are dying : and though st. james adds , and if he have committed sins , they shall be forgiven him ; yet , 1. this is not said to be the effect of anointing , but of the servent prayer : and 2. this very forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary pardon of sins in the other world , but signifies the removal of the visible and sensible punishments of sin , in restoring the sick person to health again . that though such sickness was inflicted on him for his sins , and possibly were the effects of church-censures , which in those days were confirmed and ratified by bodily punishments , yet upon his reconciliation to the church , and the prayers of the elders , and the ceremony of anointing , he should be restored to health again , which was an external and visible remission of his sins , and should be a plenary pardon , if he brought forth the true and genuine fruits of repentance : this is very natural , and very agreeable to the scope and design of the text , and differs as much from the popish extream unction , as their greatest adversaries could wish . such kind of proofs as these , are meerly the work of fancy , and imagination , and can impose upon no man who will but attend to the different use and signification of words . 2. another grand fault our roman adversaries are guilty of is , that their scripture-proofs are always very lame and imperfect , that is , that they never prove their whole doctrine from scripture , but only some little part of it : they draw very fine and artificial schemes , and if they can find some little appearance in scripture to countenance any one part of it , they take that for a proof of the whole . as for instance : thus they tell us , that christ made peter the prince of the apostles , and the head of the universal church , his own vicar upon earth ; and that the bishops of rome , who are st. peter's successors , succeed not only to his chair , but to all the rights and prerogatives of st. peter ; and therefore the bishop of rome also is the head of the church , the oecumenical pastor , who neither wants st. peter's keys nor sword. this is a very notable point , if it were well proved ; but as i observed before , this being a matter of pure institution , which depends wholly upon the will of god , it can be proved only by scripture : how much then of this do they pretend to prove from scripture ? why , they will prove by scripture , that st. peter was the prince of the apostles , because christ said unto him , thou art peter , and on this rock will i build my church : and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and seed my sheep : which indeed are lamentable proofs , for the same power was given to all the apostles , 20 john 21 , 22 , 23. then said jesus unto them , peace be unto you , as my father sent me , even so send i you , all of you ; and therefore not one in subjection to another , but all with equal power : and when he had said this , he breathed on them , and saith unto them , receive ye the holy ghost : whosoever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them ; and whosoever sins ye retain , they are retained : accordingly on the day of pentecost the holy ghost fell on them all , they were all endowed with the gift of tongues , and miracles , and prophesie ; they all had the same infallible spirit , and therefore needed no superiour head over them : they were to be separated into all parts of the world , where they could have no communication with each other , and therefore could have no universal head. the history of the acts of the apostles gives not the least intimation of any such superiority , which either st. peter challenged , or the other apostles paid him ; which are strong presumptions against such a supremacy of st. peter : and i suppose they themselves will grant , that all the rest of the apostles were as infallible as he . but suppose we should grant them , that st. peter was the chief of the apostles , and had a kind of primacy not of government , but order , how do they prove from scripture , that the bishop of rome succeeds in all the rights and prerogatives of st. peter ? for unless this be proved , whatever prerogative st. peter had , it signifies nothing to them : and yet this cannot be proved , but by institution ; for though christ had bestowed a primacy on s. peter , yet unless he expresly grant it to his successors too , nay to his successors in the see of rome , his pramacy , as being a personal prerogative , must die with his person : as a prince may grant a priority to persons in the same office and power , may make a first colonel , or a first captain , but if these men to whom the precedency is given , die or are removed , those who succeed in their office and power , to the same regiment or company , do not therefore succeed to their priority too ; for this did not belong to their office , but to their persons : and the king may give the priority again to whom he pleases , or appoint them to succeed in course , according to their admission into such offices . and by the same reason the primacy of the roman bishops , who are st. peter's successors , does not follow from the primacy of st. peter , unless they can shew , that christ has given them the primacy also , as well as st. peter ; and this must be proved from scripture , because it is matter of institution , and no arguments in the world can prove any thing , which depends solely upon an institution , without proving the institution : but this the roman doctors never pretend to , for they know , that there is not one word in scripture about it ; and nothing but the authority of scripture can prove a divine institution . so that could they prove the primacy of st. peter from scripture , they prove but half their point , and that the most inconsiderable half too , for it does them no good . and therefore when they make a great noise about st. peter's primacy and prerogatives , never trouble your selves to dispute that point with them , which is nothing to the purpose ; but require them to prove , from scripture , that the bishop of rome , as st. peter's successor , is appointed by christ , to be the supreme oecumenical bishop , and the prince of all bishops . and if you stick here , as in reason you ought , there is an end of that controversie . thus there is nothing the church of rome makes a greater noise about , than infallibility , though they are not agreed where to place this infallibility , whether in the pope or a general council : but let it be where it will , this being a matter of institution , must be proved by scripture : how then in the first place do they prove the pope to be infallible ? that they think is very plain , because christ says , thou art peter , and upon this rock will i build my church , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . but how does this prove , that the bishop of rome is infallible ? for here is not one word of the bishop of rome . yes , this proves st. peter to be infallible , who was afterwards bishop of rome , and therefore all his successors are infallible too . now that st. peter was infallible , as all the other apostles were , we readily grant ; though , i think , this text does not prove it : but does this prove the bishop of rome's infallibility ? just as st. peter's primacy proves the pope to be the oecumenical primate : they themselves must grant , that an infallible apostle may have a fallible bishop for his successor ; or else they must either deny , that the rest of the apostles , as well as st. peter , were infallible , or they must grant , that all the apostles successors , that is , all the bishops , who succeeded any of the apostles in their sees , must be as infallible as the bishops of rome , who succeeded st. peter ; and then there will be so much infallibility , that it will be worth nothing : if then there be not a natural and necessary entail of infallibility upon the successors of infallible apostles , they must shew us an express institution , which makes the successors of peter at rome infallible . and let our protestant demand this , before he owns the infallibility of the pope of rome , and then , i believe , they will not think him worth converting . thus as for those who place infallibility in a general council , demand a scripture-proof of it , that they would produce the general council's charter for infallibility : this they can't do ; but they say the church is infallible , and the general council is the church representative , and therefore a general council must be infallible too . so that here are several things for them to prove , and to prove by scripture too ; for there is no other way of proving them , before they can prove the infallibility of general councils : as , 1. that the church is infallible . 2. that a general council is the church representative . 3. that the church representative , is that church to which the promise of infallibility is made . and then they might conclude , that a general council , as being the church representative , is infallible . now instead of proving every particular of this by scripture , ( as they must do , if they will prove by scripture , that general councils are infallible ) they pretend to prove no more than the first of the three , that the church is infallible ; and that very lamely too , as may appear more hereafter : and then they take all the rest for granted , without any proof : which is just as if a man , who in order to prove his title to an estate , is required to prove , that this estate did anciently belong to his family , that it was entailed upon the heir male , that this entail was never cut off , nor the estate legally alienated , and that he alone is the true surviving heir ; should think it enough to prove onely the first of these , that the estate did anciently belong to his family ; which it might have done , and yet not belong to it now , or if it did still belong to it , he may not be the true heir . thus if we consider , what it is they teach about purgatory , we shall quickly perceive , how little it is , they pretend to prove of it : they tell us , that there is a purgatory-fire after this life , where men undergo the punishment of their sins , when the fault is pardoned : that the church has power , out of her stock of merits , which consists of the supererogating works of great and eminent saints , to grant pardons and indulgencies to men while they live , to deliver them from several thousand years punishment , which is due to their sins in purgatory ; that the souls in purgatory may be released out of it by the prayers , and alms , and masses of the living ; which is the very life and soul of this doctrine of purgatory : now of all this , they pretend to prove no more from scripture , but that there is a purgatory-fire after this life ; and how they prove it , you have already heard : but that either penances or pilgrimages , and other extraordinary acts of devotion , while we live , or the pope's pardons and indulgencies can either remit or shorten the pains of purgatory ; or that the prayers and alms of our living friends , or masses said for us by mercenary priests , can deliver us out of purgatory , which we are principally concerned to know , and without which , purgatory will not enrich the priests , nor the church ; this they never attempt , that i know of , to prove by scripture : whether there be a purgatory or not , in it self considered , is a meer speculative point , and of no value : but could they prove , that the pope has the keys of purgatory , and that alms and masses will deliver out of purgatory ; this were worth knowing , and is as well worth proving as any doctrine of the church of rome , for there is nothing they get more by . but if you will not believe this , till they produce a scripture-proof of it , you may let them dispute on about the place of purgatory , and keep your money in your pocket . thus it is in most other cases , if you take their whole doctrine together , and demand a proof of every part of it , and not take a proof of some little branch of it , for a proof of the whole , you will quickly find , that they will not be so fond of disputing , as some of them now are . 3. another way our roman adversaries have of proving their doctrines from scripture is , instead of plain and positive proofs , to produce some very remote and inevident consequences from scripture , and if they can but hale a text of scripture into the premises , whatever the conclusion be , they call it a scripture-proof . there are infinite instances of this , but i can only name some few . thus they prove the perpetual infallibility of the church , because christ promises his disciples to be with them to the end of the world , 28. matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their persons , for they were to die long before the end of the world , and therefore must extend to their successors . suppose that , and does christ's being with them , necessarily signifie , that he will make them infallible ? is not christ with every particular church , with every particular bishop , nay with every particular good christian , and must they all be infallible then ? thus christ promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church ; ergo , the church is infallible ; for if error and heresie prevails against the church , the gates of hell prevail against it : and i add , if sin and wickedness prevail against the church , the gates of hell prevail against it ; ergo , the church is impeccable , and cannot sin ; which is to the full as good a consequence as the other : and therefore the gates of hell prevailing , can neither signifie the meer prevalency of errors or sin in the church , but such a prevalency as destroys the church ; and this shall never be , because christ has promised it shall never be ; and it may never be , though the church be not infallible ; and therefore this does not prove infallibility . thus they prove there is such a place as purgatory , where sins are forgiven and expiated , because our saviour says , that the sin against the holy ghost , shall neither be forgiven in this world , nor in the world to come , matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are some sins which are forgiven in the next world , because there is a sin which shall not be forgiven there . now not to consider the ordinary use of such phrases to signifie no more , than it shall never be , without distinguishing between what is to be done in this world , and what in the next ; nay , not to consider how contrary this is to their own doctrine of purgatory , that men who go to purgatory have all their sins already forgiven , though they must suffer the punishment of them there ; which how absurd soever it is , yet shews , that purgatory is not a place of forgiving sins ; and therefore cannot be meant by our saviour in those words : yet supposing all they would have , that there shall be some sins forgiven in the next world , which are not forgiven in this ; how does this prove a popish purgatory , where souls endure such torments as are not inferiour to those of hell it self , excepting their duration ? that some sins shall be forgiven in the next world , i think , does not very evidently prove , that men shall be tormented , it may be for several ages , in the fire of purgatory . thus they prove the necessity of auricular confession to priest , from the power of judicial absolution . christ has given the priest power to forgive sins , and hereby has made him a judge , to retain or remit sins , to absolve and inflict penances . now a judge cannot judge right , without a particular knowledge of the fact , and all the circumstances of it ; and this the priest cannot know without the confession of the penitent : and therefore as priests have authority to absolve , so a penitent , who would be absolved , must of necessity confess . but now i should think it a much better consequence , that the priest has not such a judicial authority of absolution , as requires a particular confession of the penitent , because christ has no where commanded all men to confess their sins to a priest , than that the priest has such a judicial authority , and therefore all men must confess to a priest : for though our saviour does give power to his apostles to remit and retain sins , yet those words do not necessarily signifie a judicial authority to forgive sins , or if it did , it may relate onely to publick sins , which are too well known without a private confession ; or however , it is not the particular knowledge of the sin , with all the circumstances of it , but the marks and characters of true repentance for publick or secret sins , which is the best rule and direction whom to absolve ; and therefore there is no need of a particular confession to this purpose . but the sophistry of this is most palpable , when they draw such consequences from one text of scripture , as directly contradict other plain and express texts . thus because st. peter tells us , that there are many things hard to be understood , in st. paul's epistles , which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest , as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction , 2 pet. 3. 16. from hence they would conclude , that people ought not to be allowed to read the bible : as if st. peter had intended to forbid them to read those epistles , which st. paul had written to them ; nay , to read this very epistle which he himself now sent to them . for these epistles which were sent to the churches , that they might be read by them , make a considerable part of the new testament , which the people must not be allowed to read now . but setting aside this , this consequence , that the people must not read the bible , is directly contrary to a great many other texts , which expresly command them to read , and search , and study , and meditate on the laws of god , and the holy scriptures , as every body knows . i confess it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate : when they cannot produce any one text which forbids people to read the scriptures , and there are a great many express commands , that they should read the scriptures , they think it sufficient to oppose against all this authority , a consequence of their own making , and a very absurd one too , and call this a scripture-proof . i would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from scripture ; but yet i will never admit of a meer consequence to prove an institution , which must be delivered in plain terms , as all laws ought to be ; and where i have no other proof , but some scripture-consequences , i shall not think it equivalent to a scripture-proof : if the consequences be plain and obvious , and such as every man sees , i shall not question it ; but remote , and dubious , and disputed consequences , if we have no better evidence , to be sure are a very ill foundation for articles of faith. let our protestant then tell such disputants , that for the institution of sacraments , and for articles of faith , he expects plain positive proofs : that as much as the protestant faith is charged with uncertainty , we desire a little more certainty for our faith , than meer inferences from scripture , and those none of the plainest neither . 4. another false pretence to scripture-proofs is , to clap their own sense upon the words of scripture , without any regard to the use and propriety of words , to the circumstances of the place , to the reason and nature of things ; and to call this a scripture-proof of their doctrine , when their doctrines do not naturally grow there , but are onely engrafted by some cunning artists , upon a scripture-stock . i shall give you onely one instance of this , their doctrine of transubstantiation . as for transubstantiation , they teach , that the elements of bread and wine are converted into the natural flesh and bloud of christ , which was born of the virgin mary : that after consecration there is nothing of the substance of bread and wine , but the accidents subsist without a substance : that the natural body of christ his soul and divinity , are present under the species of bread ; nay , that whole christ , flesh and bloud , is under the species of bread , and in every particle of it , and under the species of wine , and every drop of it : that the body of christ is not broken , nor his bloud shed in the sacrament , but only the species of bread and wine , which are nothing : that it is only this nothing which we eat and drink in the sacrament , and which goes down into our stomachs , and carries whole christ down with it . now this doctrine founds so very harsh , is so contrary to all the evidence of our senses , and has so many absurdities and contradictions to reason , that it ought to be very plainly proved from scripture in every part of it : for if a man might be perswaded to renounce his senses and reason to believe scripture , yet it ought to be equally evident to him at least , that scripture is for it , as it is , that sense and reason is against it : and yet there is not one word in scripture to prove any one part of this doctrine of transubstantiation ; neither that the natural flesh and bloud of christ is in the sacrament , nor that the substance of bread and wine does not remain after consecration , nor that the accidents of bread and wine , such as colour , smell , tast , quantity , weight , subsist without any substance , or subject to subsist in . these are such paradoxes to sense and reason , that they ought to be very well supported with scripture , before they are received for articles of faith , or else our faith will be as very an accident , without any substance , as the sacramental species themselves are . but though they have no text which proves the least tittle of all this , yet they have a text whereon they graft this doctrine of transubstantiation , viz. this is my body , which they say , signifies every thing which they teach concerning transubstantiation ; but then i hope they will prove that it does so , not expect that we should take it for granted , because they say it . now , not to insist upon those arguments , whereby our divines have so demonstratively proved , that transubstantiation , as explained by the church of rome , cannot be the sence of this is my body , my advice to protestants is to put them upon the proof , that this is the sence of it , which in reason they ought to prove , because there is not one word of it in the text ; and i shall only tell them what proofs they ought to demand for it . now i suppose all men will think it reasonable , that the evidence for it , should at least be equal to the evidence against it , though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it , than to dis-believe it ; or else we must hang in suspence , when the balance is equal and turns neither way . now i will not oppose the evidence of sense and reason , against the authority of scripture ; for i will never suppose that they can contradict each other : and if there should appear some contradiction between them , i will be contented at present , without disputing that point , to give it on the side of scripture ; but i will oppose the evidence of sense and reason against any private man's , or any churches exposition of scripture : and if that exposition they give of any text of scripture , as suppose , this is my body , contradict the evidence of sense and reason , i may modestly require as plain proof , that this is the meaning of the text , as i have , that such a meaning is contrary to all sense and reason : for though sense and reason be not the rule and measure of faith , yet we must use our sense and reason in expounding scripture , or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless religion . now this shews us what kind of proof we must require , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the gospel , viz. as certain proof as we have , that transubstantiation is contrary to sense and reason . and therefore , 1. we must demand a self-evident proof of this , because it is self-evident , that transubstantiation contradicts sense and reason . every man , who knows what the word means , ( which i believe men may do , without being great philosophers ) and will consult his own senses and reason , will need no arguments to prove , that transubstantiation contradicts both . now such a scripture-proof , i would see for transubstantiation , so plain , and express , and self-evident , that no man , who understands the words , can doubt whether this be the meaning of them ; i mean , a reasonable , not an obstinate , wilful , and sceptical doubting . now i believe , that our adversaries themselves will not say , that this is my body , is such a self-evident proof of transubstantiation ; i am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so , and the fierce disputes for so many ages about the interpretation of those words , proves that it is not so : for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident , and proves it self without any other arguments . now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe transubstantiation against a self-evident proof , that it is contrary to sense and reason , without giving him a self-evident proof , that it is the doctrine of scripture ; which is to require a man to believe against the best reason and evidence . 2. we must demand such a scripture-proof of transubstantiation , as cannot possibly signifie any thing else ; or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against transubstantiation ? for sense and reason pronounce transubstantiation to be naturally impossible ; and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon scripture than what signifies transubstantiation , as it is to reconcile transubstantiation to sense and reason , there is not such good evidence for transubstantiation , as against it . were the scripture-proofs for transubstantiation so plain and evident , that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words , then i would grant , that it is as impossible for those who believe the scriptures to disbelieve transubstantiation , as it is for those , who trust to their own sense and reason , to believe it . here the difficulty would be equal on both sides , and then i should prefer a divine revelation ( if it were possible to prove such a revelation to be divine ) before natural sense and reason ; but i presume , no man will say , that it is impossible to put another , and that a very reasonable , interpretation upon those words , this is my body , without expounding them to the sense of transubstantiation . our roman adversaries do not deny , but that these words are capable of a figurative , as well as of a literal sense ; as when the church is called the body of christ , flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone , it is not meant of his natural , but his mystical body : and thus when the bread is called the body of christ , it may not signifie his natural , but sacramental body , or his body to all the ends and purposes of a sacrament . now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words , besides transubstantiation , there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of transubstantiation , as there is not to expound them of it ; for i do not reject scripture , if i deny transubstantiation , when the words of scripture do not necessarily prove it , but i renounce sense and reason , if i believe it . now though i were bound to renounce my sence and reason , when they contradict scripture , yet sure i am not bound to deny my sense and reason , when they do not contradict scripture ; and sense and reason are never contrary to scripture , nor scripture to them , when the words of scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to sense and reason : in such a case to expound scripture contrary to sense and reason , is both to pervert the scripture , and to contradict reason without any necessity . an unlearned man need not enter into a large dispute about transubstantiation ; let him but require his adversary to give him as plain evidence , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the gospel , as he can give him , that it is contrary to sense and reason , and the dispute will quickly be at an end . it had been very easie to have given more instances under every head , and to have observed more false ways of expounding scripture , which the doctors of the church of rome are guilty of ; but these are the most obvious , and therefore the best fitted to my design to instruct unlearned men ; and i must not suffer this discourse , which was at first intended much shorter than it already is , to swell too much under my hands . sect . iii. concerning the antient fathers and writers of the christian church . though learned men may squabble about the sense of fathers and councils , it is very unreasonable , that unlearned men should be concerned in such disputes , because they are not competent judges of it ; and yet there is nothing which our roman disputants make a greater noise with ; among women and children , and the meanest sort of people , than quotations out of fathers and councils , whom they pretend to be all on their side . now as it is a ridiculous thing for them to talk of fathers and councils to such people , so it is very ridiculous for such people to be converted by sayings out of the fathers and councils : i confess , it has made me often smile , with a mixture of pity and indignation , at the folly of it ; for what more contemptible easiness can any man be guilty of , than to change his religion which he has been taught out of the scriptures , and may find there if he pleases , because he is told by some honest priest , ( a sort of men who never deceive any one ) that such or such a father , who lived it may be they know not where nor when , and wrote they know not what , has spoke in favour of transubstantiation , or purgatory , or some other popish doctrine . and therefore let me advise our protestant , who is not skilled in these matters , when he is urged with the authority of fathers , to ask them some few questions . 1. ask them , how you shall certainly know what the judgment of the fathers was ? and this includes a great many questions , which must be resolved , before you can be sure of this : as , how you shall know that such books were written by that father , whose name it bears ? or that it has not been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of transcribers , while they were in the hands of monks , who usurped great authority over the fathers , and did not only pare their nails , but altered their very habit and dress , to fit them to the modes of the times , and make them fashionable ? how you shall know what the true meaning of those words are , which they cite from them ? which the words themselves many times will not discover , without the context : how you shall know that such sayings are honestly quoted , or honestly translated ? how you shall know whether this father did not in other places contradict what he here says ? or did not alter his opinion after he had wrote it , without writing publick recantations , as st. austin did ? whether this father was not contradicted by other fathers ? and in that case , which of the fathers you must believe ? you may add , that you do not ask these questions at random , but for great and necessary reasons : for in reading some late english books both of protestants and papists , you find large quotations out of the fathers on both sides ; that some are charged with false translations , with perverting the fathers sense , with mis-citing his words , with quoting spurious authors , as it seems many of those are which make up the late speculum , or ecclesiastical prospective-glass ; to name no more . now how shall you , who are an unlearned man , judge of such disputes as these ? what books are spurious or genuine ? whether the fathers be rightly quoted ? and what the true sense of them is ? for my part , i know not what answer such a disputant could make , but to blush , and promise not to alledge the authority of fathers any more . it is certain , in such matters , those who are unlearned , must trust the learned ; and then , i suppose , an unlearned protestant will rather trust a protestant than a popish doctor , as papists will rather trust their priests that protestant divines ; and then there is not much to be got on either side , this way : for when a protestant shews an inclination rather to believe a popish than a protestant divine , he is certainly three quarters a papist before-hand . indeed unlearned protestants , who are inquisitive and have time to read , have such advantages now to satisfie themselves even about the sense of fathers and councils , as it may be no age before ever afforded : there being so many excellent books written in english , as plainly confirm the protestant faith , and confute popery , by the testimonies and authorities of ancient writers ; and such men , though they do not understand latin and greek , are in no danger of all the learning of their popish adversaries : and any man who pleases , may have recourse to such books , and see the state of the controversie with his own eyes , and judge for himself ; but those who cannot do this , may very fairly decline such a trial , as improper for them . for , 2. let our protestant ask such disputers , whether a plain man may not attain a sufficient knowledge and certainty of his religion , without understanding fathers and councils ? if they say he cannot , ask them , how many roman-catholicks there are that understand fathers and councils ? ask them , how those christians understood their religion , who lived before there were any of these fathers & councils ? ask them again , whether they believe that god has made it impossible to the greatest part of mankind , to understand the christian religion ? for even among christians themselves , there is not one in an hundred thousand , who understands fathers and councils , and it is morally impossible they should : and therefore certainly there must be a shorter and easier way to understand christian religion than this , or else the generallity of mankind , even of profest christians , are out of all possibility of salvation . ask them once more , whether it be not a much easier matter for a plain honest man to learn all things necessary to salvation , out of the scriptures themselves , especially with the help of a wise and learned guide , than to understand all fathers and councils , and take his religion from them ? why then do they so quarrel at peoples reading the scriptures , and put them upon reading fathers and councils ? i suppose they will grant , the scriptures may be read a little sooner than so many voluminous fathers , and labbe's councils into the bargain ; and , i believe , most men , who try , will think , that they are more easily understood ; and therefore if protestants , as they pretend , can have no certainty of the true sense of scripture ▪ i am sure there is much less certainty to be had from the fathers : a short time will give us a full view of the scriptures , to read and understand all the fathers , is work enough for a man's life : the scripture is all of a piece , every part of it agrees with the rest ; the fathers many times contradict themselves and each other : and if men differ about the sense of scripture , they differ much more about fathers and councils . that it is a mighty riddle , that those who think ordinary christians not fit to read the scriptures , should think it necessary for them to understand fathers and councils ; and yet they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every tradesman about fathers and councils , if they do not think they ought to read and understand them . the sum is , such protestants as are not skilled in book-learning , may very reasonably tell these men , who urge them with the authority of councils and fathers , that they do not pretend to any skill in such matters , and hope it is not required of them , for if it be , they are in an ill case : the holy scriptures , not fathers and councils , is the rule of their faith ; if they had read the fathers , they should believe them no farther , than what they taught was agreeable to scripture ; and therefore whatever opinions any of the fathers had , it is no concern of theirs to know , if they can learn what the doctrine of christ and his apostles was , without it : learned men may dispute about these things ; and they have heard learned protestants affirm , that the church of rome can find none of her peculiar doctrines in the writings of any of the fathers for the first three hundred years ; and its certain , if this be true , all the later fathers are of no authority to establish any new doctrine ; for there was no more authority in the church , to bring in any new doctrines after three hundred years , than there is at this day . unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute about fathers and councils ( though learned men cannot , and indeed need not , ) for if they are not bound to read fathers and councils , i think , they are not bound to understand them , nor to dispute about them ; and it is very unadviseably done , when they do : for it is past a jest in so serious a matter , though otherwise it were comical enough for men to be converted by fathers and councils , without understanding them . chap. iii. how to answer some of the most popular pretences urged by papists against protestants . sect . i. 1. concerning the vncertainty of the protestant faith. our popish adversaries of late , have not so much disputed , as fenced ; have neither down-right opposed the protestant faith , nor vindicated their own , but have betaken themselves to some tricks and amusements , to divert and perplex the dispute , and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary . one of their principal arts has been to cry out of the uncertainty of the protestant faith. this every body is nearly concerned in ; for there is nothing wherein certainty is so necessary , and so much desired , as in matters of religion , whereon our eternal state depends . this has been often answered by protestants , and i do not intend to enter into the merits of the cause , and shew upon what a firm and sure bottom the protestant faith stands : this is a cavil easily enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering men , without so much trouble : for 1. suppose the protestant faith were uncertain ; how is the cause of the church of rome ever the better ? is this a sufficient reason to turn papists , because protestants are uncertain ? does this prove the church of rome to be infallible , because the church of england is fallible ? must certainty necessarily be found among them , because it is not to be found with us ? is thomas an honest man , because john is a knave ? these are two distinct questions , and must be distinctly proved . if they can prove our faith uncertain , and their own certain , there is reason then to go over to them ; but if they cannot do this , they may , it may be , perswade men to renounce the protestant faith , but not to embrace popery . ask them then , what greater assurance they have of their faith , than we have of ours ? if they tell you , their church is infallible ; tell them , that is another question , and does not belong to this dispute . for the infallibility of their church , does not follow from the uncertainty of our faith ; if they can prove their church infallible , whether they prove our faith uncertain or not , we will at any time change protestant certainty for infallibility : and if they could prove our faith uncertain , unless they could prove their own more certain , ( though we bate them infallibility ) we may cease to be protestants , but shall never turn papists . 2. ask them , what they mean by the uncertainty of the protestant faith ? for this may signifie two things : either , 1. that the objects of our faith , are in themselves uncertain , and cannot be proved by certain reasons : or 2dly , that our perswasion about these matters , is uncertain and wavering . if they mean the first , then the sense is , that the christian religion is an uncertain thing , and cannot be certainly proved ; for this is the whole protestant faith : we believe the apostles creed , and whatever is contained in the writings of the evangelists and apostles , and this is all we believe : and i hope , they will not say these things are uncertain ; for then they renounce the christian religion , and infallibility it self cannot help them out : for infallibility cannot make that certain , which is in it self uncertain : an infallible man must know things as they are , or else he is mistaken , and ceases to be infallible ; and therefore what is certain , he infallibly knows to be certain , and what is uncertain , he infallibly knows to be uncertain : for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its object , but sees it just as it is : and therefore they must allow the objects of our faith ; or the protestant faith , as to the matter of it , to be very certain , and built upon certain reason , or else their infallible church can have no certainty of the christian faith. if they mean the second thing , that we have no certain perswasion about what we profess to believe : this is a great abuse to protestants , as if we were all knaves and hypocrites , who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to believe : and a protestant , who knows that he does very firmly and stedfastly believe his religion , ought to reject such a villanous accusation as this , with indignation and scorn . indeed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a protestant , that his faith is uncertain , ( as that signifies an uncertain and doubtful perswasion ) when he knows and feels the contrary ; and no body else can know this but himself : in what notion then is the protestant faith uncertain ? what can faith signifie , but either the objects of faith , or the internal assent and perswasion ? the objects of our faith are certain , if christian religion be so , that is , they have very certain evidence : our assent and perswasion is very certain , as that is opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering : and what certainty then is wanting to the protestant faith ? when they you hear any of these men declaiming about the uncertainty of the protestant faith , onely ask them , what they mean by the protestant faith ? whether the articles of your faith , that they are uncertain , or the act of faith , your internal assent and perswasion ? if they say , they mean the act of faith : tell them , that it is a strange presumption in them to pretend to know your heart ; that you know that best your self , whether you do firmly and stedfastly believe your religion ; and to give them satisfaction in that point , you assure them , that you do : as for the objects of your faith , or what is you believe , tell them , you are a member of the church of england , and embrace the doctrine of it , and there they may find your faith both as a christian , and as a protestant ; and may try their skill on it , when they please , to prove any part of it uncertain , and you are ready to defend it . this is a plain and fair answer , and i believe you will hear no more of them . for as for their common argument to prove the uncertainty of the protestant faith , that there is a great variety of opinions among protestants , and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance : ask them , how this proves your faith to be uncertain , either as to its object , or as to its assent ? may not what you believe , be very certainly true , because some men believe the contrary ? tell them , you do not place the certainty of what you believe , upon any man's believing , or not believing it , but upon the certain reasons you have to prove it ; and therefore if they would convince you , that what you believe is not certain , they must disprove your reasons , not meerly tell you , that other men think it false or uncertain , and believe otherwise : thus does it prove , that you give an uncertain and doubtful assent to what you profess to believe , because other men are very fully perswaded of the contrary ? pray tell them , that you do not build your assent upon other mens perswasions , but upon the reasons of your faith , and while they are unshaken , you shall believe as you do , and with the same assurance , whoever believes otherwise . there are two things indeed , which this argument proves , but they signifie nothing to weaken the protestant faith. 1. that all the doctrines which are professed by some protestants , are not certain ; for some of them must be false , when there are contradictory doctrines maintained and professed by several sects of protestants ; but then no man , that i know of , ever said , that all protestant doctrines were certain , which i hope does not hinder but that some protestant doctrines may be certain ; and then the doctrines of the church of england may be certain , though some other communions of protestants have erred . 2. this argument proves also , that men who are mistaken , may be very confidently perswaded of their mistakes , and therefore the confidence of perswasion does not prove the certainty of their faith ; and i never heard any man say that it did : but i hope this does not prove that a man , who is certain upon evident reasons , must be mistaken too , because men , who are certain without reason , may mistake . and yet this very argument , from the different and contrary opinions among protestants to prove the uncertainty of the protestant faith , signifies nothing , as to our disputes with the church of rome : for ask them , what they would think of the protestant faith , were all protestants of a mind ? would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the protestant faith ? then the protestant faith , in opposition to popery , is very certain ; for they all agree in condemning the errors and corruptions of the church of rome ; and thus i think they get nothing by this argument : for if the dissentions of protestants proves the uncertainty of their faith , as to such matters , wherein they differ , then by the same rule their agreement in opposition to popery , shews their great certainty in such matters : and this i suppose is no great inducement to a protestant to turn papist . sect . ii. concerning protestant mis-representations of popery . this has been another late artifice of our roman adversaries to amuse ignorant people with a great noise of mis-representing : that protestant divines have painted popery in such horrid shapes , as to disturb the imaginations of people , and to beget an incurable aversion in them against popery , without understanding what it is . i shall not now dispute this matter over again : there has been so much of late said of it , and this pretence so shamefully baffled , in answe● both to the representer , and to monsieur meaux's exposition , that i am apt to think , they themselves could be very glad that it had never been mentioned , or could now be forgot ; and therefore referring the inquisitive readers to those late books , wherein they will find this controversie fairly stated , i have some few things to add , which are plain and obvious to every body ; and that both with reference to the probability of this charge , and to the consequences of it . first , as to the probability of this charge . now , 1. ask them , whether the first reformers charged the church of rome with such doctrines and practices as they were not guilty of ? we have not , that i know , of , increased our charge against the church of rome in this age ; if there has been any difference , we have rather been more favourable and candid in our censures of some of their doctrines , than the first reformers were . now is it likely that the first reformers should charge the church of rome wrongfully ? no man can be a mis-representer , but either out of ignorance or design ; which of these then can we , with any probability , charge the first reformers with ? as for ignorance , is it a probable thing , that luther , melancthon , oecolampadius , zuinglius , bucer , calvin , or to come to our own english reformers , that archbishop cranmer , and others , who had all been papists themselves , should be ignorant what was taught and practised in the church of rome ? it is now thought in this very cause a very considerable proof , that protestants do mis-represent papists , because some papists deny such doctrines and practices as protestants charge them with ; and , say they , can you think that papists do not understand their own religion better than protestants do ? now though this may be made a question , and i am very apt to think , that compare the learned and the unlearned protestants and papists together , there are more protestants than papists , who understand popery ; and not only experience verifies this , but there is a plain reason why it should be so ; because it is the principle of protestants , that they must neither believe nor disbelieve any thing , without understanding it ; but an implicite faith in the church governs the unlearned papists , and many of those who should be learned too . but let that be as it will , this argument signifies nothing to our first reformers : for if papists may be presumed to understand their own religion , the first reformers , who were all educated in popery , might be as well presumed to understand what popery then was ; and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they mis-represented popery out of ignorance . nor is it more probable , that they should mis-represent popery out of interest and design : for if they were conscious to themselves , that popery was not so bad as they represent it to be , why should they themselves have set up for reformers ? and what hope could they have , that at that time , when popery was so well known , they should perswade the world to believe their mis-representations ? was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the powers of the church and court of rome upon themselves , meerly to gratifie a mis-representing humour ? do these men remember what our reformers suffered , for opposing popery ? the loss of their estates , their liberties , their lives , all the vengeance of a blind and enraged zeal ? and did they undergo all this with such constancy and christian patience , only for the sake of telling lyes , and raising scandalous reports of the church of rome ? we think it a very good argument , that the apostles and first preachers of christianity were very honest men , and had no design to cheat the world , because they served no worldly interest by it ; but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of sufferings in preaching the gospel : and why does not the same argument prove our first reformers to be honest men , and then they could not be wilful mis-representers ? nay , if we will but allow them to have been cunning men ( and it is evident , they did not want wit ) they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design , as to run down popery meerly by mis-representing it ; when , had their exceptions against popery been onely mis-representations of their own , all the world could have confuted them : had the first reformers been onely mis-representers , can we think , that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of men , learned and unlearned , who knew and saw what popery was ? they were no fools themselves , and therefore could not hope to impose such a cheat upon the world. 2. ask them again , how old this complaint is , of protestant mis-representations of popery ? how long it has been discovered , that popery has been thus abused and mis-represented ? were the first reformers charged with these mis-representations by their adversaries in those days ? did they deny , that they gave religious worship to saints , and angels , and the virgin mary , to images and reliques ? did they cry out of mis-representations , when they were charged with such doctrines and practices as these ? or did they defend them , and endeavour to answer those arguments which the reformers brought against them ? and yet methinks if popery had been so grosly mis-represented by the reformers , this would as soon have been discovered by the learned papists of those days , as by our late representer ; but it is most likely they did not then think popery so much mis-represented , for if they had , they would certainly have complained of it : so that the high improbability of the thing , is a sufficient reason to unlearned protestants , to reject this charge of protestant mis-representations of popery , as nothing else but a popish calumny against protestants ; and to conclude , that if popery be mis-represented now , it is onely by themselves , and that is the very truth of the case . secondly , let us consider this charge of mis-representations in the consequences of it : it would a little puzzle a man to guess , what service they intend to do the church of rome by it . for , 1. by complaining of such mis-representations of popery , they plainly confess , that those doctrines and practices , which we charge the church of rome with , are very bad , and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all christians . this the representer himself confesses , and is very copious and rhetorical upon it . now this is of mighty dangerous consequence ; for if it appears , that we have not mis-represented them , that the doctrines and practices we charge them with , are truly the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , then by their own confession , popery is a very bad religion , and to be rejected by christians : then there was a very just reason for our separation from the church of rome , and we are no longer either schismaticks or hereticks ; and if the cause be put upon this issue , we need desire no better vindication of the church of england : for if they cannot prove us hereticks or schismaticks , till they can prove us mis-representers , i believe , we are pretty secure for this age. 2. these men , who complain so much of mis-representing , endeavour to make the doctrines of the church of rome , look as like protestant doctrines , as possibly they can , as if there were little or no difference between them : now methinks this is no great reason for a protestant to turn papist , that the popish faith is so much the better , the nearer it comes to the protestant faith. the truth is , the chief mystery in this late trade of representing and mis-representing , is no more but this , to joyn a protestant faith with popish practices ; to believe as protestants do , and to do as papists do . as to give some few instances of this in the papist mis-represented and represented . the papist represented , believes it damnable to worship stocks and stones for gods , to pray to pictures or images of christ , the virgin mary , or any other saints . this is good protestant doctrine : but then this papist says his prayers before an image , kneels and bows before it , and pays all external acts of adoration to christ and the saints , as represented by their images ; though it is not properly the image he honours , but christ and his saints by the images . which is down-right popery in practice . thus he believes it is a most damnable idolatry , to make gods of men , either living or dead . which is the protestant faith : but yet he prays to saints , and beggs their intercession , without believing them to be gods , or his redeemers ; which is popery in practice . he believes it damnable , to think the virgin mary more powerful in heaven than christ. which is protestant doctrine : but yet he prays to her ostner than either to god or christ , says ten ave-maries for one pater noster ; which is a popish devotion . he believes it unlawful to commit idolatry , and most damnable to worship any breaden god. which is spoke like a protestant ; but yet he pays divine adoration to the sacrament , which is done like a papist . and thus in most of those thirty seven particulars of the double characters of a papist mis-represented , his great art is to reconcile a protestant faith with popish practices . so that this new way of representing popery , is no reason to a protestant to alter his faith , because , it seems , they believe in many things just as we do ; but , i think , it is a very great reason for a papist to alter his practice , because a protestant faith and popish worship do not very well agree . those who would not make gods of stocks and stones , of dead men and women , had certainly better not worship them , which is the most certain way not to make them gods ; and those who think it such damnable idolatry to worship a breaden god , in my opinion , are on the safer side not to worship the visible species of bread in the eucharist . let but our protestant observe this , that when they would represent popery most favourably , they either say what protestants do , or something as like it , as they can , and he will see no reason , either to change his faith or his practice . the end . books lately printed for will. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods , by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the first part : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part : wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable , to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both , quarto . an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part , in the first dialogue , between him and his lay-friend . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english reformation ; in a book that came lately from oxford . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson dean of canterbury , octavo . a manual for a christian souldier , written by erasmus , and translated into english , twelves . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book ; whereby one ( who hath a good voice and ear ) may without other help , learn to sing true by notes . design'd chiefly for , and applied to , the promoting of psalmody ; and furnished with variety of psalm-tunes in parts , with directions for that kind of singing . a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by john tillotson , dean of canterbury , in octavo , price three pence . a discourse against transubstantiation . in octavo . price three pence . the state of the church of rome when the reformation began , as it appears by the advices given to paul iii. and julius iii. by creatures of their own. with a preface leading to the matter of the book . quarto . a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecter's defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholic letter . in four dialogues . quarto . a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy , d.d. and late minister of st. lawrence-jury , lond. jan. 7th , 1685 / 6. by w. sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . imprimatur liber cui titulus , the second part of the preservative against popery . may 3. 1688. guil. needham , r. r. in christo p. ac d.d. wilhelmo archiepisc. gant. à sacr. domest . the second part of the preservative against popery : shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of vnlearned protestants . by william sherlock , d.d. master of the temple . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . m dc lxxxviii . part ii. the preservative against popery . chap. iv. some directions relating to particular controversies . those who would understand the particular disputes between us and the church of rome , must of necessity read such books as give the true state of the controversie between us , and fairly represent the arguments on both sides ; and where such books are to be met with , he may learn from a late letter , entituled , the present state of the controversie between the church of england and the church of rome , or an account of books written on both sides . but my present design is of another nature , to give some plain and easie marks and characters of true gospel doctrines ; whereby a man , who has any relish of the true spirit of christianity , may as certainly know truth from error in many cases , as the palate can distinguish tasts . there are some things so proper to the gospel , and so primarily intended in it , that they may fitly serve for distinguishing marks of true evangelical doctrine : i shall name some of the chief , and examine some popish doctrines by them . section 1. concerning idolatry . 1. one principal intention of the gospel , was more perfectly to extirpate all idolatry ; for this purpose the son of god was manifested to destroy the works of the devil , that is , not only all sin and wickedness , but the very kingdom of darkness ; that kingdom the devil had erected in the world , the very foundation of which was laid in idolatrous worship . to this purpose christ has expresly taught us , that there is but one god , and has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of god : for no man hath seen god at any time , but the only begotten son , who is in the bosom of the father , he hath declared him . ignorance was the mother of pagan idolatry , because they did not know the true god , they worshipped any thing , every thing , for a god ; and therefore the most effectual course to cure idolatry , was to make known the true god to the world : for those men are inexcusable who know the true god , and worship any thing else . tho' indeed according to some mens divinity , the knowledge of the true god cures idolatry , not by rooting out idolatrous worship , but by excusing it ; by making that to be no idolatry in a christian , who knows god , which was idolatry in a heathen , who did not know him : for if ( as some say ) none can be guilty of idolatry , who acknowledge one supream being ; then the heathens , when once they were instructed in the knowledge of the one true god , might have worshipped all their country gods , which they did before , without being guilty of idolatry ; which is , as if i should say , that man is a rebel , who through mistake and ignorance owns any man for his prince , who is not his prince ; but he , is no rebel , who knows his lawful prince , and pays homage to another , whom he knows not to be his prince . and therefore our saviour confines all religious worship to god alone : thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve : it is his answer to the devil , when he tempted him to fall down and worship him , but he gives such an answer as excludes all creatures , not only bad but good spirits , from any share in religious worship : our saviour does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the devil , ( tho' that a man may do without the guilt of idolatry , who knows him to be the devil , if those men are in the right , who allow nothing to be idolatry , but to worship some being for the supreme god , who is not supreme ; for then you may worship the devil without the guilt of idolatry , if you do not believe him to be the supreme god ) but our saviour's reason for not worshipping him was , because we must worship none but god. which is as good a reason against the worship of the most glorious angel , as of the devil himself : nay , our saviour denies to worship him , though the devil made no terms with him , about the kind or degrees of worship : he does not require him to offer sacrifice to him , ( which is the only act of worship the church of rome appropriates to the supreme god ) but only to bow down before him , as an expression of religious devotion ; he did not demand that degree of worship , which the church of rome calls latria , and appropriates to the supreme god : nay , he confesses that he was not the supreme god , for he does not pretend to dispose of the kingdoms of the world in his own right , but says , they were given to him , and he had power to give them to whom he pleased ; in which he acknowledges , that he had a superiour , and therefore could not in the same breath desire to be owned and worshipped as the supreme . but our saviour denies to give him this inferiour degree of worship , and thereby teaches us , that no degree of religious worship must be given to any being , but the supreme god. and because mankind were very apt to worship inferiour daemons , as believing them to have the care of this lower world , and that it was in their power to do great good to them , to answer their prayers , and to mediate for them with the superiour deities , or with the supreme god , if they believed one supreme , which appears to be a received notion among them : to prevent this kind of idolatry , god advances his own son to be the universal mediator , and the supreme and soveraign lord of the world ; that all mankind should make their addresses and applications to him , and offer up their prayers only in his name ; that in him they should find acceptance , and in no other name . which was the most effectual way to put an end to the worship of all inferiour deities , and creature-patrons and advocates ; for when we are assured , that no other being can mediate for us with effect and power , but only christ , it is natural to worship no other mediator but him , who being the eternal son of god , may be worshipped without danger of idolatry . thus st. paul tells us , that tho' the heathen world had gods many and lords many , yet to us there is but one god the father , and one lord jesus christ : one supreme and soveraign deity , and one mediator between god and men . now this being so apparently one end of christ's coming into the world to suppress the idolatry of creature-worship , and to confine all religious worship to one supreme being , in opposition to the many gods of the heathens , and to teach us to make our applications to this one god by one mediator , in opposition to the worship of inferiour deities ; can any man imagine , that the worship of saints and angels , and the virgin mary , can be any part of the christian religion ? for how dear soever they are to god , they are but his creatures , and if soveraign princes will not receive their greatest favourites into their throne , much less will god. if god under the gospel dispensation has taken care to prevent the worship of inferiour beings , by appointing his own son to be our only mediator and advocate , can we imagine , that he ever intended we should offer up our prayers to other mediators ? if he had liked the mediation of creatures , would he have given his own son to be our priest and our mediator ? whatever fair pretences may be made for this , it apparently contradicts the gospel-dispensation ; for if we must own but one god , he alone must be worshipped ; if we have but one mediator , we must offer up our prayers only in his name and intercession . the religious worship of creatures is idolatry , and if god intended to root idolatry out of the world , by the gospel of christ , he could never intend to set up the worship of saints , and the virgin mary , which tho' it have not all the aggravations of pagan idolatry , yet is creature-worship . thus we know , how fond the heathens were of material images and pictures , to represent their gods as visibly present with them ; and to receive religious worship in their stead : not that they did believe their gods to be corporeal , or that their corporeal images were proper likenesses of their gods , in which a late author places the whole of idolatry , which i confess was agreeable enough to his design , to find out such a notion of idolatry , as it may be no persons in the world were ever guilty of , and then he might excuse , whom he pleased from idolatry : but the heathens were not such great sots , as this account makes them , as the learned founder of all anti-catholick , and anti-christian principles ( as this author is pleased to stile a very great man , whose name will be venerable to future ages ) has abundantly proved . but they wanted some material representations of their gods , in which they might as it were see them present , and offer up their petitions to them , and court them with some visible and sensible honours . now to cure this idolatry , tho' god would not allow any images or pictures for worship , yet by the law of moses he appoints them to build an house or temple for himself , where he would dwell among them , and place the symbols of his presence ; there was the mercy-seat , and the cherubims covering the mercy-seat , and there god promised moses to meet with him , and to commune with him from between the two cherubims , which are upon the ark of the testimony . now this was a symbolical representation of god's throne in heaven , where he is surrounded with angels , as we know , the holy of holies itself was a figure of heaven ; and therefore the jews , when they were absent from the temple , prayed towards it , and in the temple ( as is thought ) towards the mercy-seat , as the place of god's peculiar residence ; as now when we pray , we lift up our eyes and hands to heaven , where god dwells : so that under the law god had a peculiar place for worship , and peculiar symbols of his presence , but no images to represent his person , or to be the objects of worship : i know some roman doctors would fain prove the cherubims to have been the objects of worship , and which is more wonderful , a late bishop of the church of england has taken some pains to prove the same , and thereby to justifie the worship of images in the church of rome ; and before i proceed , i shall briefly examine what he has said in this cause . one would a little wonder , who reads the second commandment , which so severely forbids the worship of images , that god himself should set up images in his own temple as the objects of worship ; and a modest man would have been a little cautious , how he had imputed such a thing to god , which is so direct a contradiction to his own laws . that the cherubims were statues or images , whatever their particular form was , i agree with our author , and that is the only thing i agree with him in : for , 1. that they were sacred images set up by god himself , in the place of his own worship , i deny . for the holy of holies , where the ark was placed , and the mercy-seat over the ark , and the cherubims at the two ends spreading their wings , and covering the mercy-seat , was not the place of worship , but the place of god's presence . the place of worship is the place wherein men worship god ; now it is sufficiently known , that none of the jews were permitted to go into the holy of holies , nor so much as to look into it , and therefore it could not be the place of their worship : the holy of holies was the figure of heaven , and therefore could be no more the place of worship to the jews , than heaven now is to us , while we dwell on earth . the high priest indeed entered into the holy of holies once a year , with the blood of the sacrifice , which was a type of christ's entring into heaven with his own blood , and yet the priest went thither not to worship , but to make an atonement ; which i take to be two very different things ; however if you will call this worship , it has no relation to any worship on earth , but to what is done by christ in heaven , of whom the high priest was a type . and this , i think , is a demonstration , that the placing of cherubims to cover the mercy-seat in the holy of holies , does not prove the lawful use of images in temples or churches , or in the worship of god on earth ; if it proves any thing , it must prove the worship of god by images in heaven , of which the holy of holies was a figure ; and if any man can be so foolish as to imagine that , let them make what they please of it , so they do but excuse us from worshipping god by images on earth . 2. that these cherubims were the most solemn and sacred part of the jewish religion ; that nothing is more remarkable in all the old testament , than the honour done to the cherubims , that an outward worship was given to these images , as symbols of the divine presence , that the high priest adored these cherubims once a year , as this author asserts , i utterly deny ; and he has not given us one word to prove it . for the cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the jewish religion , that they were no part at all of it , if by religion he means worship ; for there was no regard at all had to the cherubims in the jewish worship ; and it is so far from being remarkable in the old testament , that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the cherubims : there is nothing in scripture concerning them , but the command to make them , and place them at the two ends of the mercy-seat ; and that god is said to dwell between the cherubims , and to give forth his oracles and responses from that place : but i desire to learn , where the jews are commanded to direct their worship to or towards the cherubims ? where the high priest is commanded to adore the cherubims once a year ? or what protestant grants he did so , as this author insinuates ? he supposes the cherubims to have been the symbols of gods presence , and his representations , and that the jews directed their worship to them as such , and that is to worship god by images , or to give the same signs of reverence to his representations , as to himself : but how does it appear , that the cherubims were the symbols of gods presence ? god indeed is said to sit between the cherubims , and he promised moses to commune with him from between the cherubims , but the cherubims were no symbols of gods presence , much less a representation of him : if any thing was the symbolical presence of god , it was the mercy seat , which was a kind of figurative throne , or chair of state ; but the cherubims were only symbolical representations of those angels , who attend and encompass gods throne in heaven , and were no more representations of god , or symbols of his presence , then some great ministers of state are of the king ; as this author himself acknowledges , when he makes the four beasts in the revelations ( rev. 4.6 , 7. ) which stood round about the throne , to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate divine presence in the ark by the cherubims ; if he had said to the cherubims covering the mercy seat , which was his figurative throne , and where he was invisibly present , without any visible figures or symbols of his presence , he had said right : for the cherubims which covered the mercy seat , were no more symbols of gods presence , than the four beasts , which stood before the throne , are the presence of god ; or then some great courtiers or ministers of state , who attend the king , are the presence of the king ; they attend the king , where ever he is , and so may be some sign of his presence , but are not a symbolical presence , as a chair of state is . but it seems our author imagined , that the cherubims were such symbols of gods presence , and such representations of him , as images were of the pagan gods , and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence , as god himself was ; according to aquinas's rule , that the image must be worshipped with the same worship , which is due to the proto-type , or that being whose image it is , which is such old popery , as monsieur de meaux , and the representer cry shame of ; well , but how does he prove , that any worship was directed to these cherubims ? i can find no proof he offers for it , but david's exhortation ( as he calls it ) to the people , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to honour the ark ( he should have said worship ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , bow down to , or worship his footstool , for it , or he , is holy . now suppose this did relate to the ark , what is that to the cherubims ? when but four pages before , he tells us , that the ark is called god's footstool , and the cherubims his throne ; how then does david's exhortation to worship the ark , which is god's footstool , prove that all their worship , must be directed to the cherubims , which are his throne ? it is pitty , that great wits have but short memories . and yet i fancy , our author would have been much troubled to prove the ark to be meant by god's footstool ; for the ark was in the holy of holies , which was a figure of heaven ; and neither the heaven , nor any thing in it , but the earth , is in scripture called god's foot-stool ; and the psalmist expresly applies it to zion , and to the holy hill , which , i will not prove , was not the ark. and this i suppose is a sufficient confutation of his exposition of the words , to bow down to , or worship his foot-stool ; for i believe he did not think that mount zion , or the holy hill , was the object of worship , or the symbol of god's presence ; but there god was present , and that was reason enough to worship at his foot-stool , and at his holy hill ; as our english translation reads it . but now suppose the jews were to direct their worship towards the mercy-seat , which was covered with the cherubims , where god had promised to be present ; how are the cherubims concerned in this worship ? the worship was paid only to god , though directed to god , as peculiarly present at that place ; which is no more , than to lift up our eyes and hands to heaven , where the throne of god is , when we pray to him : i grant , that bowing to , and bowing towards any thing , as the object of worship , is the very same , as this author observes ; and therefore had the jews either bowed to or towards the cherubims , as the objects of their worship , as the papists bow to or towards their images , they had been equally guilty of idolatry , and the breach of the second commandment ; but when bowing to signifies bowing to an object of worship , and bowing towards signifies bowing to this object of worship , only towards such a place , where he is peculiarly present , this makes a great difference ; and this was all the jews did at most , if they did that ; they bowed to god towards the mercy-seat , where he dwelt , without any regard to the cherubims or mercy-seat , as the object of worship , which was as invisible to the jews then , as the throne of god and the angels in heaven are now to us ; and we may as well say , that those who lift up their eyes and their hands to heaven , when they pray to god , worship the angels , who incircle his throne , because they know that the angels are there ; as say , that the jews worshipped their invisible cherubims , because they knew that the cherubims were there : for is there any necessity that the jews must worship whatever they knew , was in the holy of holies , because they worshipped god towards that place , any more than there is , that we must worship whatever we know to be in heaven , when we direct our worship to god in heaven ? men , i grant , may worship an unseen object , for so we all worship god , whom we do not and cannot see ; but it is a good argument still , that the cherubims were not intended by god for the objects of worship , because they were concealed from the peoples sight ; for i believe the world never heard before of worshipping invisible images : the original intention of images , is to have a visible object of worship ; for an invisible image can affect us no more than an invisible god ; and if our author had consulted all the patrons of image-worship , whether pagan or popish , he would have found most of the reasons they alleadge for this worship to depend on sight , and therefore whatever he thought , are all lost when a man shuts his eyes . a man who directs his worship to an image , may be an idolater in the dark , and with his eyes shut ; but as blind as idolaters are , there never had been any image-worship , had their images been as invisible as their gods ; and therefore sight has more to do in this matter , than our author was aware of . but it seems the high-priest once a year did see these cherubims , and adore and worship them . but this is another mistake : for the jews did believe , that the high-priest never saw the cherubims or mercy-seat , even when he went once a year into the holy of holies ; and they have great reason for what they say , since god expresly commanded , that when he went into the holy of holies , he should take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the lord , and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small , and bring it within the veil : and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the lord , that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat , that is upon the testimony , that he die not , 16. levit. 12 , 13. which shews that the cherubims and mercy-seat were to be covered with a cloud of incense , and to become as invisible to the high-priest within the veil , as to the people without it . but suppose the high-priest did see the cherubims , when he entred within the veil , i have one plain argument to prove that he did not worship them , not only because no act of worship was commanded him when he went into the holy place , but because as the holy of holies was the figure of heaven , and the cherubims the types of angels , who stand about the throne of god ; so the high-priest entring into the holy of holies , was the type of christ ascending into heaven with his own bloud ; and therefore the high-priest must do nothing in the holy of holies , but what was a proper figure and type of what christ does in heaven : and then he must no more worship the cherubims , which covered the mercy-seat , or the typical throne of god , than christ himself , when he ascended to heaven , was to worship the angels , who stand about the throne . so that notwithstanding god's command to make two cherubims , and to place them at the two ends of the mercy-seat in the holy of holies , all image-worship was strictly forbid by the law of moses ; and god has provided the most effectual remedy against it by the incarnation of his son : mankind have been always fond of some visible deity , and because god cannot be seen , they have gratified their superstition by making some visible images and representations of an invisible god : now to take them off from mean corporeal images and representations , which are both a dishonour to the divine nature , and debase the minds of men , god has given us a visible image of himself , has cloathed his own eternal son with humane nature , who is the brightness of his father's glory , and the express image of his person , 1. hebr. 3. and therefore st. john tells us , that the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the father , full of grace and truth , 1 john 14. and for this reason when philip was desirous to see the father , shew us the father and it sufficeth ; christ tells him , that the father is to be seen onely in the son , who is his visible image and glory ; jesus saith unto him , have i been so long time with you , and yet hast thou not seen me philip ? he that hath seen me , hath seen the father , and how sayest thou then , shew us the father ? 14 john 8 , 9. this was one end of christ's incarnation , that we might have a visible deity , a god incarnate to represent the father to us , who is the living and visible image of god ; and there could not be a more effectual way to make men despise all dead material representations of god , than to have god visibly represented to us in our own nature . it is true , christ is not visible to us now on earth , but he is visible in heaven , and we know , he is the only visible image of god , and that is enough to teach us , that we must make and adore no other . he is as visible to us in heaven , as the mercy seat in the holy of holies was to the jews , and is that true propitiatory of which the mercy seat was a type and figure , 3 rom. 25. him hath god set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mercy-seat , as that word is used , 9 heb. 5. he is the natural image of god , and his mercy-seat , or presence and throne of grace , he is his visible image , tho' he cannot be seen by us , for the typical mercy seat in the holy of holies , did praefigure , that his residence should be in heaven , and therefore invisible to us on earth , but there we may see him by faith , and there he will receive our prayers , and present them to his father . now then to sum up this argument : since it was one main design of christs appearance , to root all the remains of idolatrous worship out of the world , is it credible , that the worship of saints and angels , and the virgin mary ; the worship of images and reliques , as it is practised in the church of rome , should be any part of christian worship , or allowed by the gospel of our saviour ? if creature-worship , and image-worship were so offensive to god , here is the worship of creatures , and images still , and therefore all the visible idolatry , that ever was practised in the world before : all that they can pretend is , that they have better notions of the worship of saints , and angels , and images , than the heathens had : but whether they have or no , will be hard to prove : the pagan philosophers made the same apologies for their worship of angels , and daemons , and images , which the learned papists now make , and whether unlearned papists have not as gross notions about their worship of saints and images , as the unlearned heathens had , is very doubtful , and has been very much suspected by learned romanists themselves : but suppose there were some difference upon this account , can we think , that christ , who came to root out all idolatrous worship , intended to set up a new kind of creature-worship and image-worship in greater pomp and glory than ever , and only to rectifie mens opinions about it ? suppose the idolatry of creature-worship and image-worship , does consist onely in mens gross notions about it ; yet we see under the law to prevent and cure this , god did not go about to rectifie their opinions of these things , but absolutely forbids the worship of all images , and of any other being but himself , which methinks he would not have done , had there been such great advantages in the worship of saints , and angels , and images , as the romanists pretend : and when god in the law of moses forbad all creature and image worship , can we think , that christ who came to make a more perfect reformation , should only change their country gods into saints and angels , and the virgin mary , and give new names to their statues and images ? which whatever he had taught about it , instead of curing idolatry , had been to set up that same kind of worship , which the law of moses absolutely forbad , and condemned as idolatry . when god to cure the idolatrous worship of inferiour daemons , as their mediators and advocates with the supreme god , sent his own son into the world to be our mediator , can we think , that he intended after this , that we should worship angels , and saints , and the virgin mary , as our mediators ? when god has given us a visible image of himself , his eternal and incarnate son , whom we may worship and adore , did he still intend , that we should worship material and sensible images of wood or stone ? by the incarnation of his own son , god did indeed take care to rectifie mens mistakes about creature-worship , and to cut off all pretences for it : those who pleaded that vast distance between god and men , and how unfit it was , that sinners should make their immediate approaches to the supreme god , and therefore worshipped inferiour daemons as middle beings between god and man , have now no pretence for this , since god has appointed his own son to be our mediator : those who worshipped images as the visible representations of an invisible god , have now a visible object of worship , a god incarnate , a god in the nature and likeness of a man ; and though we do not now see him , yet we have the notion of a visible god and mediator to whom we can direct our prayers in heaven , which is satisfaction enough even to men of more gross and material imaginations , without any artificial and senseless representations of the deity : and was all this done , that men might worship creatures and images without idolatry ? or rather was it not done to cure mens inclinations to commit idolatry with creatures and images ? whoever believes that the gospel of our saviour was intended as a remedy against idolatry , can never be perswaded , that it allows the worship of saints and images ; which if it be not idolatry , is so exactly like it in all external appearance , that the allowance of it does not look like a proper cure for idolatry . sect . ii. concerning the great love of god to mankind , and the assurances of pardon and forgiveness which the gospel gives to all penitent sinners ; which are much weakned by some popish doctrines . 2. the gospel of christ was intended to give the highest demonstration of god's love to mankind , and the greatest possible security to all humble penitent sinners , of the forgiveness of their sins : hence the gospel is called the grace of god , and the gospel of grace , as being a dispensation of love and goodness ; and therefore whatever lessens and disparages the gospel-grace , can be no gospel-doctrine . as to consider this particularly . the gospel magnifies the grace of god in giving his own son for us : god so loved the world ; that he gave his only begotten son , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life , 3 john 16. in this was manifested the love of god towards us , because that god sent his only begotten son into the world , that we might live through him . herein is love , not that we loved god , but that he loved us , and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins , 1 john 4.9 , 10. and st. paul assures us , that this is such a glorious manifestation of god's love , as will not suffer us to doubt of any other expressions of his goodness : he that spared not his own son , but delivered him up for us all , how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ? 8 rom. 32. so that the gospel of our saviour gives us much higher demonstrations of god's love and goodness , than either the light of nature , or the law of moses did . love is the prevailing attribute of god under the gospel-dispensation , for god is love , and he that dwelleth in love , dwelleth in god , and god in him , 1 john 4.16 . thus the gospel of christ gives a humble penitent as great assurance of pardon , as his own guilty fears can desire ; for repentance and remission of sins is preached in the name of christ : he has expiated our sins by the sacrifice of his death , god commendeth his love towards us , in that while we were yet sinners , christ died for us , much more then being justified by his bloud , we shall be saved from wrath through him ; for if when we were enemies we were reconciled unto god by the death of his son , much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life , 5 rom. 8 , 9 , 10. for as he was delivered for our offences , so he was raised again for our justification ; and him hath god exalted to be a prince and a saviour to give repentance unto israel , and remission of sins . so that if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father , jesus christ the righteous , who is able to save all them to the uttermost , that come unto god by him , seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them , 7 heb. 25. these are the fundamental doctrines of christianity , and therefore nothing can be a gospel-doctrine , which weake●s or overthrows them . let us then examine the popish doctrine of purgatory , and the invocation of saints and angels as our mediators with god , and see how they are reconcileable with the gospel-notion of god's love , and that security it gives us of pardon through the merits and intercession of christ. 1. let us consider the doctrine of purgatory , which is but the outward court or region of hell , where the punishments are as severe as in hell itself , only of a less continuance ; and yet as short as they are , they may last many hundred , nay thousand years , unless their friends and the priests be more merciful to them , or they themselves have taken care before death to pay the price of their redemption . this is a barbarous doctrine , and so inconsistent with that mighty love of god to penitent sinners , as it is represented in the gospel of christ , that it is not reconcileable with any notion of love and goodness at all ; you may call it justice , you may call it vengeance , if you please , but love it is not , or if it be , it is such a love as no man can distinguish from hatred : for my part i declare , i do not desire to be thus loved ; i should rather chuse to fall into nothing , when i die , than to endure a thousand years torments to be happy for ever ; for humane nature cannot bear the thoughts of that : and is this , that wonderful love of god to sinners , which is so magnified in the gospel , to torment those , who are redeemed by the bloud of christ , some hundred or thousand years in the fire of purgatory , which is not cooler than the fire of hell ? the light of nature , i confess , never taught this , for mankind never had any notion of such an outragious love ; they always thought , that the love of god consisted in doing good , not in damning those , whom he loves , for so many ages : and if this be all the discovery , the gospel has made of the love of god , we have no great reason to glory in it . he who can believe , that god , who so loved the world , as to give his only begotten son for the redemption of sinners , will torment a penitent sinner so many years in purgatory , till he has either endured the punishment of his sins himself , or is released by the charity of his friends , or the masses of some mercenary priests , deserves to lie in purgatory , till he thinks more honourably of the divine goodness , and be convinced , that it is no such extravagant commendation of the love of god , to send penitent sinners to purgatory . there are two extravagant notions whereon the doctrine of purgatory is founded , which overthrow all the natural notions men have of goodness , and destroy all the hope and confidence of the most penitent sinners in the goodness of god. as , 1. that god may forgive sins , and yet punish us for them ; for no man can go into purgatory according to the doctrine of the church of rome , whose sins are not already forgiven : but though his sins are forgiven , he must make satisfaction for that temporal punishment , which is due to them , either in this world , or in purgatory : now how reconcilable these two are , to forgive , and to punish , let all mankind judge . i believe , very few men think , they are forgiven , when they are punished ; for that which all men desire should be forgiven them , is the punishment , they have deserv'd . what is it , men are afraid of , when they have sinned ? is it not , that they shall be punished for it ? what is it men desire , when they desire pardon ? is it not , that they may not be punished ? and is it any comfort to a malefactor to be pardoned , and to be hanged ? does any man boast of his love and kindness , or take any comfort in it , who freely forgives him , but exacts the payment of the debt , or the punishment of his fault ? and if this be so contrary to the very notion of goodness and forgiveness among men , how comes it to be the notion of goodness and forgiveness in god ? how comes that to be love and goodness , which the sinner receives no benefit by ? for love and goodness , i think , signifies to do good ; or if this be goodness , let those take comfort in it that can . if it be said , that it is an act of goodness to exchange the eternal punishment of hell , which is due to sin , into the temporal punishment of purgatory , i grant , this is something , but only ask , whether it would not have been a more perfect expression of love and goodness , to have remitted the temporal punishment also of , it may be , some thousand years torment in purgatory ? whether this might not have been expected under a dispensation of the most perfect love ? and from that god , who sent his only begotten son into the world to save sinners ? whether those sins are perfectly forgiven , which shall be avenged , thô not with eternal , yet with long temporal punishments in the next world ? whether any man thinks himself perfectly forgiven , who is punished very severely , tho' not absolutely according to his deserts ? and consequently , whether the doctrine of purgatory be not a very great diminution of the love of god , and the grace of the gospel ? and whether that can be a true gospel doctrine , which represents the love of god , much less then the love of a kind and good man , who when he forgives the injury , forgives the whole punishment of it ? nay , whether that can be a gospel doctrine , which represents the love of god less than infinite ? and i suppose an infinite love may forgive true penitents the whole punishment of their sins ; and then there is no need of purgatory . 2 ly . in purgatory , god does not only punish those , whom he has pardoned , but he punishes for no other reason , but punishment-sake . for thus the roman doctors tell us , that the souls in purgatory , are in a state of pardon , and in a state of perfect grace ; and they suffer the pains of purgatory , not to purge away any remains of sin , or to purifie and refine them , and make them more fit for heaven , but only to bear the punishment due to sin , for which they had made no satisfaction , while they lived . now i dare boldly affirm , this is irreconcileable with any degree of love and goodness : to make any punishment just , it must have respect to the guilt of sin , to make it an act of goodness , it must be intended for the reformation of the sinner ; but when sin is pardoned , the guilt at least is taken away , and therefore such punishments can have no relation to guilt ; and when the sinner is in a perfect state of grace , and needs no amendment , such punishments can have no respect to the good and reformation of the sinner , and therefore such punishments are neither just nor good , and this is the exact notion of purgatory ; and methinks we should consider , whether this agrees with that account the gospel gives us of the love and goodness of god : should a prince have a jayl of the same nature with purgatory , where for several years he torments those whom he pretends to have pardoned , and who are grown very good men , and good subjects , and need no correction , or discipline , i believe all the world would laugh at those , who should call this , love and goodness , pardon and mercy . hell is very reconcileable with the goodness of god , because it is prepared only for those , who are the objects of a just , a righteous vengeance , and a very good god may be very just ; but purgatory can never be reconciled with the superabundant goodness of god to sinners , through jesus christ , unless men think it a great kindness to suffer the pains of hell for several months , years , or ages for no reason , which makes it either just or good to suffer them . so that a popish purgatory is inconsistent with the belief of god's great love and goodness to sinners , in jesus christ , and destroys the hope and confidence of sinners : for if they may lie in purgatory for some thousand years , as they may do , notwithstanding the love of god , and the merits of christ , if the pope , or the priests , or their mony be not more merciful unto them , they have no great reason to glory much in the goodness of god , though they should go to heaven at last : so that our protestant need not dispute much about purgatory : let him only ask a popish priest , how the doctrine of purgatory can be reconciled with that stupendious love of god declared to penitent sinners , in his son jesus christ ? for it is a contradiction to the notion of goodness among men , to inflict such terrible punishments in meer grace and love , even when the sin is pardoned , and the sinner reconciled , and no longer in a state of discipline and tryal . secondly , the doctrine of purgatory destroys , or weakens , that security the gospel hath given sinners of their redemption from the wrath of god , and the just punishment of their sins . one great security , is the love of god declared to the world by our lord jesus christ , but if the love of god to penitent sinners , who are redeemed by the blood of christ , be consistent with his tormenting them in purgatory so many thousand years , as you have already heard , it will be a very hard thing to distinguish such love from wrath , and a sinner , who is afraid of so many thousand years punishment , can take no great comfort in it : but besides this , the doctrine of purgatory destroys mens hope and confidence in the merits and intercession of christ , and in the express promises of pardon and remission of sins in his name . 1. it destroys mens hopes in the merits of christ , and the atonement and expiation of his blood ; for if the blood of christ does not deliver us from the punishment of sin , what security is this to a sinner ? yes , you 'll say , christ has redeemed us from eternal , tho' not from temporal punishments , and therefore penitent sinners have this security by the expiation of christ's death , that they shall not be eternally damned : this i know the church of rome teaches ; but i desire to know , how any man can be satisfied from scripture , that christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punishments , if he have not delivered us from temporal punishments of sin in the next world ? i thankfully acknowledge , and it is the only hope i have , that the gospel has given us abundant assurance of the expiation and atonement made for sin by the blood of christ ; but what i say is this , that if these texts which prove our redemption by the death of christ , do not prove , that christ has redeemed us from the whole punishment due to sin in the next world , they prove nothing , and then we have not one place of scripture to prove , that christ by his death has redeemed us from eternal punishments ; which is enough to make all christians abhor the doctrine of purgatory , if it destroy the doctrine of salvation by jesus christ. as to show this briefly : the hope and security of sinners depends upon such scripture expressions as these : that christ has died for our sins , that he has made atonement for sin , that he is a propitiation through faith in his blood , that he has redeemed us from the curse of the law● being made a curse for us : that remission and forgiveness of sins is preached in his name ; that by him we are justified from all those things , from which we could not be justified by the law of moses , that being justified by faith , we have peace with god through our lord jesus christ ; that we are reconciled unto god , and saved from wrath by him . now i desire to know , whether all these expressions signifie , that for christ's sake , and through the atonement and expiation of his blood , a penitent sinner shall be delivered from the punishment due to his sins ? if they do not signifie this , how is a sinner secured , that though his sins are pardoned , and he is justified , and reconciled to god , and redeemed from the curse of the law , and saved from wrath , he shall not after all this be damned for his sins , since ●●●t is the punishment of sin , which it seems is not removed , when the sin is pardoned , and the sinner justified and reconciled to god ? if these expressions do not signifie taking away the punishment of sin , i desire one text of scripture to prove , that a sinner , who is pardoned and justified , shall not undergo the eternal punishment of his sins . if to be pardoned and justified , &c. does signifie to be delivered from the punishment of sin , i desire to know , how a sinner , who is pardoned and justified , can be punished for his sins ? that is , how a sinner , who is released from the punishment of his sins , should be bound to suffer the punishment of his sins in purgatory ? our roman adversaries do indeed distinguish between the temporal and eternal punishment of sin ; the eternal punishment of sin , they say , christ has made satisfaction for , and that is removed by his death , that no penitent sinner shall be eternally damned ; but a sinner must make satisfaction for the temporal punishment of sin himself , either in this world , or in purgatory : and consequently that forgiveness of sins , signifies the remission of the eternal punishment of sin , but not of the temporal : now i shall not put them to prove this distinction from scripture , which is a very unreasonable task , because there is nothing in scripture about it ; but yet i would gladly be secured , that i shall be saved from eternal punishments ; and therefore i would gladly know , how forgiveness of sins , and our redemption from the curse of the law , signifies our deliverance from eternal punishments , if they do not signifie our deliverance from the punishment of our sins ? and how they can signifie our deliverance from the punishment of our sins , if notwithstanding this we must suffer the punishment of our sins in purgatory ? if they signifie , that we shall not be punished for our sins , then indeed they may signifie , that we shall not be eternally punished ; but they cannot signifie , that we shall not be eternally punished , unless they signifie that we shall not be punished , and therefore not in purgatory neither ; if that be the punishment of sin . the truth is , this is a very senceless distinction between the temporal and eternal punishment of sin : for i desire to know , whether the temporal punishment be not the punishment of sin ? be not the curse of the law ? if it be , then forgiveness of sin , if it remits the punishment , remits the temporal punishment , for that is the punishment of sin ; then our redemption from the curse of the law , redeems us from purgatory , for that is the curse of the law too , if you add , and from death , for that is the curse of the law too , and yet those who are redeemed and justified , die still ; which shows the fallacy of this argument , for it seems redemption from the curse of the law , does not signifie our redemption from the whole curse , for then a justified person must not die , since bare dying is part of the curse . i answer , this had certainly been true , had not the necessity of dying been expresly excepted out of this redemption ; for in adam all die , and it is appointed ( by a divine decree ) for all men once to die , and could they show , where purgatory is excepted too , then i would grant , that those who are redeemed from the curse of the law might fall into purgatory , if that be any comfort to them : and yet the case is vastly different between death and purgatory : for though death be the curse of the law , yet we may be delivered from death as a curse and punishment , without being delivered from the necessity of dying : and thus good men are redeemed from death : for their sins are expiated and pardoned , and then the sting of death is gone ; for the sting of death is sin , and therefore when our sins are pardoned , death cannot sting us , can do us no hurt ; because it does not deliver us over to punishment , but transplants us into a more happy state. the fears of death are conquered by the promises of immortal life , and death itself shall at the last day be swallowed up in victory , when our dead bodies shall be raised immortal and glorious , so that tho' good men still die , yet they are redeemed from the curse of the law , from death itself as a curse and a punishment . but the popish purgatory is a place of punishment , and nothing but punishment ; and therefore is not reconcileable with the remission and forgiveness of sin . again i ask , whether there are two kinds of punishments due to sin , temporal and eternal , of such a distinct nature and consideration , that the promise of forgiveness does not include both ? nay , that god cannot forgive both ; that only the eternal punishment can be forgiven , but the temporal punishment must be satisfied for , or endured by the sinner : if this were the case indeed , then i would grant , the promise of forgiveness could extend only to eternal punishments , because god can forgive no other ; and the forgiveness of eternal punishment , does not include the forgiveness of the temporal punishment . but if the curse of the law be eternal death , and all other punishments , which can properly be called the punishment of sin ( for correction and discipline is not the wrath of god , and the curse of the law ) are only parts of the curse , and a partial execution of it ; if the only thing , that makes sinners obnoxious to temporal punishments is , that they are under the sentence of eternal death , which god may execute by what degrees he pleases ; then to forgive eternal punishment must include the forgiveness of temporal punishments , as parts or branches of it . as suppose there were a law , that no man should suffer any bodily punishments , but such a malefactor as is condemned to die , but when the sentence of death is past upon him , it should be at the prince's pleasure to defer the execution of this sentence , as long as he pleased , and in the mean time to inflict all other punishments on him , whatever he pleased ; in this case to pardon the sentence of death , would deliver such a man from all other punishments too , which by the law are due only to that man , who is under the sentence of death : and in such a constitution for any man to say , that the prince's pardon extends only to life , but does not excuse from whipping and pilloring , and perpetual imprisonment , would be to make the pardon void , since no man by the law can suffer those other punishments but he who is condemned to die , and therefore he who is pardoned the sentence of death , in consequence of that is pardoned all other punishments too . thus it is here , the original curse against sin was , in the day , that thou eatest thereof , thou shalt surely die , which by the gospel of christ is expounded of eternal death , and there is no other threatning in all the gospel against sin , but eternal death ; and therefore all other punishments are inflicted by vertue of this law , and consequently he who is delivered from this curse of the law , from eternal punishments , is delivered from the whole punishment due to sin ; unless they can find some other law in the gospel , besides that which threatens eternal death , which obliges a sinner to punishment . again , since they acknowledge , that christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punishments , i do not think it worth the while to dispute with them , whether those sufferings and calamities , which good men are exposed to in this world , may properly be called punishments , or only correction and discipline ; but i desire to know , why they call purgatory , which is a place of punishment in the other world , a temporal punishment ? for this is an abuse of the language of scripture , which makes this world temporal , and the next world eternal , as st. paul expresly tells us ; the things , which are seen , are temporal , but the things , which are not seen , are eternal , 2 cor. 4. 18. and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments in this world , but the unseen punishments , as well as the unseen rewards , of the next world are eternal : which is a demonstration , that there is no purgatory , unless it be eternal , and then it is but another name for hell , and therefore the state of the next world is called either life or death , eternal life , or eternal death : those who believe in christ shall never die , 11 john 25 , 26. now i desire to know the difference between living , and dying , and perishing in the next world ; for bad men do not cease to be , nor loose all sence in the next world , no more than good men ; and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness , and death a state of misery , which is much worse than not being : now if good men must not perish , must not die , but live , in the next world , they must not go to purgatory , which as much perishing , as much dying , as hell , though not so long ; but if they must never die , never perish , they must never suffer the pains of purgatory , which is a dying and perishing , that is , a state of torment and misery , while they continue there . let us then see how a papist , who believes a purgatory-fire in the next world , wherein he shall be tormented ( god knows how long ! ) for his sins , can prove that a penitent sinner shall not be eternally damned : oh! says he , christ has died for our sins , and made attonement for them , and we are pardoned and justified through faith in his bloud ; and what then , may we not still be punished for our sins ? if not , what becomes of purgatory ? if we may , prove , that we shall not be eternally damned for sin , which is the proper punishment of it : for if to be pardoned and justified , signifie to be delivered from punishment , it signifies our deliverance from the whole punishment of sin , since the scripture does not limit it : if they do not signifie our deliverance from punishment , then we may be eternally punished for sin , though we are pardoned and justified . but we are redeemed from the curse of the law , and saved from wrath . but if such a man may go to purgatory , why not to hell ? or if the curse of the law , and the wrath of god be in hell , but not in purgatory , though the torments are equally great , why may not he lie for ever in purgatory , as well as a thousand years , with this comfort , that though he be infinitely tormented , yet it is not the curse of the law , nor the wrath of god. well , but christ has promised , that those who believe in him , shall not perish , but have everlasting life : and that proves that the pains of purgatory cannot be for ever , for then christ could not make good his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them : so i confess one would think , and so i should have thought also , that when christ promised , that such believers should not perish , and should never die , that he meant , such men should not go to purgatory in the next world ; but if falling into purgatory be not perishing , and not dying , it may be everlasting life too . for ought i know , and then the pains of purgatory may be eternal . whoever would not forfeit all the assurance the gospel has given us , of our redemption from hell , and a glorious immortality , must reject the popish doctrine of purgatory , as a flat contradiction to all the gracious promises of the gospel : for hell , or an eternal purgatory , is as reconcileable with the promises of forgiveness and immortal life , as the popish purgatory is . 2. this doctrine of purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation and intercession of christ , and that for these two plain reasons : 1. as it represents him less merciful and compassionate ; and 2. less powerful , than the wants and necessities of sinners require him to be . for i. after all that is said in scripture of his being so merciful and compassionate an high-priest , a sinner who hears what is told him of purgatory , could wish him a great deal more compassionate than he is : for it is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his members in purgatory-fire , which burns as hot as hell. could i believe this of our saviour , i should have very mean thoughts of his kindness , and not much rely on him for any thing : we should think him far enough from being a merciful and compassionate prince , who can be contented to torture his subjects for a year together ; and it is a wonderful thing to me , that when a merciful man cannot see a beast in torment without relieving it , it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our saviour , to see us burn in purgatory for years and ages . to be sure this destroys all our hope in him in this world ; for why should we think , he will be concerned what we suffer here , who can contentedly let us lie in purgatory , to which all the calamities and sufferings of this life are meer trifles ? o blessed and merciful jesu ! pardon such blasphemies as these . for ii. if he be compassionate , he must want power to help us ; and that destroys the hope of sinners as much as want of compassion . it must be want of will or power in him , that he does not deliver us from purgatory as well as hell : and if he want power to deliver us from purgatory , for my part i should more question his power to deliver from hell , for that is the harder of the two : if his bloud could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin , which the merits of some supererogating saints , or the pope's indulgence , or the priests masses can redeem us from , how could it make expiation for eternal punishment ? if his interest in the court of heaven will not do the less , how can it do the great ? there is no doctrine more irreconcileable with the perfect love and goodness of god , and the merits and intercession of our saviour , which are the fundamental doctrines of the gospel , which is a dispensation of love and grace , than this of purgatory , and therefore we may safely conclude , that this is no gospel-doctrine . 2. let us now examine the doctrine of invocation of saints and angels as our mediators with god , and see whether it does not disparage the grace of the gospel , the love of god , and of our mediator and advocate jesus christ , to penitent sinners . now a very few words will decide this matter . 1. with respect to god ; now can that man believe , that god is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of christ , who seeks to so many advocates and mediators to interceed for him with god. to imagine that we want any mediator to god , but only our high-priest , who mediates in vertue of his sacrifice , is a reproach to the divine goodness . the wisdom and justice of god may require a sacrifice , and a high-priest to make attonement for sin , but infinite goodness needs not any entreaties , and meer intercessions to move him . a truly good man , who knows a proper object of his kindness , needs not to be asked to do good . the use of such advocates and mediators among men , is either to recommend an unknown person to the favour of the prince , or fairly to represent his cause to him , which has been mis-represented by others , or to procure favour for an undeserving person , or among equal competitors , to procure some one to be preferred ; this is all the use of intercession among men ▪ for a good , and wise , and just prience , will do what is wise , and just , and good , not only without intercessors , but against all intercessions to the contrary . now i suppose no man will say , that god wants mediators and advocates upon any of these accounts ; for he knows every man , understands perfectly his cause , will never be perswaded by any intercessions to shew kindness to unfit objects , that is , to impenitent sinners ; and his goodness is so unconfined , and so extensive to all , that there can never be any competition for his favour ; and therefore to multiply advocates and mediators to god , must argue a great distrust of his mercy and goodness , which a kind and good prince would take very ill of us . god indeed has commanded us to pray for one another in this world , as he has to pray for our selves ; but this is not by way of interest and merit , as the church of rome pretends , the saints in heaven pray for us , but by humble supplications , which is very reconcileable with the goodness of god , to make prayer a necessary condition of granting pardon and other blessings we want : but as the use of prayer for our selves , is not to move god meerly by our importunities to do good to us , for we must pray in faith , that is , with a humble assurance and confidence that god will hear us , which includes a firm belief of his readiness to grant , what we pray for ; so neither are our prayers for others to move god by our interest in him , that is , they are not the intercessions of favourites , but of humble supplicants . there was great reason why god should make prayer the condition of our receiving , though he wants not our importunities to move him , because there are a great many excellent virtues exercised in prayer ; such as great sorrow for sin , great humility of mind , faith in god's promises , the acts of love , and affiance and trust in god , and a constant dependance on his grace and providence for all spiritual and temporal blessings : and there was great reason why he should command us to pray for others , tho' he wants none of our intercessions for them ; because it is a mutual exercise of charity , of love to our brethren , and forgiveness to our enemies , and is a mighty obligation to do all other acts of kindness ; for those who know it to be their duty to pray for one another , will think themselves bound to do good to one another also : this becomes those , who live and converse together in this world , because it is a great instrument of virtue , and that is a reason why god should encourage the exercise of it by promising to hear our prayers for each other . but as far as meer goodness is concerned , the gospel represents god as so very good to sinners , that there is no need of any intercessor for them : for god so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten son , that whosoever believes in him should not perish , but have everlasting life , 3 john 16. this was an act of goodness antecedent to the incarnation and death of christ , and the highest act of goodness that god could manifest to the world , and therefore secures us of god's love and goodness to sinners without a mediator and advocate ; for that love which provided a mediator for us , was without one , and proves , that it was not for want of goodness , or that he needed entreaties , that he gave his son to be our mediator . and therefore hence s. paul proves , how ready god is to bestow all good things on us : he that spared not his own son , but delivered him up for us all , how shall he not with him also freely give us all things , 8 rom. 32. and our saviour himself represents the goodness of god , by the tenderness and compassion of an earthly parent : if ye then being evil ( that is , less good than god is ) know how to give good things to your children , how much more shall your heavenly father give good things to them that ask him , 7 matth. 11. especially in the parable of the prodigal , where our saviour describes the goodness of god to sinners , by that passion and joy wherewith the father received his returning prodigal ; nay , he assures his disciples , that there was no need of his own intercession to incline god to be good and kind to them : at that day ye shall ask in my name , and i say not unto you , that i will pray the father for you , for the father himself loveth you , because ye have loved me , and believed that i came out from god , 16 john 26 , 27. god is so infinitely good , that he needs no mediators or intercessors to incline him to all acts of goodness ; but as he is the wise and just governour of the world , he requires a sacrifice for sin , and a high-priest to make attonement for it , and to interceed in vertue of the sacrifice . such a mediator christ is , who alone is both our sacrifice and our priest , and therefore our only mediator ; not to incline god to be good , for that he was before , infinitely good , or else he had not given his son to be our sacrifice and our high-priest , but to make attonement for our sins , and thereby to reconcile the exercise of god's goodness with his wisdom and justice in governing the world. such a mediator and high-priest does not lessen the divine goodness , for the intention of his mediation is not to make god good and kind , but to make it wise and just in god to do good to sinners ; but all other mediators in heaven , whose business it is by prayers , and entreaties , and interest , and favour to incline god to be good to such particular persons as they interceed for , is a real disparagement to the divine goodness ; as if he would not be good unless he were conquered by entreaties , and over ruled by the prevailing intercessions of some great favourites : and yet such mediators as these the saints , and angels , and virgin mary are , if they be mediators at all ; and therefore to pray to them as to our mediators , argues such a diffidence and distrust of god's goodness , as does not become the gospel of our saviour ; this can be no gospel doctrine , because it is irreconcileable with that account the gospel gives us of the love of god. 2. nor is it less injurious to the love of our saviour , to flie to the prayers and aids of saints , and angels , and the virgin mary her self . i shall not now dispute , what encroachment this is upon the mediatorship of christ , to make our addresses and applications to other mediators ; but whoever does so , must either think that christ wants interest with god , without the joynt intercession of saints and angels , or that he wants kindness to us , and either will not interceed for us at all , or will not do it unless he be prevailed with by the intercession of saints , or the entreaties or the commands of his mother . i suppose they will not pretend , that he wants power to do , what we ask of him , when he himself has assured us , that whatsoever we ask of the father in his name , he will give it us , 15 john 16. 16 john 23 , 24. does our mediatour then need other mediators to interceed with him for us ? what! he who became man for us ? who lived a laborious and afflicted life for us ? who loved us so , as to give himself for us ? who is a merciful and compassionate high-priest , and touched with a feeling of our infirmities , being in all things tempted like as we are , yet without sin ? what a change does this make in the whole gospel ? had not the church of rome found out some better security for sinners , in the mediation of saints , and angels , and the blessed virgin , what a hopeless state had we been in ? for all that the gospel tells us is , that god in great love and goodness to sinners , sent his son to be our saviour ; and that we might have the greater assurance of his pity and compassion for us , he became man , flesh of our flesh , and bone of our bone ; and not only so , but submitted to all the weaknesses and infirmities of our natures , to the greatest shame and reproach , to the sharpest pains , and the most infamous death , that he might the better know , what our temptations and sufferings are in this world , and might be more sensibly affected with our condition in all our sufferings : this one would have thought , should have given the greatest security to sinners of his readiness to help them , who did and suffered all this for them ; and this is the onely security which the gospel of our saviour gives us . but it seems christ is not merciful and pitiful enough ; his virgin mother has softer and tenderer passions , and such an interest in him , or authority over him , in the right of a mother , as some of them have not without blasphemy represented it , that she can have any thing of him ; and thus they suppose the other saints to be much more pitiful than christ is , and to have interest enough to protect their supplicants , or else it is not imaginable why they should need or desire any other advocates . now let any man who understands the gospel , and finds there how the love of christ is magnified , not only in dying for us , but in his being a merciful and compassionate high-priest , that this is the only hope of sinners , that if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous , who is also a propitiation for our sins , think the invocation of saints , as our patrons and advocates , to be a gospel-doctrine , if he can . sect . iii. concerning the nature of christian worship . 3. another manifest design of the gospel , was to reform the worship of god , not only by extirpating idolatry , but by purging it from all pagan and jewish superstitions , and to appoint such a worship as is more agreeable to the nature both of god and man. and whoever will take the pains to compare the worship of the church of rome , with that worship which our saviour has prescribed in the gospel , will easily discover how unlike they are . let us then consider what christ has reformed in the worship of god , and what kind of worship he has prescribed to his disciples . i. what he has reformed in the worship of god ; and that may be comprehended in one word , he has taken away all that was meerly external in religion . by which i do not mean that our saviour has forbid all external acts of worship , or such external circumstances as are necessary to the decent and orderly performance of religious worship , which the nature and reason of things requires under all dispensations of religion ; but that he has laid aside all such external rites as either were , or were thought to be in themselves acts of religion , and to render such worshippers very acceptable to god. a great many such rites there were in the pagan religion , and a great many in the jewish worship of god's own institution , and a great many more which the tradition of the elders , and the superstition of the scribes and pharisees had introduced . we know the jewish worship consisted of external rites ; in their temple , and altars , and sacrifices , and washings , and purifications , in new moons and sabbaths , and festival solemnities , in consecrated garments and vessels for the service of the temple , in distinction of meats , &c. the very external observance of these rites , were acts of religion , and necessary to make their worship acceptable to god ; and the wilful and presumptuous neglect or contempt of them , was punished with death . now our saviour has abrogated all these jewish rites , and has instituted nothing in the room of them , excepting the two sacraments , baptism , and the lord's supper , which are of a very different nature and use , as we shall see presently : he did not indeed , while he was on earth , blame the observation of the law of moses , which till that time was in full force , and which he observed himself , but he blamed the external superstitions of the pharisees , in washing cups and platters , and making broad their phylacteries , and thinking themselves very righteous persons , for their scrupulous observation even of the law of moses , in paying tithe of mint and cummin , &c. while they neglected the weightier matters of the law , judgement , mercy , and faith , 23 mat. 23. but when our saviour was risen from the dead , and had accomplished all the types and shadows of the law , then the apostles with greater freedom opposed a legal and external righteousness , and though they did for a time indulge the jews in the observation of the rites of moses , yet they asserted the liberty of the gentile converts from that yoke , as we may see in the first council at antioch , and in st. paul's disputes with the jews , in his epistles to the romans and galatians , and elsewhere . and indeed whoever considers the nature of the christian religion , will easily see , that all those ends , which such external rites served either in the jewish or pagan religion , have no place here , and therefore nothing that is meerly external can be of any use or value in the christian worship . as to show this particularly . 1. there is no expiation or satisfaction for sin under the gospel , but only the blood of christ , and therefore all external rites are useless to this purpose . him and him only god hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood . death was the punishment of sin , and death is the only expiation of it ; and none else has died for our sins but christ alone , and therefore he only is a propitiation for our sins ; and yet we know , how great a part both of the pagan and jewish religion was taken up in the expiation of sin : all their sacrifices to be sure were designed for this purpose , and so were their washings and purifications in some degree , and many other voluntary severities and superstitions , this being the principal thing they intended in their religious rites , to appease god and make him propitious to them ; since then christ has made a full and compleat satisfaction and atonement for sin , and there is no expiation or satisfaction required of us , all external rites for expiation and atonement can have no place in the christian worship , without denying the atonement of christ , and this necessarily strips christian religion of a vast number of external rites practised both by jews and heathens . 2 ly , nor does the gospel admit of any legal uncleannesses and pollutions , distinction between clean and unclean meats , which occasioned so many laws and observances both among jews and heathens ; so many ways of contracting legal uncleanness , and so many ways to expiate it , and so many laws about eating and drinking , and such superstition in washing hands , and cups , and platters , but our saviour told his disciples , not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man , but that which cometh out of the mouth , this defileth the man. for whatsoever entreth into the mouth , goeth into the belly , and is cast out into the draught , but those things , which proceed out of the mouth , come forth from the heart , and they defile the man. for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts , murders , adulteries , fornications , thefts , false witnesses , blasphemies , these are the things which defile a man ; but to eat with unwashen hands , defileth not a man. and this also delivers christian religion from all those rites and observances , which concerned legal cleanness , which were very numerous . 3 ly , nor is there any symbolical presence of god under the gospel , which puts an end to the legal holiness of places and things . god dwelt among the jews in the temple at jerusalem , where were the symbols and figures of his presence : it was god's house , and therefore a holy place , and every thing that belonged to it had a legal holiness : for the holiness of things and places under the law , was derived from their relation to god , and his presence : this was the only place for their typical and ceremonial worship , whither all the males of the children of israel were to resort three times a year , and where alone they were to offer their sacrifices and oblations to god : the very place gave virtue to their worship and sacrifices , which were not so acceptable in other places ; nay , which could not be offered in other places without sin , as is evident from jeroboam's sin , in setting up the calves at dan and bethel for places of worship , and the frequent complaints of the prophets against those , who offered sacrifices in the high places ; and therefore the dispute between the jews and samaritans was , which was the place of worship , whether the temple at jerusalem or samaria : but christ tells the woman of samaria , that there should be no such distinction of places in the christian worship : woman believe me , the hour cometh , when ye shall neither in this mountain , nor yet at jerusalem worship the father . — but the hour cometh and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth . not as if the father should not be worshipped , neither at jerusalem nor samaria ; but that neither the temple at jerusalem nor samaria , should be the peculiar and appropriate place of worship ; that god's presence and worship should no longer be confined to any one place ; that the holiness of the place should no longer give any value to the worship ; but those who worshipped god in spirit and in truth , should be accepted by him , where-ever they worshipped him . such spiritual worship and worshippers , shall be as acceptable to god at samaria as at jerusalem , and as much in the remotest corners of the earth , as at either of them : for god's presence should no longer be confined to any one place , but he would hear our devout prayers from all parts of the world , where-ever they were put up to him , and consequently the holiness of places is lost , which consists only in some peculiar divine presence , and with the holiness of places , the external and legal holiness of things ceases also : for all other things were holy only with relation to the temple , and the temple worship . for indeed god's typical presence in the temple , was only a figure of the incarnation : christ's body was the true temple where god dwelt : for which reason he calls his body the temple , destroy this temple , and i will raise it up in three days : and the apostle assures us , that the fulness of the godhead dwelt in christ bodily , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and substantially , in opposition to god's typical presence in the material temple : and therefore when christ was come , who was the true emmanuel or god dwelling among us , and had by his incarnation accomplish'd the type and figure of the temple , god would no longer have a typical and figurative presence . i will not quarrel with any man , who shall call the christian churches , and the utensils of it , holy things ; for being employed in the worship of god , they ought to be separated from common uses , and reason teaches us to have such places and things in some kind of religious respect , upon the account of their relation , not to god , but to his worship ; but this is a very different thing from the typical holiness of the temple and altar , and other things belonging to the temple , and there are two plain differences between them , the first with respect to the cause , the second with respect to the effect : the cause of this legal holiness , was god's peculiar presence in the temple , where god chose to dwell as in his own house , which sanctified the temple , and all things belonging to it : the effect was that this holiness of the place sanctified the worship , and gave value and acceptation to it : the first needs no proof , and the second we learn from what our saviour tells the scribes and pharisees . wo unto you , ye blind guides , which say , whosoever shall swear by the temple it is nothing , but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple , he is a debtor ; ye fools and blind , for whether is greater , the gold , or the temple , that sanctifieth the gold ? and whosoever shall swear by the altar , it is nothing , but whosoever sweareth by the gift , that lieth upon it , he is guilty : ye fools and blind , for whether is greater , the gift , or the altar that sanctifieth the gift ? so that it seems , there was such a holiness in the temple and altar , as conveyed a holiness and sanctity to other things , even to the oblations and sacrifices , which were offered there . but now whatever holiness there is in christian churches and oratories , they are sanctified by the worship , that is performed there , not the worship sanctified by them . it is the assembly of christians themselves , that is the church , the house , the holy and living temple of god , not the building of wood or stone wherein they meet : god and christ is peculiarly present in the assemblies of christians , though not by a figurative and symbolical presence , and thus he is present in the places , when christians meet , and which are consecrated and separated to religious uses , and there is a natural decency in the thing , to shew some peculiar respects to the places , where we solemnly worship god ; but the presence of god is not peculiar to the place as it was appropriated to the temple of jerusalem , but it goes along with the company and the worship ; and therefore the place may be called holy , not upon account of its immediate relation to god , as god's house , wherein he dwells , but its relation to christians , and that holy worship , which is performed there ; and i suppose every one sees the vast difference between these two : and thus all that vast number of ceremonies , which related to this external and legal holiness of places , vessels , instruments , garments , &c. have no place in the christian worship , because there is no typical and symbolical presence of god , and consequently no such legal holiness of places and things , under the gospel . 4 ly , nor are material and inanimate things made the receptacles of divine graces and vertues under the gospel , to convey them to us meerly by contract and external applications ; like some amulets or charms , to wear in our pockets , or hang about our necks . there was nothing like this in the jewish religion , though there was in the pagan worship , but under the gospel christ bestows his holy spirit on us , as the principle of a new divine life , and from him alone we must immediately receive all divine influences and vertue , and not seek for these heavenly powers in senceless things , which can no more receive , nor communicate divine graces to us , then they do wit and understanding to those who expect grace from them ; for can grace be lodged in a rotten bone , or a piece of wood ; or conveyed to our souls by perspiration in a kiss or touch ? 5 ly , the christian religion admits of no external or ceremonial righteousness . in christ jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing , nor uncircumcision , but a new creature , and obedience to the commandments of god , and faith which worketh by love : the great design of the gospel , and of all our saviour's sermons , being to make us truly holy , that we may be partakers of the divine nature , having escaped the corruption , which is in the world through lust . there is nothing our lord does more severely condemn , than an external and pharisaical righteousness , which consisted either in observing the external rites of the law of moses , or their own superstitions received by tradition from their forefathers , and expresly tells his disciples , except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees , ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven : now this cuts off every thing , which is external in religion at a blow , because it cuts off all hopes and relyances on an external righteousness , and i believe men will not be fond of such superstitions , when they know , they will do them no good . 6 ly , and hence it appears , that there can be no place for any thing , that is external , in the christian religion , but only for some foederal rites ; such as the two sacraments of the gospel are , baptism and the lords supper ; the first of which is our admission into the new covenant , the second the exercise of communion with christ in this gospel covenant . and such rites as these are necessary in all instituted religions , which depend upon free and voluntary covenants : for since mankind has by sin forfeited their natural right to gods favour , they can challenge nothing from him now , but by promise and covenant ; and since such covenants require a mutual stipulation on both sides , they must be transacted by some visible and sensible rites , whereby god obliges himself to us , and we to him ; but these being only the signs or seals of a covenant , are very proper for a religion , which rejects all external and ceremonial righteousness and worship : for it is not our being in covenant with god , nor the sacraments of it , that can avail us , without performing the conditions of the covenant , and therefore this does not introduce an external righteousness . now whoever has such a notion and idea of the christian worship as this , ( and let the church of rome confute it if she can ) will easily see without much disputing , how unlike the worship of the church of rome is to true christian worship . for whoever only considers , the vast number of rites and ceremonies in the church of rome , must conclude it as ritual and ceremonial a religion as judaism itself ; the ceremonies are as many , more obscure , unintelligible , and useless ; more severe and intollerable , then the jewish yoke itself , which st. peter tells the jews , neither they nor their fathers were able to bear ; it is indeed almost all outside and pageantry , as unlike the plainness and simplicity of the gospel-worship , as show and ceremony can make it . it is true , external and visible worship , must consist of external actions ; and must be performed with such grave and decent circumstances of time and place , and posture and habit , as become the solemnity of religious worship ; this reason and nature teaches , and this the church of england prudently observes , whose ceremonies are not religious rites , but decent circumstances of worship , few in number ( as the necessary circumstances of action are but few ) and grave and solemn in their use : but this is not to place religion in any thing , that is external , but only to pay an external homage and worship to god , which differ as worshipping god in a decent habit , differs from the religion of consecrated habits and vestments ; or as praying to god with an audible voice , differs from placing religion in words and sounds which we do not understand , or as kneeling at receiving the sacrament , differs from a bodily worship of the host in bowing the knee . but though the bare number of external ceremonies , which are always the seat of superstition , be a great corruption of the christian worship , yet the number of them is the least fault of the ceremonies of the church of rome ; as will appear , if we consider a little their nature . for 1. most of their external rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for their sins . this is the doctrine and practice of the church of rome , that notwithstanding the satisfaction made by christ , every sinner must satisfie for his own sins , or have the satisfaction of other mens applied to him , out of the treasury of the church , by the pope's indulgences : this is the meaning of all external penances in whippings , fastings , pilgrimages , and other superstitious severities ; their backs , or their feet , or their bellies must pay for their sins , unless they can redeem them out of their pockets too : now it is plain , that these are such external superstitions , as can have no place in the christian religion , which allows of no other expiation or satisfaction for sin , but the blood of christ. 2 ly , those distinctions between meats , which the church of rome calls fasting , ( for a canonical fast is not to abstain from food , but only from such meats as are forbid on fasting days ) can be no part of christian worship , because the gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things , and therefore of no distinction of meats neither : for meat commendeth us not to god , 1 cor. 8. 8. the church of rome indeed does not make such a distinction between clean and unclean beasts , as the law of moses did , and therefore is the more absurd in forbidding the eating of flesh , or any thing that comes of flesh , as eggs , or milk , or cheese , or butter , on their fasting days , which is to impose a new kind of jewish yoke upon us , when the reason of it is ceased . for there is no imaginable reason why it should be an act of religion meerly to abstain from flesh , if flesh have no legal uncleanness ; and if it had , we must all turn carthusians , and never eat flesh ; for how should it be clean one day , and unclean another , is not easie to understand . i am sure st. paul makes this part of the character of the apostacy of the latter days , that they shall command to abstain from meats , which god hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them , which believe and know the truth . for every creature of god is good , and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving . for it is sanctified by the word of god , and prayer . and let no man judge you in meat or drink , — wherefore if ye be dead with christ from the rudiments of the world , why as though living in the world , are ye subject to ordinances : touch not , tast not , handle not , which all are to perish with the using , after the commandments and doctrines of men ? and yet , though they do not own the legal distinctions between clean and unclean things , their consecrations would perswade one , that there were something more than a meer legal uncleanness in all creatures , viz. that they are all possessed by the devil and wicked spirits ; for when they consecrate salt and water to make their holy-water , they first exorcise both the salt and water to cast the devil out of them : and if such innocent creatures are possessed , i doubt none can escape ; which has made me sometimes wonder , that they durst eat any thing before it was first exorcised , for fear the devil should take possession of them with their meat . it is certain , if the christian religion takes away all such distinctions between meat and drinks , the meer abstaining from flesh can be no part of christian worship , much less so satisfactory and meritorious as the church of rome pretends , when such abstinence is appointed as a satisfactory penance . 3 dly , as for the religion of holy places , altars , vestments , utensils , the church of rome has infinitely out-done the jewish laws : instead of one temple at jerusalem , they have thousands to the full as holy and sacred as that , as may appear from their rites of consecration . though herein , i confess , they differ , that the temple of jerusalem was only god's house , and that alone made it a holy place , because god was there peculiarly present ; but the popish churches derive their sanctity , not so much from the presence of god , ( for then they would be all equally holy ) as from some great and eminent saint , who is peculiarly worshipped there . it is a great argument of the opinion men have of the holiness of any place , to go in pilgrimage to it , not meerly in curiosity , but devotion ; as if either going so far to see the place , were in itself an act of religion , or their prayers would be better heard there , than if they prayed at home : thus they travel to jerusalem to visit the holy land and the sepulchre , and this may be thought in honour of our saviour who lived , and died , and was buried there : but otherwise i know not any church or chappel , which the most devout pilgrims think worth visiting meerly upon the account of god or christ : the several churches or chappels of the virgin , especially those which are the most famed for miracles , or the churches where the reliques of some great and adored saints are lodged , have their frequent visits , for the sake of the virgin , or of the saints ; but without some saint churches lose their sacredness and veneration , which i suppose is the reason why they always take care of some reliques to give a sacredness to them , without which no church can be consecrated ; that is , its dedication to the worship of god , cannot make it holy , unless some saint take possession of it by his or her reliques . this , i confess , is not judaism , for under the jewish law , all holiness of things or places was derived from their relation to god ; now the names , and reliques , and wonder-working images of saints and the blessed virgin , give the most peculiar and celebrated holiness ; and whether this be not at least to ascribe such a divinity to them , as the pagans did to their deified men and women , to whom they erected temples and altars , let any impartial reader judge . those must have a good share of divinity , who can give holiness to any thing else . but since they must have holy places , and something to answer the jewish superstition , who cried , the temple of the lord , the temple of the lord , i cannot blame them for making choice of saints to inhabitate their churches , and sanctifie them with their presence , since under the gospel god is no more present in one place than in another : he dwelt indeed in the temple of jerusalem by types and figures , but that was but a type of god's dwelling in humane nature : the body of christ was the true temple , as he told the jews , destroy this temple , and in three days i will raise it up ; which he spake of the temple of his body : and now christ is ascended into heaven , there is no temple on earth ; and therefore if they will have temples , they must have the temples of saints , for the presence of god is now no more confined to a house , than his providence is to the land of judaea , as it was in a very peculiar manner , while the temple stood there . god dwells not on earth now , as he did among the jews , but his presence , viz. our lord jesus christ , is removed into heaven , and therefore he has no house on earth to answer to the jewish temple , as the ancient fathers asserted that the christians had neither temples nor altars : the christian church indeed is a holy and living temple , wherein the holy spirit dwells , but that is built not with stones or brick , but of living saints ; and therefore the holiness of places , and altars , and garments , &c. which makes up so great a part of the roman religion , is a manifest corruption of the simplicity of the christian worship . the jewish temple made that worship most acceptable to god , which was offered there , because it was a type of christ , and signified the acceptance of all our prayers and religious services , as offered up to god only in the name of christ ; but to think that any place is so holy now , that the bare visiting it , or praying in it , should bestow a greater holiness upon us , and all we do , should expiate our sins , or merit a reward , is no better than jewish or pagan superstition . 4 hly , that the church of rome does attribute divine virtues and powers to senseless and inanimate things , is so evident from that great veneration they pay to the reliques , and those great vertues they ascribe to them , from their consecrations of their agnus dei , their wax-candles , oyl , bells , crosses , images , ashes , holy-water , for the health of soul and body , to drive away evil spirits , to allay storms , to heal diseases , to pardon venial , and sometimes mortal sins , meerly by kissing or touching them , carrying them in their hands , wearing them about their necks , &c. that no man can doubt of it who can believe his own eyes , and read their offices , and see what the daily practice of their church is . whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it , needs only read dr. brevint's saul and samuel at endor , chap. 15. these things look more like charms than christian worship , and are a great profanation of the divine grace and spirit ; indeed they argue that such men do not understand , what grace and sanctification means , who think that little images of wax , that candles , that oyl , that water and salt , that bells , that crosses , can be sanctified by the spirit of god , and convey grace and sanctification by the sight , or sound , or touch , or such external applications . christ has given his holy spirit to dwell in us , which works immediately upon our minds and rational powers , and requires our concurrence to make his grace effectual to cleanse and purifie our souls , and to transform us into the divine image ; the grace of the spirit is to enlighten our minds , to change our wills , to govern and regulate our passions , to instruct , to perswade , to admonish , to awaken our consciences , to imprint and fix good thoughts in us , to inspire us with holy desires , with great hopes , with divine consolations , which may set us above the fears of the world , and the allurements of it , and give greater fervour to our devotions , greater strength to our resolutions , greater courage and constancy in serving god , than the bare powers of reason , tho' enforced with supernatural motives , could do . this is all the sanctification the gospel knows , and he who thinks that inanimate things are capable of this sanctification of the spirit , or can convey such sanctification to us by some divine and invisible effluviums of grace , may as well lodge reason , and understanding , and will , and passions in senseless matter , and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch . to be sure men who know what the sanctification of the spirit means , must despise such fooleries as these . 5 ly , that all this encourages men to trust in an external righteousness , is too plain to need a proof ; and therefore i shall not need to insist long on it . for 1. such external rites are naturally apt to degenerate into superstition , especially when they are very numerous : the jewish ceremonies themselves , their circumcision , sacrifices , washings , purifications , temple , altars , new moons and sabbaths , and other festival solemnities , were the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees , and a cloak for their hypocrisie and great immoralities , though they were never intended by god for the justification of a sinner . for such external rites are so much easier to carnal men , than to subdue their lusts , and live a holy and vertuous life , that they are willing to abound in such external observances , and hope that these will make expiation for their other sins ; and therefore when the typical use of these ceremonies was fulfilled by christ , the external rites were abrogated , that men might no longer place any hope or confidence in any thing which is meerly external : and therefore that church which fills up religion with external rites and ceremonies , were there no other hurt in it , laies a snare for mens souls , and tempts them to put their trust in an external righteousness , without any regard to the internal purity of heart and mind . especially 2. when such external rites are recommended as very acceptable to god , as satisfactions for our sins , and meritorious of great rewards ; and this is the use they serve in the church of rome , as you have already heard . they assert the necessity of humane satisfactions ; and what are these satisfactory works wherewith men must expiate their sins ? the principal of them are fastings , that is abstaining from flesh , and other acts of penance , as whippings , pilgrimages , and some bodily severities , or prayers , that is saying over such a number of ave-maries ; or alms , that is to pay for indulgencies , or to purchase masses for themselves , or their friends in purgatory , or to found some religious houses , or to enrich those that are ; which are much more satisfactory and meritorious than common acts of charity to the poor : all which men may do , without the least sorrow for sin , without any true devotion to god , without mortifying any one lust. they mightily contend for the merit of works ; but what are their meritorious works ? whoever reads the lives of their canoniz'd saints , will easily see what it was that made them saints : their characters are usually made up of some romish superstitions , of their devotions to the virgin mary , and their familiar conversations with her , the severities of their fasts , and other external mortifications , their frequenting the mass , the great numbers of their ave-maries , pretences to raptures and visions , and such wild extravagancies as made them suspected of madness , while they lived , and canoniz'd them for saints , when they were dead : other things may be added to fill up their stories , but these are the glorious accomplishments , especially of the more modern saints : for no man must be a saint at rome , who is not a famous example of popish superstitions . monkery is thought the most perfect state of religion among them , and has even monopolized the name , for no other persons are called the religious , but those who belong to one order or other : and wherein does the perfection of monkery consist ? 1. in the vows of caelibacy , poverty , and obedience to the superiors of their order , which are all external things , no virtues in themselves , and very often the occasion of great wickedness . 2. in the strictest observance of the external rites and ceremonies of their religion ; of masses , and ave-maries , and fastings , and penances , and many of them would be glad , if they could go pilgrimages too . these things are in perfection in their monasteries and nunneries , with such additional superstitions as are peculiar to particular orders . as for other true christian vertues , they may as soon be found without the walls of the monastery , as within . now when such external rites and observances shall be judged satisfactions and expiations for sin ; shall be thought the most highly meritorious , shall be made the characters of their greatest saints , and the most perfect state of religion ; i cannot see how any true thorough-paced romanist , can aim at any thing but a ceremonial righteousness . indeed the true reason why any thinking men are so fond of an external and ceremonial righteousness , is to excuse them from true and real holiness of life : all men know that if they mortifie their lusts , they need not afflict their bodies with fastings , and other severities : that if they have their conversation in heaven , they need not travel in pilgrimages to jerusalem or loretto ; that if they take care to obey the laws of the gospel , they need no satisfactions for their sins , nor no works of merit or supererogation , which are nothing else but meritorious and supererogating satisfactions ; for all men know , that in the offices of piety and vertue , they can never do more than is their duty ; and therefore as nothing can be matter of merit , which is our duty , so the true intention of all merits and works of supererogation , are to supply the place of duty , and to satisfie for their sins , or to purchase a reward , which they have no title to , by doing their duty ; but a good man , who by believing in christ , and obeying him , has an interest in his merits , and a title to the gospel-promises of pardon and eternal life , needs none of these satisfactions , merits , or supererogations . now would any man who believes that he cannot be saved without mortifying his lusts , be at the trouble of whippings and fastings , &c. not to mortifie his lusts , but to keep them , and to make satisfaction for them ? would any man travel to jerusalem , or the shrine of any saint , who believes he shall not be forgiven , unless he leaves his sins behind him , which he might as well have parted with at home ? the true notion of superstition is , when men think to make satisfaction for neglecting or transgressing their duty , by doing something which is not their duty , but which they believe to be highly pleasing to god , and to merit much of him : now no man who believes that he cannot please god without doing his duty , would be so fond of doing his duty , and doing that which is not his duty , nor pleasing to god , into the bargain . 3. and yet these meritorious and satisfactory superstitions are very troublesome to most men , and though they are willing to be at some pains rather than part with their lusts , yet they would be at as little trouble as possibly they can ; and herein the church of rome , like a very indulgent mother , has consulted their ease ; for one man may satisfie for another , and communicate his merits to him : and therefore those who , by their friends or money , can procure a vicarious back , need not whip themselves ; they may fast , and say over their beads , and perform their penances and satisfactions by another , as well as if they did it themselves ; or they may purchase satisfactions and merits out of the treasury of the church , that is , they may buy indulgencies and pardons ; or it is but entring into some confraternity , and then you shall share in their merits and satisfactions . this is an imputed righteousness with a witness , and i think very external too , when men can satisfie and merit by proxies . 4. and i think it may pass for an external righteousness too , when men are sanctified and pardoned by reliques , holy-water , consecrated beads , bells , candles , agnus dei's , &c. and how unlike is all this to the religion of our saviour , to that purity of heart and mind the gospel exacts , and to those means of sanctification , and methods of piety and vertue it prescribes ? whoever considers what christian religion is , can no more think these observances christian worship , than he can mistake popish legends for the acts of the apostles . ii. let us now consider what kind of worship christ has prescribed to his disciples : and the general account we have of it 4 john 23 , 24. but the hour cometh , and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth , for the father seeketh such to worship him : god is a spirit , and they that worship him , must worship him in spirit and in truth . now there are three things included in this description of gospel-worship : 1. that we must worship god under the notion of a pure and infinite spirit . 2. that we must worship him under the character of a father . 3. that we must worship him with the mind and spirit . first , we must worship god under the notion of a pure and infinite spirit , who has now confined his peculiar presence to no place , as he formerly did to the temple at jerusalem ; for this was the present dispute , whether god would be worshipped at the temple at jerusalem , or samaria ; as i observed above : in opposition to which , our saviour tells the woman , that god is a spirit , and therefore not confined to any place ; he is every-where , and present with us every-where , and may be worshipped every-where by devout and pious souls : that though for typical reasons he had a typical and symbolical presence under the jewish dispensation , yet this was not so agreeable to his nature , who is a spirit , and therefore he must not now be sought for in houses of wood and stone . and indeed the reformation of the divine worship must begin in rectifying our notions and apprehensions of god ; for such as we apprehend god to be , such a kind of worship we shall pay him ; as is evident from the rites and ceremonies of the pagan worship , which was fitted to the nature and history of their gods ; for where there are no instituted rites of worship , all mankind conclude , that the nature of god is the best rule of his worship , for all beings are best pleased with such honours , as are suitable to their natures , and no being can think himself honoured by such actions as are a contradiction to his own nature and perfections . now if god will be worshipped more like a pure and infinite spirit under the gospel , than he was under the law ; if this be the fundamental principle of gospel-worship , that god is a spirit , and must be worshipped as a spirit , i think it is plain , that nothing is more unlike a pure spirit , then a material image ; nothing more unlike an infinite spirit , which can have no shape or figure , then a finite and figured image , made in the likeness of a man , or of any thing in heaven and earth ; nothing more unlike an infinite spirit , which is life , and mind , and wisdom , than a dead and senceless image ; and if under the law , where god suited his worship more to a typical dispensation than to his own nature , he would not allow of the worship of images , much less is this an acceptable worship to him under the gospel , where he will be worshipped as a pure spirit , for there is nothing in the world more unlike a living , infinite , omnipotent , omniscient spirit , than a little piece of dead senceless figured gold or silver , wood or stone , whatever shape the carver or engraver please to give it , since god has none . now would any man , who understands this , that god is a spirit , and will under the gospel be worshipped as a spirit , should he go into many popish churches and chappels , and see a vast number of images and pictures there , and people devoutly kneeling before them , suspect that these were christian oratories , or this christian worship , unless he knew something of the matter before ? for there you shall find the pictures of god the father , and the ever blessed trinity , in different forms and representations ; the pictures of the blessed virgin , and other saints and martyrs devoutly adored and worshipped , and would any man guess , that this were to worship god as a pure and infinite spirit ? a spirit cannot be painted , and then to worship god as a spirit , cannot signifie to look upon any representation of god , when we pray to him , which to be sure cannot give us the idea of an infinite spirit . he who worships god as a spirit , can have no regard to matter and sense , but must apply himself to god as to an infinite mind , which no man can do , who gazes upon an image , or contemplates god in the art and skill of a painter ; for to pray to god in an image , and in the same thought to consider him as a pure and infinite mind , is a contradiction ; for though a man , who believes god to be a spirit , may be so absurd , as to worship him in an image , yet an image cannot represent a spirit to him , and therefore either he must not think at all of the image , and then methinks he should not look on an image , when he worships god , for that is apt to make him think of it ; or if he does think of the image , while his mind is filled with such gross and sensible representations , it is impossible in the same act to address to god , as to a pure invisible , and infinite spirit . which shews how unfit and improper images are in the worship of god ; for they must either be wholly useless , and such as a man must not so much as look or think on , ( which is very irreconcileable with that worship , which is paid to them in the church of rome ) or while he is intent upon a picture or image , his mind is diverted from the contemplation of a pure and infinite spirit , and therefore cannot , and does not worship god as a spirit . and the same is true of the images of saints and the blessed virgin : for though to makes pictures of men or women , is no reproach to the divine nature , since they are not the pictures or images of god , who is a spirit , but of those saints , whom they are intended to represent , yet if all christian worship be the worship of god , it is evident , that the worship of images , though they be not the images of god , but of the saints , can be no part of christian worship , because god must be worshipped as a spirit , and therefore not by any image whatsoever . now the church of rome will not pretend , that the worship of saints and their images , is a distinct and separate worship from the worship of god , but to justifie themselves , they constantly affirm , that they worship god in that worship , which they pay to the saints and their images ; for they know , that to do otherwise , would be to terminate their worship upon creatures , which they confess to be idolatry , since all religious worship must terminate on god ; and therefore should they give any religious worship to creatures distinct and separate from that worship they give to god , it were idolatry upon their own principles . now if they worship god in the worship of saints and their images , then they worship god in the images of saints , and that i think is to worship him by images : the worship of a pure infinite and invisible spirit will admit of no images , whether of god or creatures , as the objects or mediums of worship . but it may be said , that this is to graft our own fancies and imaginations upon scripture ; for though christ does say , that god is a spirit , and must be worshipped in spirit , he does not say , that to worship god in spirit is not to worship him by an image ; but to worship god in spirit , in our saviour's discourse with the woman of samaria , is not opposed to image-worship , but to confining the worship of god to a particular place , such as the temple at jerusalem and samaria was ; as i observed above . now to this i answer : 1. to worship god as a spirit , does in the nature of the thing signifie this ; for to worship god by any material or sensible representations is not to worship god as a spirit ; for an infinite spirit cannot be represented by matter , nor by any shape and figure , because it neither is material , nor has any figure . 2. if god will not have his peculiar presence confined to any place under the gospel , much less will he be worshipped by images and pictures , for it is not such a contradiction to the nature of an infinite spirit , to shew himself more peculiarly present in one place than in another , as it is to be worshipped by sensible images and pictures . though god fills all places , there may be wise reasons , why he should confine the acts of worship to some peculiar place , and such typical reasons there were for it under the law , but there never can be any reason , why a spirit should be represented and worshipped by an image , which is such a contradiction and dishonour to the nature of the spirit ; and therefore when god confined his symbolical presence to the temple at jerusalem , yet he strictly forbad the worship of images , and much less then will he allow of image-worship , when he will not so much as have a temple . 3. for we must observe farther , that what our saviour here says , god is a spirit , and will be worshipped in spirit , is not a particular direction , how to worship god , but a general rule to which the nature of our worship must be conformed , and therefore it is our rule , as far as the plain reason of it extends . under the law they were not left to general rules , but god determined the particular rites and ceremonies of his worship himself ; for under the law god had not so plainly discovered his own nature to them , as he has done by his son in the gospel . for no man hath seen god at any time , but the only begotten son , who is in the bosom of the father , he hath declared him . and therefore the nature of god was never made the rule of worship before . tho god was as much a spirit under the law , as he is under the gospel , yet this was never assigned as a reason against image-worship , that god is a spirit : but either that they saw no likeness or similitude in the mountain , when god spake to them , 4 deut. 15 , 16. or that he is so great and glorious a being , that nothing in the world is a fit representation of him : to whom then will ye liken god ? or what likeness will ye compare unto him ? — it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth , and the inhabitants thereof are as grashoppers , that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain , and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in , &c. but that god is a spirit , who has no shape and figure , is a much better argument against image-worship , than all this ; but this god had not so plainly declared to them ; and if god forbad the worship of images , when he thought fit to give no other reason for it , but that he had never appeared to them in any likeness or similitude , or that he was too great to be represented ; we our selves may now judge , how unfit it is to worship god by an image , since our saviour has declared , that he is a spirit , who has no likeness or figure , and that now he expects to be worshipped by us as a spirit , and therefore without any image or sensible representation . 4. and yet some learned men think , that our saviour in these words , had as well respect to the worship of god by images , as to his worship in the temple : for that he had respect to the object as well as place of worship , is evident from what he adds , ye worship ye know not what , we know what we worship , for salvation is of the jews ; wherein he informs the woman , that though she inquired only of the place of worship , the samaritans were guilty of a greater fault than setting up the temple at samaria in opposition to the temple at jerusalem , viz. in a false object , or an idolatrous manner of worship , they worshipping a dove as the symbol and representation of god : and thus to worship god in spirit , is expresly opposed to worshipping god by images . 5 ly , however this comes much to one ; for if god being a spirit his worship must not be confined to any place or symbolical presence ; then he must not be worshipped by an image , for an image is a representative presence of god , or of the saints ; for the use of images is to represent that being whom we worship as present to us : and therefore if men consider what they do , they go to images , as to divine presences , to worship . images , which are set up in churches and chappels for the worship of god , or of the saints , are confined to places , and make those places as much appropriate and peculiar places of worship , as the jewish temple was , excepting that the temple was but one , and they are many . heathen temples were the houses of their gods , or of their images , which were the presence of their gods ; and if we must not appropriate the presence of god to any place , then we must not worship him by images , which are of no use but to represent god as sensibly present , with the image , or in the place , where the image is . if god be better worshipped before an image , than without one , then the worship of god is more confined to that place , where an image is , than to those places , which have no images . i cannot see how to avoid this , that if god must be worshipped by images , than there must be appropriate places of worship , viz. where the image is , if there be no appropriate places of worship under the gospel , like the temple at jerusalem , then god must not be worshipped by images ; for an image must be in some place , and if god must be worshipped at , or before his image , then that is the proper and peculiar place of worship , where his image is ; nay , though the image be not fixt to any place , but be carried about with us , yet if we must worship god by images , the image is not only the object , but makes the place of worship , for there we must worship god , where his image is , if we must worship him before his image . it is impossible to separate the notion of image-worship , from the notion of a peculiar and appropriate place of worship ; for the image determines the place , as the presence of the object ; does and as under the gospel we may worship god any where , because he is an infinite spirit , and fills all places , and is equally present with all devout worshippers , where-ever they worship him : so where the image is consecrated for a divine presence , it is not only the object , but the peculiar place of worship , because god is peculiarly present there , or more acceptably worshipped there , than where there is no image . so that if a peculiar and appropriate place of worship be contrary to the notion of an infinite spirit , the worship of images is much more so , for besides that they are gross and corporeal representations of a spirit , they are divine presences too , and appropriate places of worship . secondly , as god must be worshipped under the notion of a spirit , so under the character of a father : as our saviour expresly tells us ; the hour cometh and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and truth , for the father seeketh such to worship him , and therefore he taught his disciples to pray , our father which art in heaven . under the law god was worshipped as a king , and that not so much as the king of the whole world , but as in a peculiar manner the king of israel . the lord reigneth , let the people tremble , he sitteth between the cherubims ( in his temple at jerusalem ) let the earth be moved . the lord is great in zion , and he is high above all people . but under the gospel the peculiar character of god is a father , and that not only as he is the maker of all men , and so the father of all , but as he is the father of christ , and in him the father of all christians . now this makes a vast difference in our worship , from what is daily practised in the church of rome . for , 1. when we pray to god as our father , we must pray to him as dwelling in heaven : as our saviour teaches us to say , our father , which art in heaven . for as a father , heaven is his house and habitation ; in my fathers house are many mansions , that is , in in heaven , which is his house as a father , as the temple at jerusalem , was his palace considered as the king of israel ; and this is one reason our saviour intimates , why the presence of god shall no longer be confined to any particular place or temple , because he shall be worshipped as the universal father , not as the king of jury ; now when he is to be worshipped as a father from all parts of the world , he must have such a throne and presence to which all the world may equally resort , and that can be no other then his throne in heaven , whither we may send up our prayers from all corners of the earth ; but had he confined his presence to any place on earth , as he did to the temple of jerusalem , the rest of the world must have been without god's peculiar presence , could have had no temple nor place of worship , but at such a distance that they could never have come at it : for though god fills all places , it is a great absurdity to talk of more symbolical presences of god than one : for a symbolical presence confines the unlimited presence of god to a certain place in order to certain ends , as to receive the worship , that is paid him , and to answer the prayers , that are made to him ; and to have more than one such presence as this , is like having more gods than one. so that all our worship under the gospel , must be directed to god in heaven ; and that is a plain argument , that we must not worship god in images on earth , for they neither can represent to us the majesty of god in heaven , nor is god present with the image to receive our worship there : if god must now be worshipped as dwelling in heaven , it is certain there can be no object of our worship on earth ; for though god fill all places with his presence , yet he will be worshipped only as sitting on his throne in heaven ; and then i am sure he must not be worshipped in an image on earth , for that is not his throne in heaven . this the mercy-seat in the holy of holies was an emblem of ; for the holy of holies in the jewish temple , did signifie heaven , and the mercy-seat covered with cherubims , signified the throne of god in heaven , whither we must lift up our eyes and hearts when we pray to him : for though it is indifferent from what place we put up our prayers to god , while we have regard to the external decency of religious worship , yet it is not indifferent whither we direct our prayers ; for we must direct our prayers to the throne of grace , if we would obtain mercy , and find grace to help in time of need . now the throne of grace is only in heaven , whither christ is ascended to make atonement for us ; for he is the true propitiatory or mercy-seat : and therefore if to direct our prayers to god , to his picture or image , or to the images of the virgin mary , or any other saints , did not provoke god to jealousie , yet it would do us no good , unless such images are god's throne of grace , for all other prayers are lost , which are not directed to god on his throne of grace , where alone he will receive our petitions . if a prince would receive no petitions but what were presented to him sitting on such a throne , all men would be sensible how vain a thing it were to offer any petition to him else-where . and yet thus it is here : a sinner dare not , must not approach the presence of god , but only on his mercy-seat and throne of grace ; for any where else our god is a consuming fire , a just and a terrible judge : now god has but one throne of grace , and that is in heaven , as the mercy-seat was in the holy of holies , which was a type of heaven ; thither christ ascended with his bloud to sprinkle the mercy-seat , and to cover it with a cloud of incense , which are the prayers of the saints , as the high-priest did once a year in the typical holy place . which is a plain proof , that all our prayers must be immediately directed to god in heaven , where christ dwells , who is our true propitiatory and mercy-seat , who has sprinkled the throne of god with his own bloud , and has made it a throne of grace , and where he offers up our prayers as incense to god. 2. to worship god as our father , signifies to worship him only in the name and mediation of his son jesus christ : for he is our father only in jesus christ , and we can call him father in no other name . by the right of creation he is our lord , and our judge , but he is the father of sinners only by adoption and grace , and we are adopted only in christ : so that if christian worship be the worship of god as a father , then we must pray to god in no other name , but of his own eternal son : the virgin mary , though she were the mother of christ , yet does not make god our father ; and then no other saint , i presume , will pretend to it : which shews what a contradiction the invocation of saints is to the nature of christian worship , and how unavailable to obtain our requests of god. if we must worship god only as our father , then we must worship him only in the name of his son , for he owns himself our father in no other name ; and if he will hear our prayers , and answer our humble petitions only as a father , then he will hear only those prayers which are made to him in the name of his son : how great favourites soever the blessed virgin and other saints may be , if god hear prayers only as a father , it is to no purpose to pray to god in their names , for he hears us not . 3. to worship god as a father , signifies to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of children : this is the spirit of adoption , whereby we cry abba father . for because ye are sons , god hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts , crying abba father . a dutiful son does not question his father's good will to him , nor readiness to hear and answer all his just requests , he depends upon the kindness of his father , and his interest and relation to him , and seeks for no other friends and favourites to recommend him : and upon this account also the invocation of saints is a contradiction to the gospel-spirit of prayer , to that spirit of adoption , which teaches us to cry abba father ; for surely those have not the hope , and assurance , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of children , who dare not go to their father themselves , but must send their petitions to him by the hands of favourites and intercessors . to pray to god in the name of christ , is onely to pray to him as sons , for it is in his name only that he owns us for sons ; and this is the true spirit of adoption , in the name and mediation of christ , to go to god , as children to a father ; but to pray to him in any other name , how powerful soever , is not to go to him as a father , but as to our lord and king , who must be addressed to by the mediation of some great favourites . to pray to god in any other name , which does not make us his sons , is to distrust our relation to him , as our father in christ ; and this is contrary to the spirit of adoption , which teaches us to call god father , and gives us that assurance of his fatherly goodness to us in christ , that we need and desire no other advocates . thirdly , to worship god in spirit , is to worship him with our mind and spirit ; for that is most agreeable to the nature of god , who is a spirit . god cannot be worshipped but by a reasonable creature , and yet a beast may worship god as well as a man , who worships without any act of reason and understanding , or devout affections . to pray to god without knowing what we say , when neither our understandings nor affections can joyn in our prayers , is so absurd a worship of a pure mind , that transubstantiation it self is not more contrary to sense , than prayers in an unknown tongue are to the essential reason and nature of worship . i suppose no man will say , that to pray to god , or praise him in words which we do not understand , is to worship god in spirit , unless he thinks that a parrot may be taught to pray in the spirit : what difference is there between a man 's not speaking , and speaking what he does not understand ? just so much difference there is between not praying , and praying what we do not understand : and he honours god to the full as much , who does not pray at all , as he who prays he knows not what , and , i am sure , he affronts him a great deal less : however , if christian worship be to worship god in spirit , prayers in an unknown tongue , in which the mind and spirit cannot be concerned , is no christian worship . sect . iv. concerning the reformation and improvement of humane nature , by the gospel of christ . 4. another principal end and intention of the gospel , was to cure the degeneracy of mankind , and to advance humane nature to its utmost perfection : for as man fell from his original happiness , by falling from the purity and integrity of his nature , so there was no restoring him to his lost happiness , much less no advancing him to a more perfect state of happiness , not to an earthly , but to an heavenly paradise , without changing and transforming his nature , and renewing him after the image of god. and therefore our very entrance into christianity , is a new birth : except a man be born of water , and of the spirit , he cannot enter into the kingdom of god : that which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit . and such a man is called a new creature ; and a christian life is a newness of life , and living after the spirit , and walking after the spirit : and this new nature is the divine nature , the image of god , the new man , which after god is created in righteousness and true holiness , which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him . so that there are two things , wherein this new nature consists , knowledge , and righteousness , or true holiness , and i doubt it will appear , that the church of rome is no great friend to either . i. knowledge : now i suppose neither the church of rome , nor any one for her , will pretend that she is any great friend to knowledge : she is so horribly afraid of heresie , that she endeavours to nurse men up in ignorance of their religion , for fear they should prove hereticks ; and indeed she has some reason for it : for the church of rome was never so triumphant as in the most ignorant and barbarous ages ; but as knowledge broke in upon the world , so men turned hereticks apace . if there be any knowing papists ( and it would be very hard , if there should be none ) they are not beholding to their church for it , which deprives them of all the means of knowledge : for she will not allow them to believe their senses , which is one way of knowing things , and the most certain we have : and yet she commands us to believe transubstantiation , which no man can do who believes his senses : and if i must not believe my senses in so plain a matter , as what is bread and wine , i know no reason i have to believe them in any thing , and then there is an end of all knowledge , that depends on sense ; as the proof of the christian religion itself does : for miracles are a sensible proof , and if i must not trust my senses , i cannot rely on miracles , because i cannot know , whether there be any such thing as a real miracle . the church of rome also forbids men the use of reason in matters of religion , will not allow men to judge for themselves , nor to examine the reasons of their faith , and what knowledge any man can have without exercising his reason and understanding , i cannot guess ; for to know without understanding sounds to me like a contradiction . she also denies christians the use of the bible , which is the only means to know the revealed will of god : and when men must neither believe their senses , nor trust their reason , nor read the scripture , it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding christians , they must needs be . but it may be said , that notwithstanding this , the church of rome does instruct her children in the true catholick faith , though she will not venture them to judge for themselves , nor to read the scriptures , which is the effect of her great care of them , to keep them orthodox : for when men trust to their own fallible reasons , and private interpretations of scripture , it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one heresie or other : but when men are taught the pure catholick faith without any danger of error and heresie , is not this much better , then to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves , when it is great odds , but they will judge wrong . now this would be something indeed , did the church of rome take care to instruct them in all necessary doctrines , and to teach nothing , but what is true , and could such men , who thus tamely receive the dictates of the church , be said to know and to understand their religion . how far the church of rome is from doing the first , all christians in the world are sensible but themselves , but that is not our present dispute ; for though the church of rome did instruct her people into the true christian faith , yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their religion ; and to secure the faith by destroying knowledge , is a direct contradiction to the design of the gospel , which is to make men wise and understanding christians . for no man understands his religion , who does not in some measure know the reasons of his faith , and judge whether they be sufficient or not ; who knows not how to distinguish between truth and error , who has no rule to go by , but must take all upon trust , and the credit of his teachers ; who believes whatever he is told , and learns his creed , as school boys do their grammar , without understanding it : this is not an active , but a kind of passive knowledge ; such men receive the impression , that is made on them , as wax does , and understand no more of the matter ; now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man , or the discipline of a child ? but suppose there were some men so dull and stupid , that they could never rise higher ; that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things , but must take up their religion upon trust ; yet will any man say , that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge , that any christian must aim at ? is this the meaning of the word of god dwelling in us richly in all wisdom ? is this the way to give an answer to any one , who asks a reason of the hope that is in us ? the perfection of christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment ; to understand the secrets of god's laws , those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of mans salvation ; to see the analogy between the law and the gospel , how the legal types and ancient prophecies received their accomplishment in christ , how far the gospel has advanced us above the state of nature , and the law of moses ; what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the incarnation and death and sufferings and intercession of the son of god ; what mysteries of wisdom and goodness the gospel contains ; the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our understandings , but raises and ennobles our minds , and transforms us into the divine image : these things were revealed , that they might be known , not that they should be concealed from the world , or neglected and despised ; but this is a knowledge , which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries , without using all the reason and understanding we have , in searching the scriptures , and all other helps which god has afforded us . now if christian knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our creed , and to believe it upon the authority of our teachers , if the gospel of our saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly knowledge , christ and the church of rome seem to have two very different designs , our lord in causing the gospel to be wrote and publisht to the world , the other in concealing it as much as she can , and suffering no body to read it without her leave , as a dangerous book , which is apt to make men hereticks ; for it is hard to conceive , that the gospel was written , that it might not be read , and then one would guess , that he by whose authority and inspiration the gospel was written , and those by whose authority it is forbid to be read , are not of a mind in this matter . 1. this i think in the first place is an evident proof , that to forbid christian people to read and study and mediate on the word of god , is no gospel doctrine , unless not to read the bible , be a better way to improve in all true christian knowledge and wisdom , than to read it : for that is the duty of christians , to grow in grace , and in the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ ; this was one great end of publishing the gospel to the world , to enlighten and improve mens understandings , as well as to govern their lives ; and though we grant , men may be taught the principles of christian religion , as children are , without reading the bible , yet if they will but grant , that studying and meditating on the holy scriptures , is the best and only way to improve in all true christian knowledge , this shows how contrary this prohibition of reading the scriptures is to the great design of the gospel , to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of christ. 2 ly . this is a mighty presumption also against transubstantiation , that it is no gospel doctrine , because it overthrows the very fundamental principles of knowledge , which is a direct contradiction to the design of the gospel , to advance divine knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world . whoever has his eyes in his head must confess , that the doctrine of transubstantiation is contrary to sense ; for were our senses to be judges of this matter , they would pronounce the bread and wine after consecration , to be bread and wine still ; and therefore what ever reason there may be to believe it not to be bread and wine , but flesh and blood , yet it must be confessed , that our faith in this matter contradicts our sense ; for even roman catholick eyes and noses and hands , can see and feel and smell nothing but bread and wine : and if to our senses it appears to be nothing but bread and wine , those who believe it to be the natural body and blood of christ , believe contrary to what they see . thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things , than the doctrine of transubstantiation : for if this doctrine be true , then the same individual body of christ is in heaven at the right hand of god , and on ten thousand altars , at a great distance from each other on earth , at the same time . then a humane body is contracted into the compass of a wafer , or rather subsists without any dimensions , without extension of parts , and independent on place . now not to dispute , whether this be true or false , my only inquiry at present is , whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a humane body : let a man search his own mind , and try , whether he find any such notion of a body , as can be present at more places than one at the same time : a body that is without extension , nay that has parts without extension , and therefore without any distinction too : for the parts of an organical body must be distinguished by place and scituation , which cannot be , if they have no extension ; a body , which is present without occupying a place , or being in a place : if we have no such natural notion of a body , as i am sure i have not , and i believe no man else has , then let transubstantiation be true or false , it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds , which is all i am at present concerned for : thus let any man try , if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance , of a white and soft and hard nothing ; of the same body , which is extended and not extended , which is in a place , and not in a place at the same time : for in heaven , i suppose , they will grant , the body of christ fills a place , and has the just dimensions and proportions of a humane body , and at the same time in the host the very same body is present , without any extension ; and independent on place ; that is , the same body at the same time is extended and not extended , fills a place and fills no place , which , i suppose , they mean by being independent on place ; now is and is not , is a contradiction to natural reason , and i have no other natural notion of it , but as of a contradiction , both parts of which cannot be true . let us then briefly examine , whether it be likely , that transubstantiation , which contradicts the evidence of sense , and the natural notions of our minds , should be a gospel doctrine , considering the gospel as the most divine and excellent knowledge , and most perfective of humane understandings . for , 1. this doctrine of transubstantiation , is so far from perfecting our knowledge , that it destroys the very principles of all humane knowledge : all natural knowledge is owing either to sense or reason , and transubstantiation contradicts both , and whoever believes it , must believe contrary to his senses and reason , which if it be to believe like a catholick , i am sure , is not to believe like a man ; if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own faculties , transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world ; but however , i suppose no man will say , that this is the natural perfection of knowledge , which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things : and yet 2. all supernatural knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural ; for we are capable of revealed and supernatural knowledge , only as we are by nature reasonable creatures , and destroy reason , and beasts are as fit to be preached too as men : and yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds , is to destroy humane reason , and to leave mankind no rule or principle to know and judge by . no man can know any thing , which contradicts the principles of natural knowledge , because he has only these natural principles to know by ; and therefore however his faith may be improved by it , he forfeits his natural knowledge , and has no supernatural knowledge in the room of it : for how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural knowledge and understanding he has ? there may be some revealed principles of knowledge super-added to natural principles , and these things we may know to be so , though we have no natural notion of them , and this perfects , because it enlarges our knowledge ; as the knowledge of three divine persons super-added to the natural belief of one supreme god ; which does not overthrow the belief of one god , but only acquaints us , that there are three divine persons in the unity of the godhead , which , whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it , yet overthrows no natural notion : this is an improvement of knowledge , because we know all we did before , and we know something more , that as there is one god , so there are three persons , who are this one god ; and though we have no natural notion of this , how three persons are one god , because we know no distinction between person and essence in finite beings , yet we have no natural notion , that there cannot be more persons than one in an infinite essence ; and therefore this may be known by revelation , because there is no natural notion against it . but now i can never know that which is contrary to all the principles of knowledge i have ; such men may believe it , who think it a vertue to believe against knowledge : who can believe that to be true , which they know to be false ? for whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary principles of reason , which all mankind agree in , i know must be false , if my faculties be true , and if my faculties be not true , then i can know nothing at all , neither by reason nor revelation , because i have no true faculties to know with : revelation is a principle of knowledge as well as faith , when it does not contradict our natural knowledge of things , for god may teach us that which nature does not teach ; and thus revelation improves , enlarges , and perfects knowledge : in such cases faith serves instead of natural knowledge , the authority of the revelation instead of the natural notions and idea's of our minds ; but i can never know that by revelation which contradicts my natural knowledge ; which would be not only to know that , which i have no natural knowledge of , which is the knowledge of faith , but to know that by revelation , which by reason and nature i know cannot be ; which is to know that , which i know cannot be known , because i know it cannot be : so that transubstantiation , which contradicts all the evidence of sence and reason , is not the object of any humane knowledge , and therefore cannot be a gospel-revelation , which is to improve and perfect , not to destroy humane knowledge : i can never know it , because it contradicts all the notions of my mind ; and i can never believe it without denying the truth of my faculties , and no revelation can prove my faculties to be false ; for i can never be so certain of the truth of any revelation , as i am , that my faculties are true ; and could i be perswaded , that my faculties are not true , but deceive me in such things , as i judge most certain and evident , then i can no more believe them as to any revelation , than i can as to their natural reasonings , for the same faculties must judge of both , and if the faculty be false , i can trust its judgment in neither . 3 ly , the doctrine of transubstantiation destroys all possible certainty , what the true sence and interpretation of scripture is , and thereby overthrows all supernatural knowledge . the scripture we know is expounded to very different and contrary sences , and made to countenance the most monstrous and absurd doctrines ; witness all the ancient heresies which have been fathered on the scriptures . now what way have we to confute these heresies , but to shew , either that the words of scripture will not bare such a sence , or at least do not necessarily require it ; that such an interpretation is contrary to sense , to reason , to the natural notions we have of god , and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible ? but if transubstantiation be a gospel-doctrine , i desire any papist , among all the ancient heresies , to pick out any doctrine more absurd and impossible , more contrary to sense and reason , than the doctrine of transubstantiation is ; and then it is no argument against any doctrine , or any exposition of scripture , that it is absurd and impossible , contrary to sense and reason , for so transubstantiation is ; and if we may believe one absurd doctrine , we may believe five hundred , how absurd soever they be : and then what defence has any man against the most monstrous corruptions of the christian faith ? is this the way to improve knowledge , to destroy all the certain marks and characters of truth and error , and to leave no rule to judge by ? if the design of the gospel was to improve our minds by a knowing and understanding faith , transubstantiation , which overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed knowledge , can be no gospel-doctrine . 3. the authority of an infallible judge , whom we must believe in every thing , without examining the reasons of what he affirms , nay , though he teaches such doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to sense , and reason , and scripture , is no gospel-doctrine , because it is not the way to make men wise and understanding christians , which is the great design of the gospel , for to suspend the exercise of reason and judgment , is not the way to improve mens knowledge : an infallible teacher , and an infallible rule do indeed mightily contribute to the improvement of knowledge ; but such an infallible judge , as the church of rome boasts of , can only make men ignorant and stupid believers : for there is a vast difference between an infallible teacher , and an infallible judge , which few men observe , at least have not well explained ; for an infallible teacher is onely an external proponent , and while men only teach and instruct , how infallible soever they are , every man is at liberty to use his own reason and judgment ; for though the teacher be infallible , he that learns must use his own reason and judgment , unless a man can learn without it : but now an infallible judge is not contented to teach and instruct , which is an appeal to the reason of mankind , but he usurps the office of every mans private reason and judgment , and will needs judge for all mankind , as if he were an vniversal soul , an vniversal reason and judgment , that no man had any soul , any reason or judgment but himself : for if every man has a private reason and judgment of his own , surely every man must have a right to the private exercise of it ; that is , to judge for himself ; and then there can be no such universal judge , who must be that to every man , which in other cases his own private reason and judgment is , which is to un-soul all mankind in matters of religion . and therefore though there have been a great many infallible teachers , as moses and the prophets , christ and his apostles , yet none ever pretended to be infallible judges , but the church of rome ; that is , none ever pretended to deny people a liberty of judging for themselves , or ever exacted from them an universal submission to their infallible judgment without exercising any act of reason and judgment themselves . i am sure christ and his apostles left people to the exercise of their own reason and judgment , and require it of them ; they were infallible teachers , but they did not judge for all mankind , but left every man to judge for himself , as every man must and ought , and as every man will do , who has any reason and judgment of his own : but an infallible judge , who pretends to judge for all men , treats mankind like bruits , who have no reasonable souls of their own . but you 'll say , this distinction between an infallible teacher and an infallible judge , is very nice and curious , but seems to have nothing in it ; for does not he who teaches infallibly , judge infallibly too ? and must i not submit my private judgment , which all men allow to be fallible , to a publick infallible judgment , which i know to be infallible ? if i know that i may be deceived , and that such a man cannot be deceived , is it not reasonable for me to be governed by his judgment , rather than my own ? i answer , all this is certainly true as any demonstration , but then it is to be considered , that i cannot be so certain of any man's infallibility , as to make him my infallible judge , in whose judgment i must acquiesce , without exercising any reason or judgment of my own : and the reason is plain , because i cannot know that any man teaches infallibly , unless i am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed law. whoever does so , is so far from being infallible , that he actually errs ; and whether he does so , i cannot know , unless i may judge of his doctrine by the light of nature , and by revelation : and therefore though there may be an infallible teacher , there never can be any infallible judge , to whom i must submit my own reason and judgment , because i must judge of his doctrine my self , before i can know that he is infallible . as for instance , when moses appeared as a prophet and a law-giver to the children of israel , there was no written law , but only the law of nature ; and therefore those great miracles he wrought , gave authority to his laws , because he contradicted no necessary law of nature : but had any other person at that time wrought as many miracles as moses did , and withal taught the worship of many gods , either such as the aegyptians , or any other nations worshipped at that time , this had been reason enough to have rejected him as a false prophet , because it is contrary to the natural worship of one supream god , which the light of nature teaches . when christ appeared , there was a written law , the writings of moses and the prophets , and all the miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true prophet , had he contradicted the scriptures of the old testament ; and therefore his doctrine was to be examined by them , and accordingly he appeals to moses and the prophets to bear testimony to his person and doctrine , and exhorts them to search the scriptures , which gave testimony to him : and how the miracles he wrought gave authority to any new revelations he made of god's will to the world , since he did not contradict the old . the law of nature , and the laws of moses , were the laws of god ; and god cannot contradict himself : and therefore the doctrine of all new prophets , even of christ himself , was to be examined , and is to be examined to this day , by the law and the prophets ; and therefore though he was certainly an infallible teacher , yet men were to judge of his doctrine , before they believed him ; and he did not require them to lay aside their reason and judgment , and submit to his infallible authority , without examination . so that all this while , there could be no infallible judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private reason and judgment , and to receive all their dictates as divine oracles , without examination ; because they could not know them to be such infallible teachers , till they had examined their doctrine by the light of nature and the law of moses : and we cannot to this day know that moses and christ were true prophets , but in the same way . since the writing of the new testament , there is a farther test of an infallible teacher , if there be any such in the world ; that he neither contradicts the light of nature , nor the true intent of the law of moses , nor alter or add to the gospel of christ ; and therefore there can be no infallible judge , because be he never so infallible , we can never know that he is so , but by the agreement of his doctrine with the principles of reason , with the law and the prophets , and with the gospel of christ ; and therefore must examine his doctrine by these rules , and therefore must judge for our selves , and not suffer any man to judge for us , upon a pretence of his infallibility . could i know that any man were infallible , without judging of his doctrine , then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says , without any inquiry or examination ; but this never was , never can be : and therefore though there may be an infallible teacher , there can be no infallible judge to whom i must submit my own reason and judgment , without asking any questions . which by the way shews , how ridiculous that sophism is , the church has not erred , because she is infallible , when it is impossible for me to know she is infallible , till by examining her doctrine by an infallible rule i know , that she has not erred . and the truth is , it is well there can be no infallible judge ; for if there were , it would suspend and silence the reason and judgment of all mankind : and what a knowing creature would man be in matters of religion , when he must not reason , and must not judge ? just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any reason and judgment . and therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves , that there can be no infallible judge , but the design of christ to advance humane nature to the utmost perfection of reason and understanding in this world , proves that he never intended there should be any : for to take away the exercise of reason and private judgment , is not the way to make men wise and knowing christians ; and if christ allows us to judge for our selves , there can be no infallible judge , whose office it shall be to judge for us all . 4 ly . to pretend the scripture to be an obscure or imperfect rule , is a direct contradiction to the design of the gospel to improve and perfect knowledge : for if the scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of faith and christian knowledge , that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is , without an infallible judge , then the scriptures cannot improve our knowledge , because we cannot know what they are , we cannot understand their meaning , and therefore can learn nothing from them . yes you 'll say , we may know their meaning , when they are expounded to us by an infallible judge : though the scriptures are so obscure , that we cannot understand them without an infallible judge , yet we may certainly learn what the sence of scripture is from such a judge . now in answer to this , i observe , that though such an infallible judge should determine the sense of all obscure texts of scripture , ( which neither the pope nor church of rome have ever done ) yet this would not be to understand the scriptures , or to learn from the scriptures , but only to rely on this infallible judge for the sense of scripture : to understand the scriptures , is to be able to give a reason , why i expound scripture to such a sense , as that the words signifie so , that the circumstances of the place , and the context and coherence of the words require it ; that the analogy of faith , and the reason and nature of things , will either justifie such an interpretation , or admit no other : and an expositor , who can thus open our understandings , and not only tell us what the sense of scripture is , but make us see , that this is the true sense and interpretation of it , does indeed make us understand the scripture . thus christ himself did , when he was risen from the dead , he opened their understandings , that they might understand the scriptures , 24 luke 45. but to be told that this is the true sence of scripture , and that we must believe this is the sense , though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded , nay , though all the reason we have tells us , that it ought not to be thus expounded , no man will say , that this is to understand the scriptures , but to believe the judge : no man can learn any thing from a book , which he does not and cannot understand ; and if men neither do nor can understand the scriptures , it is certain , they can learn nothing from them : an infallible judge would teach as well without the scriptures as with them , and indeed somewhat better , because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him ; and therefore if this be true , the holy scripture deserves all those contemptible characters which the romanists have given it ; for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge , that it self cannot be known , and therefore is good for nothing . so that the obscurity of the scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the christian religion , viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of mankind in the necessary and essential doctrines of faith , and therefore this can be no gospel-doctrine , because it makes the gospel it self , considered as written , of no use . thus if the scripture be an imperfect rule , as the romanists affirm , that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of god , but that we must learn even some necessary doctrines of faith from unwritten traditions , which no body has the keeping of but the church of rome : this i say contradicts the great design of the gospel , which is to improve and perfect knowledge ; for an imperfect rule of faith is , i think , as bad as no rule at all , because we can never trust it . if you say , that though the scripture in it self be an imperfect rule , yet we have a perfect rule , because the defects of the scripture are supplied by unwritten traditions ; and therefore we have the whole gospel and all the christian knowledge delivered down to us , either in the written or unwritten rule . i answer , 1. if the scriptures be an imperfect rule , then all christians have not a perfect rule , because they have not the keeping of unwritten traditions , and know not what they are , and never can know what they are , till the church is pleased to tell them ; and it seems , it was a very great while , before the church thought fit to do it . for suppose that all the new articles of the council of trent , which are not contained in scripture , were unwritten traditions , fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the rule of faith concealed from the world ; and who knows how much of it is concealed still , for the church has not told us , that she has published all her unwritten traditions ; there may be a nest-egg left still , which in time may add twelve new articles to the trent-creed , as that has done to the apostles creed . so that if the scripture be an imperfect rule of faith , the church never had a perfect rule , till the council of trent ; for a rule which is not known , is none at all , and no body can tell whether our rule be perfect yet : whether some more unwritten traditions may not start up in the next age to make our faith more perfect , than the council of trent it self has made it . now if the design of the gospel was to instruct men in all divine knowledge , can we think that our saviour has given us such an imperfect rule , as needs to be supplied by unwritten traditions in every age ? especially when we consider that some of the greatest mysteries and most useful doctrines of the christian religion , ( if the church of rome be in the right ) were not written , or so obscurely , that no body could find them in the scriptures , till they were discovered by the help of unwritten traditions ; such as the supremacy of the pope , the infallibility of popes and general councils , the worship of images , the invocation of saints , and the great glory and prerogatives of the virgin mary , the doctrine of purgatory , indulgences , the sacrament of penance , &c. as necessary doctrines as any that are recorded in scripture , and the denial of which makes us all hereticks and schismaticks , as the church of rome says . though thanks be to god , as far as appears , we are no greater hereticks and schismaticks , than the apostles were , unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary articles of faith , and we are hereticks for denying them , since the church of rome in the council of trent has decreed and published them . 2. these unwritten traditions cannot supply the defects of a written rule , because they are of uncertain authority , and therefore not the objects , much less the rule , of a certain faith and knowledge . what is not written , but said to be delivered down from age to age by oral tradition , and kept so privately , that the church of god never heard of it for several hundred years , can never be proved but by miracles , and they must be more credible miracles too , than the school of the eucharist , and the legends of the saints furnish us with ; and yet i know of no better the church of rome has . it is impossible to prove , that a private tradition cannot be corrupted ; it is unreasonable to think that any thing which concerns the necessary articles of faith or rules of worship , should be a private and secret tradition for several ages . miracles themselves cannot prove any tradition which is contrary to the written rule , and the catholick faith of christians for several ages , as several of the trent-doctrines are ; nay , no miracles can prove any new article of faith , which was never known before , without proving that christ and his apostles did not teach all things necessary to salvation ; which will go a great way to overthrow the truth and certainty of the christian faith : for miracles themselves can never prove , that christ and his apostles taught that which the christian church never heard of before ; which is either to prove that the whole world had forgot what they had been once taught , which i doubt is not much for the credit of tradition , or that the church for several ages did not teach all that christ taught , which is no great reason to rely on the teachings of the church ; or to prove against matter of fact , that christ and his apostles taught that , which no body ever heard of , and i do not think a miracle sufficient to prove that true , which every body knows to be false , or at least do not know it to be true , though they must have known it , if it had been true . and does not every body now see , how improper unwritten traditions are , to supply the defects and imperfections of the written rule ? for they can never make one rule , because they are not of equal authority . a writing may be proved authentick , an obscure unwritten tradition cannot : and can any man think , that christ would have one half of his gospel written , the other half unwritten , if he intended to perfect the knowledge of christians : for they cannot have so perfect a knowledge , because they cannot have so great certainty , of the unwritten , as they have of the written gospel . writing is the most certain way to perpetuate knowledge , and if christ intended , that his church in all ages should have a perfect rule of faith , we must acknowledge the perfection of the written rule . the truth is , i cannot but admire the great artifice of the church of rome , in preaching up the obscurity and imperfection of the scriptures , for she has hereby put it into her own power , to make christian religion , what she pleases ; for if the scriptures be obscure , and she alone can infallibly interpret them ; if the scriptures be imperfect , and she alone can supply their defects by unwritten traditions , it is plain , that christian religion must be , what she says it is , and it shall be , what her interest requires it to be . but whether this be consistent with our saviour's design in publishing the gospel , or whether it be the best way of improving the knowledge of mankind , let any impartial man judge . 5 ly . an implicit faith , or believing as the church believes , without knowing what it is we believe , can be no gospel-doctrine , because this to be sure cannot be for the improvement of knowledge . some of the roman doctors think it sufficient , that a man believes as the church believes , without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe ; but the general opinion is , that a man must have an explicite belief of the apostles creed , but as for every thing else it suffices , if he believes as the church believes , without knowing , what the faith of the church is : that is , it is not necessary men should so much as know , what the new articles of the trent faith are , if they believe the apostles creed , and resign up their faith implicitely to the church . now this is a plain confession , that all the doctrines in dispute between us and the church of rome , are of no use , much less necessary to salvation ; for if they were , they would be as necessary to be known , and explicitely believed , as the apostles creed : and i cannot imagine , why we hereticks , who believe the apostles creed , and understand it as orthodoxly as they , may not be saved without believing the new trent creed ; for if we need not know what it is , there seems to be no need of believing it ; for i always thought , that no man can , and therefore to be sure no man need , believe , what he does not know . so that it seems , we know and believe all things , the explicite knowledge , and belief of which , by their own confession , is necessary to salvation , except that one single point of the infallibility of the church of rome : believe but that , and ye need believe or know nothing more but the apostles creed , and yet go to heaven as a good catholick : which makes an implicite faith in the church of rome , as necessary as faith in christ is . but if the intent of the gospel was to improve our knowledge , then christ never taught an implicite faith , for that does not improve knowledge : and if the faith of the church of rome , excepting the apostles creed , which is the common faith of all christians , need not be known , then they are no gospel-doctrines , much less necessary articles of faith , for christ taught nothing , but what he would have known ; and though the knowledge of all things , which christ taught , is not equally necessary to salvation , yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge , and christ taught nothing which a man need not know ; which i think is a reproach to meaner masters , and much more to the eternal and incarnate wisdom . secondly , the improvement and perfection of humane nature consists in true holiness and virtue , in a likeness and conformity to god , and a participation of the divine nature : and this is the great end of the gospel to advance us to as perfect holiness as is attainable in this life : christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own bloud , but then this very bloud of atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin , but purges the conscience from dead works , that we may serve the living god : for no sacrifice , not of the son of god himself , can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed sinner to god , that is , can move god to love a sinner , who still loves and continues in his sins ; which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do : indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our redemption ; for a sinner cannot be saved , that is , cannot be advanced to immortal life in the kingdom of heaven , without being born again , without being renewed and sanctified by the holy spirit , after the image and likeness of god. for this new nature is the only principle of a new immortal life in us ; an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in heaven , than an earthly mortal body . in both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdom of god , neither can corruption inherit incorruption . the church of rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these , and has found out more ways of expiating sin , and making satisfaction for it , than the gospel ever taught us ; whether they are so effectual to this purpose , let those look to it , who trust in them : but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind , and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that church , which has so many easie ways of expiating sin . the true character of gospel-doctrines is , a doctrine according to godliness , the principal design of which is to promote true goodness ; all the articles of the christian faith tend to this end , to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin , and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good , as we have ability and opportunity to do it : and therefore all doctrines which secretly undermine a good life , and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous , can be no gospel-doctrines . that there are such doctrines in the church of rome , has been abundantly proved by the late learned and reverend bishop taylor in his disswasive from popery ; which is so very useful a book , that i had rather direct my readers to it , than transcribe out of it : my design leads me to another method ; for if i can prove that the doctrines and practices of the church of rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the gospel it self , to make men good and holy ; every one will easily see that that can be no gospel-faith and worship , which sets aside the gospel it self . the whole doctrine of the gospel either consists of the rules of holiness , or of the motives and instruments of it ; for the articles of the christian faith are all of them so many motives to a good life : let us then consider how the faith and worship of the church of rome has made void the gospel of our saviour , as the pharisees made void the law of moses by their traditions . 1. let us begin then with the gospel-rules of holiness . it would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose determinations of their famed and approved casuists , of their doctrine of probable opinions , of the direction of the intention , by which means the very laws and boundaries of vertue and vice are in a great measure quite altered ; and it may be this would only make work for the representer , and furnish out a fourth part of the papist misrepresented , if we venture to tell the world what has been the avowed doctrines of their great divines and casuists . but whether such definitions be the doctrine of their church or not , i am sure they are equally mischievous , if they be the doctrines of their confessors who have the immediate direction of mens conscience . those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter , may find enough of it in the provincial letters , the jesuits morals , and bishop taylor 's disswasive . it sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things , which will admit of no dispute . i have already shewn what a great value the church of rome sets upon an external righteousness , which is much more meritorious than a real and substantial piety and virtue . now let any man judge whether this be not apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good ; to perswade them that such external observances are much more pleasing to god , and therefore certainly much better in themselves , than true gospel-obedience , than moral and evangelical vertues ; for that which will merit of god the pardon of the greatest immoralities , and a great reward , that which supplies the want of true vertue , which compensates for sin , and makes men great saints , must needs be more pleasing to god , than vertue it self is : and if men can believe this , all the laws of holiness signifie nothing , but to let men know , when they break them , that they may make satisfaction by some meritorious superstitions . thus the doctrine of venial sins , which are hardly any sins at all , to be sure how numerous soever they are , or how frequently soever repeated , cannot deserve eternal punishments , is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great evils : for very great evils may come under the notion of venial sins , when they are the effects of passion and surprize , and the like . indeed this very doctrine of venial sins is so perplexed and undermined , that the priest and the penitent may serve themselves of it to good purpose : i am sure this distinction is apt to make men careless of what they think little faults , which are generally the seeds and dispositions to much greater ; such as the sudden eruptions of passion , some wanton thoughts , an indecorum and undecency in words and actions , and what men will please to call little venial sins , for there is no certain rule to know them by : so that while this distinction lasts , men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins , which they need take no care of ; they are not obliged to aim at those perfections of vertue , which the gospel requires ; if they keep clear of mortal sins , they are safe , and that men may do , without any great attainments in vertue ; which does not look very like a gospel-doctrine , which gives us such admirable laws , which requires such great circumspection in our lives , such a command over our passions , such inoffensiveness in our words and actions , as no institution in the world ever did before . whatever corrupt mens notions of good and evil , as external superstitions , and the distinction between venial and mortal sins is apt to do , is a contradiction to the design of the gospel , to give us the plain rules and precepts of a perfect vertue . secondly . let us consider some of the principal motives of the gospel to a holy life , and see , whether the church of rome does not evacuate them also , and destroy their force and power . now 1. the fundamental motive of all , is the absolute necessity of a holy life ; that without holiness no man shall see god , for no other argument has any necessary force without this . but the absolute necessity of a holy life to please god , and to go to heaven , is many ways overthrown by the church of rome , and nothing would more effectually overthrow the church of rome , than to re-establish this doctrine of the absolute necessity of a good life . for were men once convinced of this , that there is no way to get to heaven , but by being truly and sincerely good ; they would keep their money in their pockets , and not fling it so lavishly away up indulgencies , or masses ; they would stay at home , and not tire themselves with fruitless pilgrimages , and prodigal offerings at the shrines of some powerful saints , all external , troublesome and costly superstitions would fall into contempt ; good men would feel , that they need them not , and if bad men were convinced , that they would do them no good , there were an end of them , for the only use of them is to excuse men from the necessity of being good . but this is most evident in their doctrine about the sacrament of penance , that bare contrition with the absolution of the priest , puts a man into a state of salvation ; i do not lay it upon attrition , which is somewhat less than contrition , though the council of trent , if i can understand plain words , makes that sufficient with the absolution of the priest ; but because some men will unreasonably wrangle about this , i shall insist only on what is acknowledged by themselves , that contrition , which is only a sorrow for sin , if we confess our sins to a priest , and receive absolution , puts us into a state of grace : now contrition , or sorrow for sin , is not a holy life , and therefore this doctrine overthrows the necessity of a holy life , because men may be saved by the sacrament of penance without it , and then i know no necessity there is of mortifying their lusts : for if they sin again , it is only repeating the same remedy , confessing their sins ; and being sorry for them , and receiving absolution , and they are restored to the favour of god , and to a state of salvation again . nay , some of their casuists tell us , that god has not commanded men to repent , but only at the time of death , and then contrition with absolution will secure their salvation , after a whole life spent in wickedness , without any other good action , but only sorrow for sin : and if men are not bound by the laws of god so much as to be contrite for their sins , till they find themselves dying , and uncapable of doing any good , all men must grant , that a holy life is not necessary to salvation . 2. more particularly . the love of god in giving his own son to die for us , and the love of christ in giving himself for us , are great gospel motives to obedience and a holy life ; but these can only work upon ingenuous minds , who have already in some measure conquered the love of sin ; for where the love of sin prevails , it is too powerful for the love of god ; but the holiness and purity and inflexible justice of the divine nature is a very good argument , because it enforces the necessity of a holy life ; for a holy god cannot be reconciled to wicked men ; will not forgive our sins , unless we repent of them , and reform them : which must engage all men , who hope for pardon and forgiveness from god , to forsake their sins , and reform their lives : but the force of this argument is lost in the church of rome by the judicial absolution of the priest : for they see daily the priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins , and god must confirm the sentence of his ministers , and therefore they are absolved , and need not fear , that god will not absolve them , when the priest has ; which must either destroy all sence of god's essential holiness and purity , and perswade them , that god can be reconciled to sinners , while they continue in their sins , or else , they must believe , that god has given power to his priests , to absolve those , whom he could not have absolved himself : to be sure it is in vain to tell men , that god will not forgive sinners , while they continue in their sins , if they believe the judicial authority of the priest to forgive sins ; for they every day absolve men , who do not forsake their sins , and if their absolution be good , god must forgive them too ; and thus the holiness and inflexible justice of god loses its force upon good catholicks to reform their lives ; and therefore were there no other arguments against it , it is not likely that the judicial absolution of the priest , as it is taught and practised in the church of rome , should be a gospel-doctrine . 3. the death and sacrifice of christ is another gospel-motive to holiness of life ; not only because he has now bought us with his own blood , and therefore we must no longer live unto our selves , but to him , who died for us ; but because his blood is the blood of the covenant , and the efficacy of his sacrifice extends no farther than the gospel-covenant , which teaches us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts , and to live soberly , righteously , and godly in this present world . that is , no man can be saved by the blood of christ , but those who obey the gospel , which obliges all men , who hope to be saved by christ , to the practise of an universal righteousness . this the church of rome seems very sensible of , that none but sincere penitents , and truly good men can be saved by the sacrifice of christ upon the cross ; which gives no hope to sinners , who do not repent of their sins and amend their lives ; and therefore she has found out a great many other ways of expiating sin , which give more comfort to sinners . the sacrifice of the mass has a distinct vertue and merit from the sacrifice upon the cross ; it is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead , to expiate especially the sins of those , for whom it is particularly offered ; and thus those sins which are not expiated by the death of christ upon the cross , are expiated by the sacrifice of the mass , and that by the bear opus operatum , by the offering this sacrifice of the mass itself , without any good motion in the person for whom it is offered : and thus the sacrifice of the mass destroys the vertue of christ's sacrifice upon the cross , to oblige men to holiness of life ; for though none but sincere and reformed penitents are pardoned by the sacrifice of the cross , the sacrifice of the mass will expiate the sins of unreformed sinners , and then there is no need to reform our lives . thus i am sure all men understand it , or they would never put their confidence in the mass-sacrifice ; for if it does no more for us than christ's death upon the cross , it might be spared , for it gives no new comforts to impenitent sinners . they are very sensible , that holiness of life is necessary to intitle us to the pardon and forgiveness purchased by the death of christ ; but then the sacrifice of the mass , humane penances , and satisfactions , and merits , and indulgences , seem on purpose contrived to supply the place of holiness of life ; for no body can imagine else what they are good for . christ has by his death upon the cross , made a perfect atonement for the sins of all true penitent and reformed sinners ; and therefore a true penitent , who according to the terms of the gospel , denies all ungodliness and worldly lusts , and lives soberly , righteously , and godly in this present world , needs no expiation but the death of christ : will they deny this ? by no means ! they grant , that all our sins are done away in baptism , meerly by the application of christ's death and passion to us ; and therefore the death of christ is a complete and perfect satisfaction for all sin , or else baptism , which derives its whole vertue from the death of christ , could not wash away all sin : what use can there be then of the new propitiatory sacrifice of the mass , of humane satisfactions , and merits , and indulgences ? truly none but this , that when our sins are expiated by the death of christ , and the pardon of all our sins applied to us in baptism , the gospel exacts a holy life from us , and therefore men forfeit the baptismal pardon of their sins by the bloud of christ , unless they either live very holy lives , or make some other satisfaction for their not doing so : and for this purpose the sacrifice of the mass , humane penances , and satisfactions serve . it will not be unuseful , nor unpleasant to draw a short scheme of this whole matter , which will explain this great mystery , and make it intelligible , which now appears to be nothing but nonsence and confusion . christ then has made a perfect atonement and expiation for sin ; this is applied to us at baptism , wherein all our sins are forgiven ; and while we continue in this state of grace , we cannot be eternally damned , though we may be punished for our sins , both in this world and purgatory . but every mortal sin puts us out of the state of grace , which we were in by baptism , and till we be restored to the state of grace again , we must be eternally damned , because we have no right to the sacrifice and expiation of christ's death : the only way in the church of rome , to restore us to this state of grace , is by the sacrament of penance , and the absolution of the priest , which restores us to the same state which baptism at first put us into , and therefore very well deserves to be thought a sacrament : and thus we recover our interest in the merits of christ's death , and therefore cannot be eternally damned for our sins ; but still it is our duty to live well , for the death of christ does not excuse us from holiness of life , which is the condition of the gospel ; and therefore if we are in a state of grace , and thereby secured from eternal damnation , yet if we live in sin we must be punished for it , unless we can find some other expiation for sin , than the death of christ upon the cross , which still leaves us under the obligations of a holy life , and therefore cannot make such an expiation for sin , as shall serve instead of a holy life : now here comes in the sacrifice of the mas , humane penance , satisfactions , indulgencies ; for the sacrifice of the mass , as i observed before , does not serve the same end , that the sacrifice of the cross does : the sacrifice of the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead ; but what sins is it a propitiation for ? for such sins for which men are to satisfie themselves ; that is , for all sins the eternal punishment of which is remitted for the sacrifice of the cross. this is evident from their making the sacrifice of the mass a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead ; that is , for the souls in purgatory , who suffer there the temporal punishments of sin , when the eternal punishment is forgiven : the souls in hell are capable of no expiation , and therefore an expiatory sacrifice for the dead , can be only for the souls in purgatory , and that is for the temporal punishment of sin , for which the sacrifice of the cross is no expiation ; and the mass is in no other sence made a sacrifice for the living than for the dead ; and therefore is not to expiate the eternal , but the temporal punishments of sin , as appears from hence , that the saying masses , or hearing masses , or purchasing masses , is reckoned among those penances men must do for the expiation of their sins , and yet they can , by all they do , only expiate for the temporal punishment of sin ; and therefore masses for the living are only for the expiation of those temporal punishments of sin , for which the sacrifice of the cross made no expiation . and i shall be so civil at present , as not to inquire , how the sacrifice of the cross , and the sacrifice of the mass , which are the very same sacrifice of the natural body and bloud of christ , come to serve such very different ends : that when christ was sacrificed upon the cross he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin ; when sacrificed in the mass , only for the temporal . i need add nothing to prove , that humane penances , satisfactions , merits , indulgencies , are onely to expiate temporal punishment of sin , because it is universally acknowledged . now if these temporal punishments be only in lieu of holiness and obedience which the gospel requires to intitle us to the expiation of christ's death upon the cross , as i have already shewn ; then it is evident to a demonstration , that the church of rome has overthrown the death and sacrifice of christ upon the cross , consider'd as an argument of a holy life , by setting up the sacrifice of the mass , humane penances , satisfactions , merits , indulgencies , instead of the gospel-terms of obedience and holiness of life . 4. the intercession of christ for us , at the right hand of god , is another powerful motive to holiness of life : it gives all the encouragement to true penitent sinners , that can be desired ; for if any man sin , we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous , who is also a propitiation for our sins . but then christ mediates only in vertue of his bloud , that is , only upon the terms and conditions of the covenant of grace which was sealed by his bloud ; that is , he mediates and intercedes only for true penitent sinners ; which obliges us , as we hope to be heard by god , when we pray in the name of christ , truly and heartily to repent of all our sins , and to live a new life . this the church of rome also seems very sensible of , that christ of his own accord will not intercede for impenitent and unreformed sinners ; that he who is the great example and the great preacher of righteousness , will not espouse the cause of incorrigible sinners , who are very desirous of pardon , but hate to be reformed ; and therefore they seem to think it as hopeless a thing to go immediately to a holy jesus , as to appear before the tribunal of a just and righteous god , without a powerful advocate . for this reason they have found out a great many other advocates and mediators a great deal more pitiful and compassionate than christ is , who by their interest in him , or their great favour with god , may obtain that pardon which otherwise they could not hope for ; such as the virgin mary , who is the mother of christ , and therefore , as they presume , has as great interest in and authority over him , as a mother has over her son ; besides those vast numbers of meritorious saints , whose intercessions cannot but prevail for those sinners whose cause they undertake . and that this is the true reason of their addresses to saints and the virgin mary , though they will not speak out , is evident to any considering man : for will they say , that christ , who became man for us , who suffered and died for us , who was in all things tempted like as we are , yet without sin ; who did and suffered all this on purpose that he might be a merciful and compassionate high priest , and might give us the highest assurance of his tenderness and compassion for us . i say , can they suspect that such a high priest will not undertake to plead our cause , if we be such as according to the terms of the gospel , it is his office to interceed for ? no christian dare say this , which is such a reproach to our common saviour , who hath bought us with his own bloud ; and therefore no christian who thinks himself within the reach and compass of christ's intercession , can need or desire any other advocate : but those who are conscious to themselves of so much wickedness , that they cannot hope the holy jesus will intercede for them for their own sakes , have reason to procure some other favourites to intercede for them with their intercessor ; and to countenance the matter they must recommend it to the practice of all christians , and more than so , make it heresie to deny it . there is but one argument i know of against this , that any man should be so stupid as to think that the intercession of the virgin mary , or the most powerful saints , can prevail with our saviour to do that , which according to the laws of his own mediation , they know he cannot and will not do : and this i confess i cannot answer , but yet so it is . and thus the intercession of christ is made a very ineffectual argument to make men good ; for though christ will intercede for none but true penitents , the church of rome has a great many other advocates that will , or at least she perswades people that they will. 5. another great gospel-motive to a holy life , is the hope of heaven , and the fear of hell. as for the hope of heaven , that is no otherwise a motive to holiness of life , but upon a supposition of the necessity of holiness , that without holiness no man shall see god ; but this you have already heard , is overthrown by the church of rome : and if men may go to heaven without holiness , i know no need of it for that purpose in this world. but hell is a very terrible thing , to be condemned to endless and eternal torments with the devil and his angels ; but then the doctrine of purgatory does mightily abate and take off this terror : for though purgatory be a terrible place too , not cooler than hell it self , yet it is not eternal ; and men , who are mightily in love with their sins , will venture temporal punishments , though somewhat of the longest , to enjoy their present satisfactions : especially considering how many easie ways there are for rich men to get out of purgatory ; those who have money enough to buy indulgences while they live , and masses for their souls when they die , need not lie long there , if the priests are not out in their reckoning : and yet it is so easie a thing for a good catholick to get into purgatory ; especially if he take care frequently to confess himself , and receive absolution , or do not die so suddenly as to be surprized in any mortal sin , that hell seems to be very little thought of , or feared in the church of rome . now i desire no better argument , that all these are not gospel-doctrines , than that they destroy the force of all those arguments the gospel uses to make men good ; that is , they are a direct contradiction to the gospel of christ. 6. i shall name but one motive more , and that is the examples of good men ; to be followers of them , who through faith and patience inherit the promises ; that being incompassed with such a cloud of witnesses , we should lay aside every weight , and the sin which doth so easily beset us , and run with patience the race which is set before us . now this is a powerful argument , because they were men as we are , subject to the same temptations and infirmities ; and therefore their examples prove , that holiness is a practicable thing ; that it is possible for men to conquer all the difficulties of religion , and all the temptations in this life ; and many times in them we see the visible rewards of vertue in great peace of mind , great assurances of the divine favour , great supports under all adversities , and such a triumphant death , as is a blessed presage of a glorious resurrection . but now in the church of rome , if there be any great and meritorious saints , as they call them , their extraordinary vertues are not so much for imitation as for a stock of merits . the more saints they have , the less reason other men have to be saints , if they have no mind to it , because there is a greater treasury of merits in the church to relieve those who have none of their own . the extraordinary devotion of their monasteries and nunneries , ( for so they would perswade the world , that there is nothing but devotion there ) is not for imitation , and it is unreasonable it should , because no body sees it ; and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life , without turning the whole world into a monastery : but these religious societies furnish the church with a stock of merits , out of which she grants indulgencies to those , who are not very religious ; and it is plain , that if one man can merit for twenty , there is no need , there should be above one in twenty good . herein indeed the members of the church of rome , have the advantage of all other churches , ( especially if they enter themselves into any religious confraternity , to partake in the merits of the society ) that others can merit for them ; and then if we can share in the merits of the saints , we need not imitate them : a church which has saints to merit for them on earth , and to intercede for them in heaven , if she can but maintain and propagate a race of such meriting saints , ( which is taken care of in the institution and encouragement of monastick orders and fraternities ) may be very indulgent to the rest of her members , who do not like meriting themselves . so that the principal motives of the gospel to holy life , as appears in these six particulars , lose their force and efficacy in the church of rome , and certainly those cannot be gospel-doctrines , which destroy the great end of the gospel to make men good. 3 ly , nor do the gospel-means and instruments of holiness and vertue escape better in the church of rome : as will appear in a very few words . reading and meditating on the holy scriptures , is one excellent means of grace , not only as it informs us of our duty , but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our minds , which nothing can so effectually do , as a daily reading of the scripture , which strikes the mind with a more sacred authority , than any humane discourses can do : but this is denied to the people of the church of rome , who are not allowed to read the scriptures in the vulgar tongue , for fear of heresie , which , it seems , is more plain and obvious in the scripture than catholick doctrines : but they should also have considered , whether the danger of heresie or sin be the greater ; whether an orthodox faith or a good life be more valuable ; and if denying the people the use of the bible be the way to keep them orthodox , i am sure it is not the way to make them good ; true piety will lose more by this , than the faith will get by it . thus constant and servent prayer , besides that supernatural grace and assistance it obtains for us , is an excellent moral instrument of holiness : for when men confess their sins to god with shame and sorrow , when with inflamed devotions , they beg the assistances of the divine grace , when their souls are every day possessed with such a great sence awe and reverence for god , as he must have , who prays devoutly to him every day ; i say , it is impossible such men should easily return to those sins , which they have so lately confessed , with such shame and confusion and bitter remorse ; that those who so importunately beg the assistance of the divine grace , should not use their best endeavours to resist temptations , and to improve in grace and vertue , which is a prophane mockery of god , to beg his assistance , that he will work in us , and with us , when we will not work : that those who have a constant sence and reverence of god , should do such things , as argue , that men have no fear of god before their eyes . but this is all lost in the church of rome , where men are taught to pray they know not what , and when men do not understand their prayers , it is certain such prayers cannot affect their minds , what other good soever latin prayers may do them ; and thus one of the most powerful instruments of piety and vertue is quite spoiled by prayers in an unknown tongue , which can no more improve their vertue than their knowledge . sorrow for sin is an excellent instrument of true repentance , as that signifies the reformation of our lives ; for the natural effect of sorrow is , not to do that again , which we are sorry for doing ; but in the church of rome , this contrition , or sorrow for sin , serves only to qualifie men for absolution , and that puts them into a state of grace , and then they may expiate their sins by penances , but are under no necessity of forsaking them . the sacrament of the lord's supper , besides those supernatural conveyances of grace , which are annexed to it , by our saviour's institution , is a great moral instrument of holiness ; it representing to us the love of our crucified lord , the merit and desert of sin , the vertue of his sacrifice to expiate our sins , and to purge our consciences from dead works , and requiring the exercise of a great many vertues ; an abhorrence and detestation of our sins , great and ardent passions of love and devotion , firm resolutions of living to him , who died for us , forgiveness of enemies , and an universal love and charity to all men , especially to the members of the same body with us ; but in the church of rome this admirable sacrament is turned into a dumb shew , which no body can be edified with , or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead , which expiates sin , and serves us instead of a holy life , as i observed above . external mortifications , and severities to the body , fastings , watchings , hard lodging , &c. are very useful instruments of vertue , when they are intended to subdue the flesh to the spirit , and to wean our minds from sensual enjoyments ; but when they are intended to satisfie for our sins , not to kill them ; to punish our selves for our sins , that we may commit them more securely again , this is not a means to break vicious habits , and to conquer the love of sin , but only to conquer the fear of committing it . this is enough to shew , how far popery is from promoting the great design of the gospel to improve and perfect humane nature and holiness , and were there no other argument against it , this were sufficient to me to prove , that it cannot be the religion of the gospel of christ. finis . errata . page 27. line 10. for great , read greater . p. 37.l.5.f . when , r. where . l. 23.f . contract , r. contact . p. 40.l.27.f . should it , r. it should . p. 79.l.22.f . undermined , r. undetermined . p. 80.l.3.f . corrupt , r. corrupts . l. 22.f . up , r. upon . p. 91.l.22.r . in knowledge and holiness . books lately printed for w. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery , quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; 1 st and 2 d part. in two dialogues , between a protestant and a papist . quarto . an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part. of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english reformation . sermons and discourses : the third volume . by dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . 8o. a manual for a christian souldier , written by erasmus . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book . a book of cyphers , or letters reverst : price bound 5 s. a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . in octavo . price 3 d. a discourse against transubstantiation . in octavo . price 3 d. the state of the church of rome when the reformation began . a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecter's defence of his letter to a friend : in four dialogues . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry : in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . the protestant resolv'd : or , a discourse , shewing the vnreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . second edition . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy , d.d. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part. the fourth edition . these three last by william sherlock d.d. master of the temple . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a71330-e260 reasons for abrogating the test , p. 133. matth. 4. 10. ibid. p. 80. ibid. p. 30. 135 psal. 15. 1 cor. 2. 11. 1 thess. 2. 15. 5 jam. 14 , 15. notes for div a71330-e6600 1 john 3. 8. 1. joh. 18. mat. 10. 1 cor. 8. 5 , 6. dr. stillin . defence of the discourse concerning idolatry . 25 exod. 22. reasons for abrogating the test , p. 124 , &c. ibid. p. 127. 9 heb. 21 , ●2 . p. 130. page 127. page 130. 99 psalm 2 , 9. 1 john 2.1 , 2. 3 rom. 23. 15 matth. 11 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20. 4 john 21 , 23. 23 matth. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. 5 matth. 20. 1 tim. 4. 3 , 4 , 5. 2 col. 16 ' 20 , 21 , 22. 40 isa. 18. &c. 4 john 22. 4 john 23. 99 psal. 1 , 2. 14 john 2. 4 heb. 16. 8 rom. 15. 4 gal. 6. 3 john 5 , 6 8 rom. 1. 4 eph. 24. 3 colos 10. 3 col. 16. 1 john 2.2 . 12 heb. 1. a practical discourse concerning death by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1689 approx. 408 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 180 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-05 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59840 wing s3312 estc r226804 31355700 ocm 31355700 110611 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59840) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 110611) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1753:3) a practical discourse concerning death by william sherlock ... sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [7], 353 [i.e 352] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : mdclxxxix [1689] errata: p. [7]. error in paging: p. 352 numbered 353. advertisement: p. 353 [sic]. "imprimatur, z. isham, r.p.d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris. septemb. 11, 1689." -p. [1] reproduction of original in the bodleian library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng death. theology, doctrinal -early works to 1800. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-01 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2004-02 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , z. isham , r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris . septemb. 11 , 1689. a practical discourse concerning death . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . mdclxxxix . to the worshipful the masters of the bench , and the rest of the members of the two honourable societies of the temple . my much honoured friends , one reason of publishing this plain discourse is , because i cannot now preach to you , as formerly i have done , and have no other way left of discharging my duty to you , but by making the press supply the place of the pulpit . part of this you have already heard , and should have heard the rest , had i enjoyed the same liberty still ; which god restore to me again , when he sees fit , if not , his will be done . and the only reason of this dedication is , to make this publick and thankful acknowledgment ( before i am forced from you , if i must be so unhappy ) of your great respects , and many singular favours to me ; which have been always so free and generous , that they never gave time , nor left any room for me to ask ; especially that obliging welcome you gave me at my first coming , i mean your present of a house , which besides the conveniencies and pleasure of a delightful habitation , has afforded me that , which i value much more , the frequent opportunities of your conversation . though i am able to make you no better return than thanks , i hope , that great master , whom i serve , will ; and that god would multiply all temporal and spiritual blessings on you , is , and always shall be , the sincere and hearty prayer of , gentlemen , your most obliged and humble servant , w. sherlock . the contents . the introduction page 1 chap. i. the several notions of death , and the improvement of them 4 sect . i. the first notion of death , that it is our leaving this world , with the improvement of it 6 sect . ii. the second notion of death , that it is our putting off these bodies 35 sect . iii. death considered as our entrance upon a new and unknown state of life 69 chap. ii. concerning the certainty of our death 89 sect . i. a vindication of the iustice and goodness of god in appointing death for all men 92 sect . ii. how to improve this consideration , that we must certainly die 110 chap. iii. concerning the time of our death , and the proper improvement of it 125 sect . i. that the general period of humane life is fixt and determined by god , and that it is but very short 128 sect . ii. what little reason we have to complain of the shortness of humane life 184 sect . iii. what use to make of the fixt term of humane life 144 sect . iv. what use to make of the shortness of humane life 162 sect . v. the time , and manner , and circumstances of every particular man's death , are not determined by an absolute and unconditional decree 185 sect . vi. the particular time when we are to die , is unknown and uncertain to us 196 sect . vii . that we must die but once , or that death translates us to an unchangeable state ; with the improvement of it 234 chap. iv. concerning the fear of death , and the remedies against it 328 the conclusion 351 errata . page 130. l. 8. for unreasonable read unanswerable . p. 214. l. 13. r. at present . a practical discourse concerning death . 9 hebrews 27. it is appointed for men once to die . the introduction . there is not a more effectual way to revive the true spirit of christianity in the world , than seriously to meditate on what we commonly call the four last things ; death , judgment , heaven , and hell : for it is morally impossible men should live such careless lives , should so wholly devote themselves to this world , and the service of their lusts , should either cast off the fear of god , and all reverence for his laws , or satisfie themselves with some cold and formal devotions , were they possest with a warm and constant sense of these things . for what manner of men ought we to be , who know that we must shortly die , and come to judgment , and receive according to what we have done in this world , whether it be good or evil ; either eternal rewards in the kingdom of heaven , or eternal punishments with the devil and his angels . that which first presents it self to our thoughts , and shall be the subject of this following treatise , is death , a very terrible thing , the very naming of which is apt to chill our blood and spirits , and to draw a dark veil over all the glories of this life . and yet this is the condition of all mankind , we must as surely die , as we are born : for it is appointed unto men once to die . this is not the original law of our nature ; for though man was made of the dust of the earth , and therefore was by nature mortal , ( for that which is made of dust is by nature corruptible , and may be resolved into dust again ) yet had he not sinned , he should never have died ; he should have been immortal by grace , and therefore had the sacrament of immortality , the tree of life , planted in paradise . but now by man sin entred into the world , and death by sin , and so death passed upon all men , for that all have sinned , 5 rom. 12. and thus it is decreed and appointed by god by an irreversible sentence , dust thou art , and unto dust thou shalt return . now to improve this meditation to the best advantage , i shall 1. consider what death is , and what wisdom that should teach us . 2. the certainty of our death , that it is appointed unto men once to die . 3. the time of our death , it must be once , but when we know not . 4. the natural fears and terrors of death , or our natural aversions to it , and how they may be allayed and sweetned . chap. i. the several notions of death , and the improvement of them . 1. what death is ; and i shall consider three things in it . 1. that it is our leaving this world. 2. our putting off these earthly bodies . 3. our entrance into a new and unknown state of life ; for when we die , we do not fall into nothing , or into a profound sleep , into a state of silence and insensibility till the resurrection : but we only change our place , and our dwelling ; we remove out of this world , and leave our bodies to sleep in the earth till the resurrection , but our souls and spirits live still in an invisible state. i shall not go about to prove these things , but take it for granted , that you all believe them : for that we leave this world , and that our bodies rot and putrifie in the grave needs no proof , for we see it with our eyes ; and that our souls cannot die , but are by nature immortal , has been the belief of all mankind ; the gods which the heathens worshipped , were most of them no other but dead men , and therefore they did believe , that the soul survived the funeral of the body , or they could never have made gods of them : nay , there is such a strong sense of immortality imprinted on our natures , that very few men , how much soever they have debauched their natural sentiments , can wholly deliver themselves from the fears of another world. but we have a more sure word of prophesie than this ; since life and immortality is now brought to light by the gospel . for this is so plainly taught in scripture , that no man , who believes that , needs any other proof . my business therefore only shall be to show you , how such thoughts as these should affect our minds : what that wisdom is , which the thoughts of death will naturally teach us ; how that man ought to live , who knows , that he must die , and leave his body behind him to rot in the grave , and go himself into a new world of spirits . sect . i. the first notion of death , that it is our , leaving this world , with the improvement of it . 1. first then let us consider death only as our leaving this world : a very delightful place you 'l say , especially when our circumstances are easie and prosperous ; here a man finds whatever he most naturally loves , whatever he takes pleasure in ; the supply of all his wants , the gratification of all his senses , whatever an earthly creature can wish for or desire ; the truth is , few men know any other happiness , much less any thing above it ; they feel what strikes upon their senses ; this they think a real and substantial good , but as for more pure and intellectual joys , they know no more what to make of them , than of ghosts and spirits ; they account them thin vanishing things , and wonder what men mean who talk so much of them : nay good men themselves are apt to be too much pleased with this world , while they are easy here ; something else is necessary to wean them from it , and to cure their fondness of it , besides the thoughts of dying , which makes the sufferings and afflictions and disappointments of this life , so necessary for the best of men. this is one thing which makes the thoughts of death so terrible ; men think themselves very well as they are , and most men think that they cannot be better , and therefore very few are desirous of a change : extream miseries may conquer the love of life , and some few divine souls may long with st. paul to be dissolved and to be with christ , which is best of all , but this world is a beloved place to the generality of mankind , and that makes it a very troublesom thing to leave it : whereas did we rightly consider this matter , it would rectifie our mistakes about these things , and teach us how to value and how to use them . for 1. if we must leave this world , how valuable soever these things are in themselves , they are not so valuable to us . for besides the intrinsick worth of things , there is somthing more required to engage the affections of wise men. viz. propriety and a secure enjoyment . what is not our own , we may admire if it be excellent , but cannot dote on ; and what is worth having , increases or decreases in value proportionably to the length and certainty of its continuance , what we cannot enjoy is nothing to us , how excellent soever it be , and to enjoy it but a little while , is next to not enjoying it , for we cannot enjoy it always ; and such things cannot be called our own , and this shows us , what value we ought to set upon this world , and all things in it ; e'en just so much as upon things that are not our own , and which we cannot keep . we use indeed to call things our own , which we have a legal title to , which no man can by law or justice deprive us of , and this is the only property we can have in these things , a property against all other human claims ; but nothing which can be taken from us , nothing which we must leave , is properly our own ; for in a strict sense nothing is our own but what is essential , either to our being or to our happiness . creatures are proprietors of nothing , not so much as of themselves , for we are his who made us , and who may unmake us again when he pleases ; but yet there are some things proper to our natures , and that is all the natural propriety ; we have ; but what is thus proper to us we cannot be deprived of without ceasing to be , or being miserable . and this proves that the things of this world are not our own , that they are not proper and peculiar to our natures , though they are necessary to this present state of life : while we live here we want them , but when we leave this world we must live without them , and may be happy without them too : there is a great agreeableness between the things of this world and an earthly nature , they are a great support and comfort to us in this mortal state ; and therefore while we live in this world we may value the enjoyments of it , for the ease and conveniencies of life ; but we must neither call this life nor any enjoyments of it our own , because they are short and perishing ; we are here but as travellers in an inn , it is not our home and country , it is not our portion and inheritance but a moveable and changeable scene , which is entertaining at present , but cannot last . let us then consider , how we ought to value such things as these , and to make it as plain and self-evident as i can , i shall put some easie and familiar cases . 1. suppose you were a travelling through a very delightful country , where you met with all the pleasures and conveniencies of life , but knew , that you must not tarry there , but only pass through it ; would you think it reasonable to set your affections so much upon it , as to make it uneasie to you to leave it ? and shall we then grow so fond of this world , which we must only pass thorough , where we have no abiding city , as to enslave our selves to the lusts and pleasures of it , and to carry out of this world such a passion for it , as shall make us miserable in the next : for tho' death will separate us from this world , we are not sure that it will cure our earthly passions ; we may still find the torment of sensual appetites , when all sensual objects are removed : this was all the purgatory-fire st. austin could think of , that those who loved this world too much here , though otherwise innocent and vertuous men , should be punished with fruitless desires and hankerings after this world in the next ; which is a mixt torment of desire and despair . for though indeed it is only living in these bodies , which betrays the soul to such earthly affections , yet when the impression is once made , and is strong and vigorous , we are not sure that merely putting off these bodies will cure it ; as we see age it self in old sinners does not cure the wantonness of desire , when the body is effaete and languid ; and this i should think were reason enough to convince every man , who considers , that he is not to live here always , how much it concerns him not to grow over-fond of present things ; for to contract an eternal passion for what we cannot always enjoy , must needs make us miserable . 2. if then we must not entertain a fondness for those things , which we cannot keep , let us in the next place consider , how we must use those things , which we have but a present and momentary possession of ; for use is apt to beget a fondness . suppose then again , that in your travels abroad , you pass through such a delightful country , what is it , that prevents your fondness , but only considering , that you are not at home , that you must not always see and enjoy what you now do ; and therefore all the fine things you meet with , you rather look upon as curiosities to be remarked in story , or to be tried by way of experiment , or to be used for present necessity , than as such things which are to be enjoyed , which you know they are not : and did we use the world thus , we should never grow over fond of it . those , who marry would be as though they married not , and those who weep , as though they wept not ; and those who rejoyce , as though they rejoyced not , and those who use this world , as not abusing it , because the fashion of this world passeth away : the world it self will not last long , though it will outlast us , but we are to continue here so little a while , that we have no reason to call it our home , or to place our enjoyment in it : it is an old and a good distinction , that some things are only for use , and somethings for enjoyment . the first we value only for their use , the second we account our happiness . now it is certain , that what is transient and momentary can be only for use , for man is a miserable creature , if what is his happiness , be not lasting ; and a very foolish creature if he places his happiness in what is not lasting . now this should make a vast difference in our affections to things . we cannot blame any man who lets loose his affections upon that which is his happiness ; for there neither can nor ought to be any bounds set to our desires or enjoyment of our true happiness ; but what we account only for use , we have no farther concernment for , but only as it is of use to us ; and this confines our desires and affections to its use ; and were this the measure of our love to present things as it ought to be , we could not err , nor entertain any troublesom or vicious passion for them : as for instance ; what is the natural use of eating and drinking but to repair the decays of nature , and preserve our bodies in health and vigour ? now as great delicacies , and curiosities , as there are in nature both of food and liquors , if men valued them only for their use , they would never be guilty of excess , nor grow so fond of them , as if they were made only to eat and drink , and to judge of the differences of tasts . to value things for their use , is to value them no farther than they are useful , and this is the only value which is due to things which we must leave ; for they can be only for present use : but when we come to place our happiness , as all sensual men do , in things which were designed only for our use ; it both makes us extravagant in the use of them , [ which often proves a great mischief to us in this world ; ] and creates such an unnatural passion for them , as they cannot answer , which makes them vain and empty and unsatisfactory while we have them , and fills us with vexation , and all the restlesness of a furious passion and appetite when we want them ; as we must do at one time or other , either before , or to be sure when we leave this world. 3. let us suppose again , that in our passage through forreign countries , where we are not to stay long , we should not meet with all those necessaries and conveniencies of life , which we have at home ; that the country is barren , the way rough and mountainous ; the road infested with thieves and robbers , but without any convenient reception for travellers ; the people rude and barbarous , and insolent to strangers : will a wise man be over-solicitous about such hardships as these in travelling ? does he not comfort himself , that he is not to stay there , that this will not last long ; that these difficulties will only recommend his own country to him , and make him hasten home again , where he shall remember with pleasure , what is now uneasy and troublesom ? and is there not as much reason for christians to bear all the evils and casualties and sufferings of this life with an equal mind , remembring that they are not to stay always here ? that this life is but their pilgrimage , they are from home , and therefore must expect the usage , which strangers and travellers ordinarily meet with : that they are not to live here always , is a sufficient proof , that their happiness does not consist in present things , and then if they can make a shift , though it may be it is a hard shift , to pass through this world , the scene will be altered , and they shall find a kinder reception in the next . this is the foundation of contentment in all conditions , and of patience under sufferings , that death , which is not far off , when it removes us out of this world , will remove us from all the sufferings of it : and why should we not bear up with the courage and resolution of travellers in the mean time ; when we have home , a peaceful and eternal home in our prospect . 4. once more , to conclude this argument : suppose a man in his travels through a forreign country , should be commanded immediately to leave the country , unless he would forswear ever returning to his own country again . would not a wise man consider , that if he had not been commanded to leave that country , he did not intend to have staid long in it ; and therefore it would be an unaccountable folly and madness in him , to abjure his own country , where his father and kindred and inheritance is , only to gratifie his curiosity in staying a little longer there . and can we then think it a hard command ( when we know we must shortly die , and leave this world , that whether we will or no , we cannot stay long in it ) to sacrifice our very lives , rather than renounce our hopes of heaven and a better life : when we know that we must leave this world ; what does it signifie to die a little sooner than it may be in the course of nature we should , to obtain an immortal life ? to go to that blessed jesus , who lived in this world for us , and died for us , and is ready to receive us into that blessed place where he is , that we may behold his glory . i am sure it is a very foolish thing for a man , who must die to forfeit an immortal life , to reprieve a mortal and perishing life for some few years . ii. as death , which is our leaving this world , proves that these present things are not very valuable to us , so it proves , that they are not the most valuable things in their own natures ; though we were to enjoy them always , it would be but a very mean and imperfect state in comparison of that better life , which is reserved for good men in the next world. for 1. it is congruous to the divine wisdom and goodness , that the best things should be the most lasting . wisdom dictates this ; for it is no more than to give the preference to those things which are best . the longest continuance gives a natural preference to things ; we always value those things most , which we shall enjoy longest , and therefore to give the longest duration to the worst things , is to set the greatest value on them , and to teach mankind to prefer them before that , which is better . what we value most , we desire to enjoy longest , and were it in our power , we would make such things the most lasting ; which shows , that it is the natural sense of mankind , that the best things deserve to continue longest , and therefore we need not doubt , but that infinite wisdom , which made the world , has proportioned the continuance of things to their true worth . and if god have made the best things the most lasting , then the next world in its own intrinsick nature is as much better then this world , as it will last longer . for this is most agreeable to the divine goodness too , and gods love to his creatures , that what is their greatest and truest happiness should be most lasting . for if god have made man capable of different degrees and states of happiness , of living in this world and in the next , it is an expression of more perfect goodness ( as it is most for the happiness of his creatures ) that the most perfect state of happiness should last the longest ; for the more perfectly happy we are , the more do we experience the divine goodness , and he is the most perfectly happy , who has the longest enjoyment of the best things . 2. it seems most agreeable also to the divine wisdom and goodness , that where god makes such a vast change in the state of his creatures , as to remove them from this world to the next , the last state should be the most perfect and happy . i speak now of such creatures , as god designs for happiness , for the reason alters where he intends to punish . but where god intends to do good to creatures , it seems a very improper method to translate them from a more perfect and happy to a less happy state . every abatement of happiness is a degree of punishment , and that which those men are very sensible of , who have enjoyed a more perfect happiness : and therefore we may certainly conclude , that god would not remove good men out of this world , were this the happiest place . yes , you 'l say , death is the punishment of sin , and therefore it is a punishment to be removed out of this world , which spoils that argument , that this world is not the happiest place , because god removes good men out of it : for this is the effect of that curse , which was entailed on mankind for the sin of adam , dust thou art , and to dust thou shalt return . now i grant , death , as it signifies a separation of soul and body , and the death of both , which was included in that curse , was a curse and a punishment , but not as it signifies leaving this world , and living in the next . we have some reason to think , that though man should never have died , if he had not sinned , yet he should not always have lived in this world. human nature was certainly made for greater things than the enjoyment of sense : it is capable of nobler advancements ; it is related to heaven , and to the world of spirits : and therefore it seems more likely , that had man continued innocent , and by the constant exercise of wisdom and vertue improved his faculties , and raised himself above this body , and grown up into the divine nature and life , after a long and happy life here , he should have been translated into heaven , as enoch and elias were without dying . for had all men continued innocent , and lived to this day , and propagated their kind , this little spot of earth had many ages since been over-peopled , and could not have subsisted without transplanting some colonies of the most divine and purified souls into the other world. but however that be , it is certain , that being removed out of this world and living in heaven is not the curse : this fallen man had no right to ; for he , who by sin had forfeited an earthly paradise , could not hereby gain a title to heaven . eternal life is the gift of god through iesus christ our lord , it is the reward of good men , of a well spent life in this world , of our faith and patience in doing and suffering the will of god ; it is our last and final state , where we shall live for ever , and therefore the argument is still good , that this world cannot be the happiest place , for then heaven could not be a reward . though all men are under the necessity of dying , yet if this world had been the happiest place , god would have raised good men to have lived again in this world , which he could as easily have done , as have translated them to heaven . now if this world be not the happiest place , if present things be not the most valuable , as appears from this very consideration , that we must leave this world ( for to this i must confine my discourse at present ) there are several very good uses to be made of this . as 1. to rectifie our notions about present things . 2. to live in expectation of some better things . 3. not to be over-concerned about the shortness of our lives here . 1. to rectify our notions about present things . 't is our opinions of things which ruin us . for what mankind account their greatest happiness , they must love , and they must love without bounds or measures : and it would go a great way to cure our extravagant fondness and passion for these things , could we perswade our selves that there is any thing better . but this i confess , is a very hard thing for most men to do , because present things have much the advantage of what is absent and future . some who believe another life after this , what ever great things they may talk of the other world , yet do not seem throughly perswaded , that the next world is a happier state than this ; for i think they could not be so fond of this world , if they were . and the reason of it is plain , because happiness cannot be so well known , as by feeling ; now men feel the pleasures and happiness of this world , but do not feel the happiness of the next , and therefore are apt to think , that that is the greatest happiness , which does most sensibly affect them . but would they but seriously consider things , they might see reason to think otherwise , that the unknown joys and pleasures of the other world are much greater than any pleasures , which they feel here . for let us thus reason with our selves . i find i am mortal , and must shortly leave this world ; and yet i believe , that my soul cannot die , as my body does , but shall only be translated to another state : whatever i take pleasure in in this world , i must leave behind me , and know not what i shall find in the next : but surely the other world , where i must live for ever , is not worse furnished than this world , which i must so quickly leave . for has god made me immortal , and provided no sorts of pleasures and entertainments for an immortal state , when he has so liberally furnished the short and changeable scene of this life ? i know not indeed what the pleasures of the next world are , but no more did i know , what the pleasures of this world were till i came into it , and therefore that is no argument that there are no pleasures there , because i do not yet know them ; and if there be any pleasures there , surely they must be greater , than what are here , because it is a more lasting state : for can we think , that god has emptied all his stores and treasures into this world ? nay , can we think , that he has given us the best things first , where we can only just tast them , and leave them behind us ? which is to excite and provoke an appetite , which shall be restless and uneasy to eternity . no surely ! the other world must be infinitely a more happy place than this , because it will last infinitely longer ; the divine wisdom and goodness has certainly reserved the best things for eternity ; for as eternal beings are the most perfect , so they must be the most happy too ; unless we can separate perfection and happiness : and therefore i cannot but conclude , that there are greater pleasures , that there is a happier state of life then this , because there is a life which lasts for ever . 2. this will naturally teach us to live in expectation of better things , of greater , though unknown and unexperienced pleasures , which methinks all men should do , who know , that there are better things to be had ; and that they must go into that state , where these better things are to be had . for can any man be contented with a less degree of happiness , who knows there is a greater ? this is stupidity and baseness of spirit ; an ignoble mind , which is not capable of great hopes ; ambition and covetousness indeed are ill names , but yet they are symptoms of a great and generous soul , and are excellent vertues , when directed to their right objects , that is , to such objects as are truely great and excellent , for it is only the meanness of the object , which makes them vices ; to be ambitious of true honour , of the true glory and perfection of our natures , is the very principle and incentive of vertue : but to be ambitious of titles , of place , of some ceremonious respects , and civil pageantry , is as vain and little , as the things are which they court . to be covetous of true and real happiness , to set no bounds nor measures to our desire or pursuit of it , is true greatness of mind , which will take up with nothing on this side perfection ; for god and nature have set no bounds to our desires of happiness , but as it is in natural , so it ought to be in moral agents , every thing grows till it comes to its maturity and perfection ; but then covetousness is a vice , when men mistake their object , and are insatiable in their desires of that which is not their happiness ; as gold and silver , houses and lands , what is more than we want , and more than we can use , cannot be the happiness of a man. and thus it is on the other hand ; though humility be a great vertue , as it is opposed to earthly ambitions , as it sets us above the little opinions and courtship of the world , which are such mean things , as argue meanness of spirit to stoop to them ; yet it is not humility , but sordidness , to be regardless of true honour . thus to be contented with our external fortune in this world , what ever it be ; to be able to see the greater prosperity and splendor of other men , without envy , and without repining at our own meanness is a great vertue ; because these things are not our happiness , but for the use and conveniencies of this present life , and to be contented with a little of them for present use , is an argument , that we do not think them our happiness , which is the true excellency of this vertue of contentment ; but to be contented , if we may so call it , to want that which is our true happiness , or any degree or portion of it , to be contented never to enjoy the greatest and the best things , is a vice which contradicts the natural desires of happiness , and you may call it what you will , if you can think of any name bad enough for it . it is the most despicable temper in the world , to have no sense of true honour or happiness , or when we know there are greater and better things , to take up with some low enjoyments . and therefore let the thoughts of this ennoble our minds , and since there are better things in the other world , let us use our utmost endeavours to possess our selves of them ; let us live like men , who are born for greater things then this world affords ; let us endeavour to inform our selves , what the happiness of the next world is , and how we may attain it , and let us use all present things , as those who know there are infinitely greater and better things , reserved for us in the next world. iii. this should teach us also , not to be over-concerned for the shortness of our lives . our lives indeed are very short , they flie away like a shadow , and fade like the flowers of the field , and this were a very unsupportable thought , were there either no life after this , or not so happy a life as this . but besides all the other proofs we have of another life , the very shortness of our lives may convince us , that death does not put an end to our being . for can we imagine , that so noble a creature as man is , was made for a day . man , i say , who is big with such immortal designs , full of projects for future ages , who can look backward and forward , and see an eternity without beginning and without end . who was made to contemplate the wonders of nature and providence , and to admire and adore his maker ? who is the lord of this lower world , but has eyes to look up to heaven , and view all the glories of it , and to pry into that invisible world which this veil of flesh intercepts the sight of : man , who is so long a child , and by such slow steps arrives to the use of reason , and by that time he has got a little knowledge , and is earnestly seeking after more ; by that time he knows , what it is to be a man , and to what purpose he ought to live , what god is , and how much he is bound to love and worship him ; while he is ennobling his soul with all heavenly qualities and vertues , and coppying out the divine image ; when the glories of humane nature begin to appear , and to shine in him , that is , when he is most fit to live , to serve god and men ; then i say , either this mortal nature decays , and dust returns to its dust again , or some violent distemper or evil accident cuts him off in a vigorous age , and when with great labour and industry he is become fit to live , he must live no longer . how is it possible to reconcile this with the wisdom of god , if man perishes when he dies ; if he ceases to be , as soon as he comes to be a man. and therefore we have reason to believe , that death only translates us into another world , where the beginnings of wisdom and vertue here grow up into perfection ; and if that be a more happy place than this world , as you have already heard , we have no reason to quarrel , that we live so little a while here . for seting aside the miseries and calamities , the troubles and inconveniencies of this life , which the happiest men are exposed to ( for our experience tells us , that there is no complete and unmixt happiness here ) setting aside , that this world is little else than a scene of misery to a great part of mankind , who struggle with want and poverty , labour under the oppressions of men , or the pains and sicknesses of diseased bodies , yet if we were as happy as this world could make us , we should have no reason to complain that we must exchange it for a much greater happiness . we now call it death to leave this world , but were we once out of it , and enstated in the happiness of the next , we should think it were dying indeed to come into it again . we read of none of the apostles , who did so passionately desire to be dissolved and to be with christ , as st. paul , and there was some reason for it , because he had had a tast of that happiness , being snatched up into the third heavens indeed could we see the glories of that place , it would make us impatient of living here , and possibly , that is one reason , why they are concealed from us , but yet reason tells us , that if death translate us to a better place , the shortness of our lives here is an advantage to us , if we take care to spend them well , for we shall be the sooner possest of a much happier life . iii. from this notion of death , that it is our leaving this world , i observe farther , what this life is , only a state of growth and improvement of trial and probation for the next : there can be no doubt of this , if we consider what the scripture tells us of it , that we shall be rewarded in the next world , as we have behaved our selves in this : that we shall receive according to what we have done in the body whether good or evil : which proves , that this life is only in order to the next ; that our eternal happiness or misery shall bare proportion to the good or evil , which we have done here . and when we only consider , that after a short continuance here , man must be removed out of this world , if we believe , that he does not utterly perish when he dies , but subsists still in another state , we have reason to believe , that this life is only a preparation for the next . for why should a man come into this world , and afterwards be removed into another , if this world had no relation , nor subordination to the next ? indeed it is evident that man is an improvable creature , not created at first in the utmost perfection of his nature , nor put into the happiest state he is capable of , but trained up to perfection and happiness by degrees . adam himself in a state of innocence was but upon his good behaviour , was but a probationer for immortality , which he forfeited by his sin ; and as i observed before , it is most probable , that had he continued innocent , and refined and exalted his nature by the practise of divine vertues , he should not have lived always in this world , but have been translated into heaven . and i cannot see , how it is inconsistent with the wisdom of god to make some creatures in a state of probation ; that as the angelical nature was created so pure at first , as to be fit to live in heaven ; so man , though an earthly , yet a reasonable creature , might be in a capacity , by the improvement of his natural powers , of advancing himself thither : as it became the manifold wisdom of god to create the earth as well as the heavens , so it became his wisdom to make man to inhabitate this earth , for it was not fitting , that any part of the world should be destitute of reasonable beings to know and adore their maker , and to ascribe to him the glory of his works : but then since a reasonable nature is capable of greater improvements than to live always in this world , it became the divine goodness to make this world only a state of probation and discipline for the next , that those who by a long and constant practice of vertue had spiritualized their natures into a divine purity , might ascend into heaven , which is the true center of all intelligent beings . this seems to be the original intention of god in making man , and then this earthly life was from the beginning but a state of growth and improvement to make us fit for heaven , though without dying . but to be sure the scene is much alter'd now , for adam by his sin made himself mortal , and corrupted his own nature , and propagated a mortal and corrupt nature to his posterity ; and therefore we have no natural right to immortality , nor can we refine our souls into such a divine purity as is fit for heaven , by the weakned and corrupted powers of nature ; but what we cannot do , christ has done for us ; he has purchast immortality for us by his death , and quickens and raises us into a new life by his spirit ; but since still we must die , before we are immortal , it is more plain than ever , that this life is only in order to the next , that the great business we have to do in this world , is to prepare ourselves for immortality and glory . now if our life in this world be onely in order to another life , we ought not to expect our complete happiness here , for we are only in the way to it ; we must finish the work god has given us to do in this world , and expect our reward in the next : and if our reward cannot be had in this world , we may conclude , that there is something much better in the next world , than any thing here . if this life be our time to work in , we should not consult our ease and softness and pleasures here , for this is a place of labour and diligence , not of rest : we are a travelling to heaven , and must have our eye on our journeys end , and not hunt after pleasures and diversions in the way . the great end of living in this world is to be happy in the next , and therefore we must wisely improve present things , that they may turn to our future account . must make to our selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness , that when we fail , they may receive us into everlasting habitations . what concerns a better life must take up most of our thoughts and care , and whatever endangers our future happiness must be rejected with all its charms . it would not be worth the while to live some few years here , were we not to live for ever , and therefore it becomes a wise man , who remembers , that he must shortly leave this world , to make this present life wholly subservient to his future happiness . sect . ii. the second notion of death , that it is our putting off these bodies . ii. let us now consider death as it is our putting off these bodies ; for this is the proper notion of death , the separation of soul and body , that the body returns to dust , the soul or spirit unto god , who gave it : when we die , we do not cease to be , nor cease to live , but only cease to live in these earthly bodies , the vital union between soul and body is dissolved , we are no longer encloister'd in a tabernacle of flesh , we no longer feel the impressions of it , neither the pains nor pleasures of the body can affect us , it can charm , it can tempt no longer . this needs no proof , but very well deserves our most serious meditations . for , 1. this teaches us the difference and distinction between soul and body , which men , who are sunk into flesh and sense are so apt to forget , nay , to lose the very notion and belief of it : all their delights are fleshly , they know no other pleasures , but what their five senses furnish them with ; they cannot raise their thoughts above this body , nor entertain any noble designs , and therefore they imagine , that they are nothing but flesh and blood , a little organized and animated clay , and it is no great wonder , that men who feel the workings and motions of no higher principle of life in them , but flesh and sense , should imagine that they are nothing but flesh themselves : tho' methinks when we see the senseless and putrefying remains of a brave man before us , it is hard to conceive , that this is all of him , that this is the thing which some few hours ago could reason and discourse , was fit to govern a kingdom , or to instruct mankind , could despise flesh and sense , and govern all his bodily appetites and inclinations , was adorned with all divine graces and vertues , was the glory and pride of the age ; and is this dead carkase , which we now see , the whole of him ? or was there a more divine inhabitant , which animated this earthly machine , which gave life , and beauty , and motion to it , but is now removed ? to be sure , those who believe , that death does not put an end to their being , but only removes them out of this body , which rots in the grave , while their souls survive , live and act , and may be happy in a separate state , should carefully consider this distinction between soul and body , which would teach them a most divine and heavenly wisdom . for when we consider , that we consist of soul and body , which are the two distinct parts of man , this will teach us to take care of both : for can any man , who believes he has a soul , be concerned only for his body ? a compound creature cannot be happy , unless both parts of him enjoy their proper pleasures . he who enjoys onely the pleasures of the body , is never the happier for having a humane and reasonable soul ; the soul of a beast would have done as well , and it may be better ; for bruit creatures relish bodily pleasures as much , and it may be more , than men do , and reason is very troublesome to men who resolve to live like bruits ; for it makes them ashamed and afraid , which in many cases hinders , or at least allays their pleasures : and why should not a man desire the full and entire happiness of a man ? why should he despise any part of himself , and that , as you shall hear presently , the best part too ? and therefore at least we ought to take as much care of our souls as of our bodies : do we adorn our bodies that we may be fit to be seen , and to converse with men , and may receive those respects which are due to our quality and fortune ; and shall we not adorn our souls too , with those christian graces which make us lovely in the sight of god and men ? the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit , which is in the sight of god of great price ; which st. peter especially recommends to christian women as a more valuable ornament than the outward adorning of plaiting the hair , or wearing gold , or putting on of apparel , 1 peter 3. 3 , 4. the ornaments of wisdom and prudence , of well governed passions , of goodness and charity , give a grace and beauty to all our actions , and such a pleasing and charming air to our very countenance , as the most natural beauty , or artificial washes and paints can never imitate . are we careful to preserve our bodies from any hurt , from pains and sickness , from burning feavers , or the racking gout or stone , and shall we not be as careful of the ease of the mind too ? to quiet and calm those passions which when they grow outragious , are more intollerable than all natural or artificial tortures ; to moderate those desires , which rage like hunger and thirst ; those fears which convulse the mind with trembling and paralytick motions ; those furious tempests of anger , revenge , and envy , which rufle our minds , and fill us with vexation , restlesness and confusion of thoughts ; especially those guilty reflections upon ourselves , that worm in the conscience which gnaws the soul , and torments us with shame and remorse , and dreadful expectations of an avenger ▪ these are the sicknesses and distempers of the soul ; these are pains indeed more sharp and pungent and killing pains than our bodies are capable of ; the spirit of a man can bear his infirmity , natural courage , or the powers of reason , or the comforts of religion , can support us under all other sufferings , but a wounded spirit who can bear ? and therefore a man , who loves ease , should in the first place take care of the ease of his mind , for that will make all other sufferings easie ; but nothing can support a man whose mind is wounded . are we fond of bodily pleasures ? are we ready to purchase them at any rate ? and if we be men , why should we despise the pleasures of the mind ? if we have souls , why should we not reap the benefit and the pleasures of them ? do you think there are no pleasures proper to the soul ? have we souls that are good for nothing ? of no use to us , but only to relish the pleasures of the body ? ask those who have tried , what the pleasures of wisdom and knowledge are , which does as much excel the pleasures of seeing , as truth is more beautiful and glorious than the sun : ask them what a pleasure it is to know god , the greatest and best being , and the brightest object of our minds , to contemplate his wisdom and goodness and power in the works of creation and providence ; to be swallowed up in that stupendious mystery of love , the redemption of sinners by the incarnation and sufferings of the son of god : ask them , what the pleasures of innocence and vertue are ; what the feast of a good conscience means ; which is the greatest happiness , to give or to receive ; what the joys even of sufferings and persecutions , of want and poverty and reproach are for the sake of christ : ask a devout soul , what transports and ravishments of spirit he feels , when he is upon his knees , when with st. paul he is even snatched up into the third heavens , filled with god , overflowing with praises and divine joys : and does it not then become a man , who has a reasonable soul , to seek after these rational , these manly , these divine pleasures , the pleasures of the mind and spirit , which are proper and peculiar to a reasonable creature ? let him do this , and then let him enjoy the pleasures of the body as much as he can , which will be very insipid and tastless , when his soul is ravished with more noble delights . in a word , if we are so careful to preserve the life of our bodies , which we know must die , and rot and putrifie in the grave , methinks we should not be less careful to preserve the life of our souls , which is the only immortal part of us : for though our souls cannot die , as our bodies do , yet they may be miserable , and that is called eternal death , where the worm never dieth , and the fire never goeth out : for to be always miserable , is infinitely worse than not to be at all , and therefore is the most formidable death . and if we are so unwilling to part with these mortal bodies , we ought in reason to be much more afraid to lose our souls . ii. that death is our putting off these bodies , teaches us , that the soul is the only principle of life and sensation : the body cannot live without the soul , but as soon as it is parted from it , it loses all sence and motion , and returns to its original dust ; but the soul can and does live without the body , and therefore there is the principle of life . this may be thought a very common and obvious observation , and indeed so it is ; but the consequences of this are not so commonly observed , and yet are of great use and moment . for 1. this shews us , that the soul is the best part of us , that the soul indeed is the man , because it is the only seat of life and knowledge , and all sensations ; for a man is a living , reasonable , and understanding being , and therefore a living reasonable soul ( not an earthly body , which has no life or sense , but what it derives from the soul ) must be the man : hence in scripture soul so frequently signifies the man ; thus we read of the souls that were born to iacob , and the souls that came with him into aegypt , 46. gen. that is his sons : and soul signifies our selves , a friend which is as thy own soul , that is , as dear to us as our selves , 13. deut. 6. and ionathan loved david as his own soul , that is , as himself , 1 sam. 18. 3. for in propriety of speech , the body has no sense at all , but the soul lives in the body , and feels all the motions and impressions of it ; so that it is the soul only that is capable of happiness or misery , of pain or pleasure ; and therefore it is the only concernment of a wise man to take care of his soul ; as our saviour tells us , what shall it profit a man , though he gain the whole world , and lose his own soul , or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? 16. matth. 26. the reason of which is easily apprehended , when we remember , that the soul only is capable of happiness or misery , that it is the soul which must enjoy every thing else ; and what can the whole world then signifie to him who has no soul to enjoy it , whose soul is condemned to endless and eternal miseries ? such a miserable soul is as uncapable of enjoying the world , or any thing in it , as if it had lost its being . 2ly , hence we learn the true notion of bodily pleasures , that they are such pleasures as the soul feels by its union to the body ; for it is not the body that feels the pleasures , but the soul , though the body be the instrument of them : and therefore how fond soever we are of them , we may certainly conclude , that bodily pleasures are the meanest pleasures of humane nature ; because the union to these earthly bodies is the meanest and most despicable state of reasonable souls . these are not its proper and genuine pleasures , which must result from its own nature and powers , but are only external impressions , the light and superficial touches of matter ; and it would be very absurd to conceive , that the soul , which is the onely subject of pleasure , should have no pleasures of its own , but borrow its whole happiness from its affinity and alliance to matter ; or that its greatest pleasures should be owing to external impressions , not to the actings of its own natural faculties and powers : which may convince us , as i observed before , that the pleasures of the mind are much the greatest and noblest pleasures of the man ; and he who would be truly happy , must seek for it not in bodily entertainments , but in the improvements and exercise of reason and religion . 3ly , hence we learn also , that the body was made for the soul , not the soul for the body ; as that which in it self has no life and sense , is made for the use of that which has . the body is only a convenient habitation for the soul in this world , an instrument of action , and a tryal and exercise of vertue ; but the soul is to use the body and to govern it , to tast its pleasures , and to set bounds to them , to make the body serviceable to the ends and purposes of reason and vertue , not to subject reason to passion and sense : if the body was made for the use of the soul , it was never intended the soul should wholly consorm it self to it , and by its sympathy with corporeal passions , transform it self into a sensual and brutish nature . such degenerate creatures are those , who live only to serve the body , who value nothing else , and seek for nothing else , but how to gratifie their appetites and lusts , which is to invert the order of nature , to fall in love with our slaves , and change fortunes and shackles with them . that our saviour might well say , he that commiteth sin is the servant of sin ; for this is a vile and unnatural subjection to serve the body , which was made to serve the soul ; such men shall receive the reward of slaves , to be turned out of god's family , and not to inherit with sons and freemen , as our saviour adds , the servant abideth not in the house for ever , but the son abideth for ever , if the son therefore shall make you free , ye shall be free indeed , 8 john 31 , 32. iii. that death , which is our leaving this world , is nothing else but our putting off these bodies , teaches us , that it is only our union to these bodies , which intercepts the sight of the other world : the other world is not at such a distance from us , as we may imagine ; the throne of god indeed is at a great remove from this earth , above the third heavens , where he displays his glory to those blessed spirits which encompass his throne ; but as soon as we step out of these bodies , we step into the other world , which is not so properly another world ( for there is the same heaven and earth still ) as a new state of life . to live in these bodies is to live in this world , to live out of them , is to remove into the next : for while our souls are confined to these bodies , and can look only through these material casements , nothing but what is material can affect us , nay nothing but what is so gross , that it can reflect light , and convey the shapes and colours of things with it to the eye : so that though within this visible world , there be a more glorious scene of things , than what appears to us , we perceive nothing at all of it . for this vail of flesh parts the visible and invisible world : but when we put off these bodies , there are new and surprizing wonders present themselves to our view , when these material spectacles are taken off , our souls with its own naked eyes , sees what was invisible before : and then we are in the other world , when we can see it , and converse with it : thus st. paul tells us , that when we are at home in the body , we are absent from the lord ; but when we are absent from the body , we are present with the lord , 2 cor. 5. 6 , 8. and methinks this is enough to cure us of our fondness for these bodies , unless we think it more desirable to be confined to a prison , and to look through a grate all our lives , which gives us but a very narrow prospect , and that none of the best neither , then to be set at liberty to view all the glories of the world. what would we give now for the least glimpse of that invisible world , which the first step we take out of these bodies will present us with : there are such things as eye hath not seen , nor ear heard , neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive : death opens ours eyes , enlarges our prospect , presents us with a new and more glorious world , which we can never see , while we are shut up in flesh , which should make us as willing to part with this vail , as to take the film off of our eyes , which hinders our sight . iv. if we must put off these bodies , methinks we should not much glory nor pride ourselves in them , nor spend too much of our time about them ; for why should that be our pride , why should that be our business , which we must shortly part with ? and yet as for pride , these mortal corruptible bodies , and what relates to them , administer most of the occasions of it : some men glory in their birth , and in their descent from noble ancestors , and ancient families ; which , besides the vanity of it , for if we trace our pedigrees to their original , it is certain , that all our families are equally ancient , and equally noble , for we descend all from adam ; and in such a long descent as this , no man can tell , whether there have not been beggars and princes in those which are the noblest and meanest families now : yet , i say , what is all this , but to pride ourselves in our bodies , and our bodily descent , unless men think that their souls are derived from their parents too . indeed our birth is so very ignoble , whatever our ancestors are , or however it may be dissembled with some pompous circumstances , that no man has any reason to glory in it ; for the greatest prince is born like the wild asses colt. others glory in their external beauty ; which how great and charming soever it be , is but the beauty of the body , which if it be spared by sickness and old age , must perish in the grave ; death will spoil those features and colours which are now admired , and after a short time , there will be no distinction between this beautiful body , and common dust. others are guilty of greater vanity than this , and what nature has denied , they supply by art ; they adorn their bodies with rich attire , and many times such bodies as will not be adorned , and then they glory in their borrowed feathers : but what a sorry beauty is that , which they cannot carry into the other world ? and if they must leave their bodies in the grave , i think there will be no great occasion in the other world for their rich and splendid apparel , which will not fit a soul. thus what do riches signifie , but to minister to the wants and conveniences and pleasures of the body ? and therefore to pride ourselves in riches , is to glory in the body too ; to think our selves more considerable than other men , because we can provide better for our bodies than they can . and what a mean and contemptible vice is pride , whose subject and occasion is so mean and contemptible ? to pride ourselves in these bodies which have so ignoble an extraction , are of so short a continuance , and will have so ignoble an end , must lie down in the grave , and be food for worms . as for the care of our bodies ; that must unavoidably take up great part of our time , to supply the necessities of nature , and to provide the conveniences of life ; but this may be for the good of our souls too , as honest labour and industry and ingenious arts are ; but for men to spend their whole time in sloth and luxury , in eating and drinking and sleeping , in dressing and adorning their bodies , or gratifying their lusts , this is to be vile slaves and servants to the body , to bodies which neither need nor deserve this from us : after all our care , they will tumble into dust , and commonly much the sooner for our indulgence of them . v. if death be our putting off these bodies , then it is certain , that we must live without these bodies , till the resurrection ; nay , that we must always live without such bodies as these are : for though our bodies shall rise again , yet they shall be changed and transformed into a spiritual nature ; as st. paul expresly tells us , 1 cor. 15. 42 , 43 , 44. it is sown in corruption , it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonour , it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness , it is raised in power ; it is sown a natural body , it is raised a spiritual body : for as he adds , 50 v. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god , neither can corruption inherit incorruption . which is true of a fleshly soul , but here is understood of a body of flesh and blood , which is of a corruptible nature : as our reason may satisfie us , that such gross earthly bodies , as we now carry about with us , cannot live and subsist in those pure regions of light and glory , which god inhabits ; no more than you can lodge a stone in the air , or breathe nothing but pure aether : and therefore our glorified bodies will have none of those earthly passions which these earthly bodies have , will relish none of the pleasures of flesh and blood ; that upon this account we may truly say , that when we once put off these bodies , we shall ever after live without them . now the use of this observation is so very obvious , that methinks no man can miss it ; for when we consider , that we must put off these bodies , and for ever live without them , the very next thought in course is , that we ought to live without our bodies now , as much as possibly we can , while we do live in them ; to have but very little commerce with flesh and sense ; to wean ourselves from all bodily pleasures , to stifle its appetites and inclinations , and to bring them under perfect command and government ; that when we see it fit , we may use bodily pleasures without fondness , or let them alone without being uneasie for want of them ; that is , that we may govern all our bodily appetites , not they govern us . for a wise man should thus reason with himself : if i grow so fond of this body , and the pleasures of it , if i can relish no other pleasures , if i value nothing else , what shall i do , when i leave this body ? for bodily pleasures can last no longer than my body does ; what shall i do in the next world , when i shall be striped of this body , when i shall be a naked soul ? or whatever other covering i may have , shall have no flesh and blood about me ; and therefore all the pleasures i value now , will then vanish like a dream ; for it is impossible to enjoy bodily pleasures when i have no body : and though there were no other punishments in the next life , yet it is a great pain to me now , to have my desires disappointed , or delayed ; and should i retain the same fondness for these things in the next world , where they cannot be had , the eternal despair of enjoying them would be punishment enough . indeed we cannot tell what alteration our putting off these bodies will make in the temper and disposition of our minds . we see that a long and severe fit of sickness , while it lasts , will make men absolute philosophers , and give them a great contempt of bodily pleasures , nay , will make the very thoughts of those pleasures nauseous to them , which they were very fond of in health . long fasting and abstinence , and other bodily severities , are an excellent means to alter the habits and inclinations of the mind ; and one would think , that to be separated from these bodies , must needs make a greater alteration in our minds , than either sickness or bodily severities : that i dare not say , that a sensual man , when he is separated from this body , shall feel the same sensual desires and inclinations , which he had in it , and shall be tormented with a violent thirst after those pleasures which he cannot enjoy in a separate state : but this i dare say , that a man who is wholly sunk into flesh and sense , and relishes no other pleasures , is not capable of living happily out of this body ; unless you could find out a new scene of material and sensible pleasures to entertain him ; for though the particular appetites and inclinations of the body may cease , yet his very soul is sensualized , and therefore is uncapable of the pleasures of a spiritual life . for indeed setting aside that mischief , which the unruly lusts and appetites of men , and the immoderate use of bodily pleasures does either to the persons themselves , or to publick societies ; and the true reason why we must mortifie our sensual inclinations , is to improve our minds in all divine graces ; for the flesh and the spirit cannot thrive together ; sensual and spiritual joys are so contrary to each other , that which of them soever prevails , according to the degrees of its prevalence , it stifles and and suppresses , or wholly subdues the other . a soul which is ravished with the love of god , and the blessed jesus , transported with the spiritual hopes of another life , which feels the passions of devotion , and is enamour'd with the glories and beauties of holiness and divine vertues , must have such a very mean opinion of flesh and sense , as will make it disgust bodily pleasures , or be very indifferent about them : and a soul which is under the government of sense and passion , cannot tast those more intellectual and divine joys ; for it is our esteem of things which gives a relish to them , and it is impossible we can highly esteem one , without depretiating and undervaluing the other : it is universally true in this case , what our saviour tells us , no man can serve two masters ; for either he will hate the one , and love the other , or else he will hold to the one and despise the other : ye cannot serve god and mammon , 6. matth. 24. the least beginnings of a divine nature in us , is to love god above all the world ; and as we every day grow more devoutly and passionately in love with god , and take greater pleasure in the spiritual acts of religion , in praising god , and contemplating the divine nature and perfections , and meditating on the spiritual glories of another life , so we abate of our value for present things , till we get a perfect conquest and mastery of them . but he who is perfectly devoted to the pleasures of the body , and the service of his lusts , has no spiritual life in him ; and tho' putting off these bodies may cure our bodily appetites and passions , yet it cannot give us a new principle of life , nor work an essential change in a fleshly nature : and therefore such a man , when he is removed from this body , and all the enjoyments of it , is capable of no other happiness : nay , though we are renewed by the divine spirit , and have a principle of a new life in us , yet , according to the degree of our love to present things , so much the more indisposed are we for the happiness of unbodied spirits . and therefore , since we must put off these bodies , if we would live for ever happily without them , we must begin betimes to shake off matter and sense , to govern our bodily appetites and passions , to grow indifferent to the pleasures of sense , to use them for the refreshment and necessities of nature , but not to be over-curious about them , not to be fond of enjoying them , nor troubled for the want of them ; never to indulge ourselves in unlawful pleasures , and to be very temperate in our use of lawful ones ; to be sure we must take care , that the spiritual part , that the sense of god , and of religion , be always predominant in us ; and this will be a principle of life in us , a principle of divine sensations and joys , when this body shall tumble into dust. vi. if death be our putting off these bodies , then the resurrection from the dead , is the re-union of soul and body : the soul does not die , and therefore cannot be said to rise again from the dead ; but it is the body , which like seed falls into the earth , and springs up again more beautiful and glorious at the resurrection of the just. to believe the resurrection of the body , or of the flesh , and to believe another life after this , are two very different things : the heathens believed a future state , but never dreamt of the resurrection of the body , which is the peculiar article of the christian faith. and yet it is the resurrection of our bodies , which is our victory and triumph over death : for death was the punishment of adam's sin ; and those who are in a separate state , still suffer the curse of the law , dust thou art , and to dust thou shalt return . christ came to deliver us from this curse , by being made a curse for us ; that is , to deliver us from death by dying for us . but no man can be said to be delivered from death , till his body rise again , for part of him is under the power of death still , while his body rots in the grave : nay , he is properly in a state of death , while he is in a state of separation of soul and body , which is the true notion of death : and therefore st. paul calls the resurrection of the body , the destroying death , 1 cor. 15. 25 , 26. he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet , the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death : that is , by the resurrection of the dead ; as appears from the whole scope of the place , and is particularly expressed 54 , 55 , &c. so when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption , and this mortal shall have put on immortality , then shall be brought to pass , that saying which is written , death is swallowed up in victory : o death where is thy sting ! o grave where is thy victory ! the sting of death is sin , and the strength of sin is the law ; but blessed be god , who hath given us the victory through our lord iesus christ. this is the perfection and consummation of our reward , when our bodies shall be raised incorruptible and glorious , when christ shall change our vile bodies , and make them like to his own most glorious body . i doubt not , but good men are in a very happy state before the resurrection , but yet their happiness is not complete , for the very state of separation is an imperfect state , because a separate soul is not a perfect man : a man , by the original constitution of his nature , consists of soul and body ; and therefore his perfect happiness requires the united glory and happiness of both parts of the whole man. which is not considered by those who cannot apprehend any necessity , why the body should rise again , since , as they conceive , the soul might be as completely and perfectly happy without it . but yet the soul would not be an intire and perfect man , for a man consists of soul and body : a soul in a state of separation , how happy soever otherwise it may be , has still this mark of god's displeasure on it , that it has lost its body , and therefore the reunion of our souls and bodies has at least this advantage in it , that it is a perfect restoring of us to the divine favour , that the badge and memorial of our sin and apostacy is done away , in the resurrection of our bodies ; and therefore this is called the adoption , viz. the redemption of our bodies , 8. rom. 23. for then it is that god publickly owns us for his sons , when he raises our dead bodies into a glorious and immortal life . and besides this , i think , we have no reason to doubt , but the reunion of soul and body will be a new addition of happiness and glory ; for though we cannot guess what the pleasures of glorified bodies are , yet sure we cannot imagine , that when these earthly bodies are the instruments of so many pleasures , a spiritual and glorified body should be of no use : a soul and body cannot be vitally united , but there must be a sympathy between them , and receive mutual impressions from each other ; and then we need not doubt , but that such glorified bodies will highly minister , though in a way unknown to us , to the pleasures of a divine and perfect soul ; will infinitely more contribute to the divine pleasures of the mind , then these earthly bodies do to our sensual pleasures . that all who have this hope and expectation , may , as st. paul speaks , earnestly groan within themselves , waiting for the adoption , even the redemption of our bodies , 8. rom. 23. this being the day of the marriage of the lamb , this consummates our happiness ; when our bodies and souls meet again , not to disturb and oppose each other , as they do in this world , where the flesh and the spirit are at perpetual enmity , but to live in eternal harmony , and to heighten and inflame each others joys . now this consideration , that death being a putting off these bodies , the resurrection of the dead must be the raising our bodies into a new and immortal life ; and the reunion of them to our souls , suggests many useful thoughts to us : for this teaches us how we are to use our bodies , how we are to prepare them for immortality and glory . death , which is the separation of soul and body , is the punishment of sin , and indeed it is the cure of it too : for sin is such a leprosie as cannot be perfectly cleansed without pulling down the house , which it has once infected : but if we would have these bodies raised up again immortal and glorious , we must begin the cleansing and purification of them here . we must be sanctified throughout , both in body , soul , and spirit , 1 thess. 5. 23. our bodies must be the temples of the holy ghost , must be holy and consecrated places , 1 cor. 6. 19. must not be polluted with filthy lusts , if we would have them rebuilt again by the divine spirit , after the desolations which sin hath made . thus st. paul tells us at large , 8. rom. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. and if christ be in you , the body is dead , because of sin ; but the spirit is life , because of righteousness ; that is , that divine and holy nature , which we receive from christ , will secure the life of our souls , and translate us to a happy state after death ; but it will not secure us from the necessity of dying : our bodies must die as a punishment of sin , and putrifie in the grave ; but yet they are not lost for ever , for if the spirit of him that raised up iesus from the dead , dwell in you ; he that raised up iesus from the dead , shall quicken your mortal bodies , by his spirit which dwelleth in you ; that is , if your bodies be cleansed and sanctified , be the temples of the holy spirit , he will raise them up again into a new life . therefore brethren we are debtors not to the flesh , to live after the flesh , for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die ; but if ye through the spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body , ye shall live : if ye subdue the fleshly principle , if ye bring the flesh into subjection to the spirit , not only your souls shall live , but your bodies shall be raised again to immortal life . and this is a mighty obligation on us , if we love our bodies , and would have them glorious and immortal , not to pamper the flesh , and gratifie its appetites and lusts ; not to yeild your members servants to uncleanness , and to iniquity unto iniquity , but to yeild your members servants to righteousness unto holiness ; that being made free from sin , and becoming the servants of god , ye may have your fruit unto holiness , and the end everlasting life . as the same apostle speaks 6. rom. 19 , 22. it is our relation to christ , that our very bodies are his members ; it is our relation to the holy spirit , that our bodies are his temples , which entitles our bodies to a glorious resurrection : but will christ own such bodies for his members , as are members of a harlot ? will the holy spirit dwell in such a temple as is defiled with impure lusts ? and therefore such polluted bodies will rise as they lay down , in dishonour , will rise not to immortal life , but to eternal death . for can we think those bodies well prepared for a glorious resurrection , to be refined into spiritual bodies , which are become ten times more flesh than god made them , which are the instruments and the tempters to all impurity ? is there any reason to expect that such a body should rise again spiritual and glorious , which expires in the flames of lust , which falls a sacrifice in the quarrel of a strumpet , which sinks under the load of its own excesses , and eats and drinks itself into the grave , which scorns to die by adam's sin , but will die by its own , without expecting till the laws of mortality , according to the ordinary course of nature , must take place ? holiness is the only principle of immortality , both to soul and body ; those love their bodies best , those honour them most , who make them instruments of vertue ; who endeavour to refine and spiritualize them , and leave nothing of fleshly appetites and inclinations in them ; those are kindest to their bodies , who consecrate them for immortality , who take care they shall rise again into the partnership of eternal joys : all the severities of mortification , abstinence from bodily pleasures , watchings , fastings , hard lodging , when they are instruments of a real vertue , not the arts of superstition , when they are intended to subdue our lusts , not to purchase a liberty of sinning , are the most real expressions of honour and respect to these bodies ; it shews how unwilling we are to part with them , or to have them miserable , how desirous we are of their advancement into eternal glories ; for the less of flesh they carry to the grave with them , the more glorious will they rise again . this is offering up our bodies a living sacrifice , when we intirely devote them to the service of god ; and such living sacrifices shall live for ever : for if god receives them a living sacrifice , he will preserve them to immortal life . but the highest honour we can do these bodies , and the noblest use we can put them to , is to offer them up , in a proper sence , a sacrifice to god , that is , willingly and chearfully to die for god , when he calls us to suffering : first to offer up our souls to god in the pure flames of love and devotion , and then freely to give up our bodies to the stake , or to the gibbet , to wild beasts , or more savage men. this vindicates our bodies from the natural shame and reproach of death ; what we call a natural death is very inglorious , it is a mark of dishonour , because it is a punishment of sin : such bodies at best are sown in dishonour and corruption , as st. paul speaks ; but to die a martyr , to fall a sacrifice to god , this is a glorious death ; this is not to yeild to the laws of mortality , to necessity and fate , but to give back our bodies to god , who gave them to us ; and he will keep that , which we have committed to his trust , to a glorious resurrection : and it will be a surprizing and astonishing glory with which such bodies shall rise again , as have suffered for their lord ; for if we suffer with him , we shall also be glorified together : which seems to imply , that those shall nearest resemble the glory of christ himself , who suffer as he did . this is the way to make our bodies immortal and glorious . we cannot keep them long here , they are corruptible bodies , and will tumble into dust ; we must part with them for a while , and if ever we expect and desire a happy meeting again , we must use them with modesty and reverence now . we dishonour our bodies in this world , when we make them instruments of wickedness and lust , and lay an eternal foundation of shame and infamy for them in the next world ; it is a mortal and killing love to cherish the fleshly principle , to make provision for the flesh , to fulfil the lusts thereof : but if you love your bodies , make them immortal , that though they die , they may rise again out of their graves , with a youthful vigour and beauty ; that they may live for ever without pain or sickness , without the decays of age , or the interruptions of sleep , or the fatigue and weariness of labour , without wanting either food or raiment , without the least remains of corruptions , without knowing what it is to tempt , or to be tempted , without the least uneasie thought , the least disappointment , the least care , in the full and blissful enjoyment of the eternal and soveraign good. sect . iii. death considered as our entrance upon a new and unknown state of life . iii. let us now consider death as it is an entrance upon a new and unknown state of life ; for it is a new thing to us , to live without these bodies , it is what we have never tried yet , and we cannot guess how we shall feel ourselves , when we are stript of flesh and blood ; what entertainments we shall find in that place , where there is neither eating nor drinking , neither marrying nor giving in marriage ; what kind of business and employment we shall have there , where we shall have no occasion for any of these things , which employ our time here : for when we have no use of food , or raiment , or physick , or houses to dwell in , or whatever our union to these bodies makes necessary to us now ; all those trades and arts , which are to provide these conveniences for us , must then cease : this must needs be a very surprizing change ; and though we are assured of a very great happiness in the next world , which infinitely exceeds whatever men call happiness or pleasure here , yet most men are very unwilling to change a known for an unknown happiness ; and it confounds and amazes them to think of going out of these bodies , they know not whither . now this consideration will suggest several very wise and useful thoughts to us . 1. how necessary an entire trust and faith in god is : we cannot live happily without it in this world , and i am sure we cannot die comfortably without it , for this is the noblest exercise of faith , to be able chearfully to resign up our spirits into the hands of god , when we know so little of the state of the other world , whither we are going . this was the first trial of abraham's faith , when in obedience to the command of god , he forsook his own country , and his father's house , and followed god into a strange land , 11. hebr. 8. by faith abraham , when he was called to go into a place , which he should after receive for an inheritance , obeyed , and he went out , not knowing whither he went. canaan was a type of heaven , and heaven is as unknown a country to us , as canaan was to abraham : and herein we must imitate this father of the faithful , to be contented to leave our native country , and the world we know , to follow god , whithersoever he leads us , into unknown regions , and to an unknown and unexperienced happiness . this indeed all men must do , because they cannot avoid leaving this world , but must go , when god calls for them ; but that which makes it our choice , and an act of faith and vertue , is this , such a strong perswasion of , and firm reliance on the goodness and wisdom and promises of god , that though we are ignorant of the state of the other world , we can chearfully forsake all our known enjoyments , and embrace the promises of an unknown happiness . and there are two distinct acts of this , which answer to abraham's faith in leaving his own country , and following god into a strange land : the first is the exercise of our faith while we live , the second when we die . to mortifie all our inordinate appetites and desires , to deny ourselves the sinful vanities and pleasures of this life , for the promises of an unknown happiness , in the next world , is our mystical dying to this world , leaving our native country , and following god into a strange and unknown land ; to quit all our present possessions in this world , to forfeit our estates , our liberties , all that is dear to us here ; nay , to forsake our native country , rather than offend god , and lose our title to the promises of an unknown happiness , is , in a literal sence , to leave our own country at god's command , not knowing whither we go ; which is like abraham's going out of his own country , and living as a sojourner in the land of promise , without having any inheritance in it : this is that faith which overcomes the world , which makes us live as pilgrims and strangers here , as those who seek for another country , for a heavenly canaan , as the apostle tells us abraham did ; for by faith he sojourned in the land of promise , as in a strange country , dwelling in tabernacles with isaac and iacob , the heirs with him of the same promise ; for he looked for a city which hath foundations , whose builder and maker is god , 11. heb. 9 , 10. and when we come to die , and can with joy and triumph in an assurance of god's promises , commend our spirits to him , and trust him with our souls , when we know not the country we go to , and never experienced what the happiness of it is , without any concern or solocitude about it ; this is a noble act of faith , which does great honour to god , and conquers all the natural aversions to death , and makes it an easie thing to leave this world , and the object of our desire and choice to see that promised land , and tast those pleasures which we are yet strangers to . we must live , and we must die in faith too , as the patriarchs did , who all died in faith , not having received the promises , but seeing them a far off ; and for that reason , the other world must be in a great measure unknown to us , for could we see it , could we before hand tast the pleasures of it , or know what they are , it would be no act of faith to leave this world for it , to be willing to be translated from earth to heaven ; but no man is worthy of heaven , who dares not take god's word for it ; and therefore god has concealed those glories from us , and given us only a promise of a great but an unknown happiness , for the object of our hope , to be a tryal of our faith and obedience and trust in him . that the other world is an unknown state to us , trains us up to a great trust and confidence in god ; for we must trust god for our souls , and for the next world , and this naturally teaches us to trust god in this world too ; to live securely upon his providence , and to suffer him to dispose of us , as he pleases . indeed no man can trust god in this world , who has not a stedfast faith in god , for the rewards of the next : for the external administrations of providence , are not always what we could wish ; but good men are very well contented , and have great reason to be so , to take this world and the next together ; and therefore are not solicitous about present things , but leave god to chuse what condition for them he pleases , as being well assured of his goodness , who has prepared for them eternal rewards . and those who can trust god with their souls , who can trust him for an immortal life , for an unseen and unknown happiness , will find no difficulty in trusting him for this world ; i mean those who are concerned for their future happiness , and take any care of their souls . if all who are unconcerned for their souls , and never trouble their heads , what will become of them hereafter , may be said to trust god with their souls , then , i confess , this will not hold true ; for the greatest number of those who thus trust god with their souls , will trust him for nothing else : but ▪ this is not to trust god , but to be careless of our souls ; but now , when a man who stedfastly believes another life after this , and is heartily concerned , what will become of him for ever , can securely rely on god's promises , beyond his own knowledge and prospect of things ; he will very easily trust god for every thing else : for he is not so solicitous about any thing in this world , as he is for his soul ; and if he can trust god with his dearest interests , surely he will trust him in less matters . the promises of eternal life , through our lord jesus christ , are the highest demonstration of god's love to us ; and he who is so well assured of god's love , that he can trust him for heaven , can never distrust his care and providence in this world. the methods of god's providence can never be so unknown to us in this world , as the state of the other world is unknown ; and if we can chearfully follow god into an unseen and unknown world , cannot we be contented to follow him through the most dark and perplexed tracks of providence here . so that we have as little reason to complain , that the state of the other world is unknown to us , as we have , that we must live by faith in this world ; for absent , unseen , and unknown things , are the objects of our faith : and those who will trust god no farther than they can see , neither in this world nor in the next , have no reason to depend upon his providence here , nor to expect heaven hereafter . 2ly , the state of the other world being so much unknown to us , is a very good reason , why we should chearfully comply with all the terms and conditions of the gospel ; to do whatever our saviour requires , that we may obtain eternal life . this , it may be , you will not so readily apprehend , and yet the reason of it is very plain ; for since the state of the other world is so much unknown to us , we do not , and cannot know neither , what dispositions and habits and complexion of soul are necessary to fit and qualifie us for this unknown happiness . but our saviour , who knew what that state is , knew also what is necessary to that state ; and therefore the wisest course we can take , is to obey all his laws without any dispute , not only as the conditions of happiness , without which we shall not be admitted into heaven , but as the necessary preparations for it . as to explain this by a paralel case , which you will easily understand ; suppose we had pre-existed in a former state , as some say we did , before we came into these bodies , and before we knew any thing of this world , or what the pleasures and entertainments of it are , should have been told what kind of bodies we must go into , no doubt but there would have been wonderful wise disputes about the make and frame of our bodies ; we should have thought some parts superfluous , or useless , or ill contrived ; indeed , should have wonder'd what such a body was made for , as well we might , before we understood the use of any part of it : but god , who knew what he intended us for , provided such a body for us , as is both beautiful and useful ; and we cannot want any part of it , but we are deprived of some conveniences and pleasures of life . and thus we may easily suppose it to be , with reference to the next world , that the habits and tempers of our minds are as necessary to relish the pleasures of that state , as our bodily senses are to tast bodily pleasures ; and since we do not particularly know what the delights of that state are , and christ does , we ought as perfectly to resign up ourselves to his directions for the fashioning our minds , as we trust god to form our bodies for us . whatever graces and vertues he requires us to exercise in this world , though we do not see the present use of them , though we may think them an unnecessary restraint of our liberties , and very needless and unreasonable severities , yet we ought to conclude , that christ knew the reason of such commands , and that such qualities and dispositions of mind will be found as necessary in the next world , as our bodily senses are here . and this we ought especially to conclude of such degrees and instances of vertue , as seem above our present state , and not so well fitted to our condition of life in this world ; for why should our saviour give us such laws , and exact such a degree of vertue from us here , as abridges our present enjoyments , and it may be exposes us to great inconveniencies and sufferings , were not that temper of mind , which these vertues form in us , of great use and necessity in the next life ? as for instance : we should think it sufficient , while we live in this world , where there are so many inviting objects , and while we are clothed with bodies of flesh , which are made for the enjoyments of sense , and have natural appetites and inclinations to them , so to govern ourselves in the use of these pleasures , as neither to make ourselves beasts , nor to injure our neighbours ; and while we keep within these bounds , to gratifie our appetites and inclinations to the full ; for it is certainly the happiness of an earthly creature to enjoy this world , though a reasonable creature must do it reasonably : but not to love this world , seems a hard command to a creature who lives in it , and was made to enjoy it ; to despise bodily pleasures , to subdue the fleshly principle in us , not only to reason , but to the spirit , to live above the body , and to strive to stifle not only its irregular , but even its natural appetites , and to tast the pleasures of it very sparingly , and with great indifference of mind , seems a very hard saying to flesh and blood : we should think it time enough to have our conversation in heaven , when we come thither ; but it is plainly above the state of an earthly creature to live in heaven , to have all our joys , our hopes , our treasure , and our hearts there : the state of this world would be very happy and prosperous without such a raised and refined and spiritualized mind , and therefore these are such vertues as are not necessary to the present constitution of this world , and therefore can be only in order to the next . thus it is sufficient to the happiness and good government of this world , that men do no injury to each other , and that they express mutual civilities and respects , that they take care of those whom nature has endeared to them , and that they be just , and in ordinary cases helpful to others ; and therefore this is all , that the state of this world requires . but that divine and universal charity , which teaches us to love all men as ourselves , even our enemies , and those who hate and persecute us ; to forgive the injuries we suffer , and not to revenge and retaliate them , not to render evil for evil , nor railing for railing , but contrariwise , blessing : i say , this wonderful vertue does not only lie extreamly cross to self-love , but is hardly reconcileable with the state of this world : for the practise of it is very dangerous , when we live among bad men , who will take advantage of such a bearing and forgiving vertue , to give great occasions for the constant exercise of it , and nothing but a particular providence , which watches over such good men , can secure them from being an easie prey to the wicked and unjust : nay , we see , this is not practicable in the government of the world ; civil magistrates are forced to punish evil doers , or the world would be a bedlam ; and therefore those who have thought such publick executions of justice , to be inconsistent with this law of forgiving injuries , and not revenging ourselves , have made it unlawful for christians to be magistrates , because hanging , or whipping , or pilloring malefactors , is not forgiving them , as certainly it is not : a very absurd doctrine , which makes it necessary that there should always be heathens in every nation , to govern even a christian kingdom , or that the christian world should have no government at all , though nominal and profest christians have as much need of government , as ever any heathens had . but this forgiving enemies is only a private vertue , not the rule of publick government , which shews , that the state of this world is so far from requiring this vertue , that it will admit only the private exercise of it , and that too under the protection of a particular providence , to defend those good men who must not avenge themselves . now such vertues as the state of this world does not require , we must conclude , are only in order to the next , and that though we do not so well discern the reason , and use of this divine charity here , yet this temper of mind is absolutely necessary to the happiness of the other world ; and for that reason it is , that christ requires the exercise of it now ; for we cannot imagine any other reason why our saviour should make any acts of vertue , which the state of this world does not require the present exercise of , the necessary terms and conditions of our future happiness , but onely that such dispositions of mind are as necessary to qualifie us to relish those divine pleasures , as our bodily senses are to perceive the delights and pleasures of this world. this is a mighty obligation on us to obey the laws of our saviour , as the methods of our advancement to eternal glory ; not to dispute his commands , how uneasy or unreasonable soever they may now appear , for the reasons of them are not to be fetched from this world , but from the next ; and therefore are such , as we cannot so well understand now , because we know so little of the next world ; but we may safely conclude , that christ knows a reason for it , and that we shall quickly understand the reason of it , when we come into the other world : and therefore we should endeavour to exercise all those heights of vertue , which the gospel recommends to us , for as much as we fall short of these , so will our glory and happiness abate in the other world. 3ly , tho' the state we enter on at death , be in a great measure unknown to us , yet this is no reasonable discouragement to good men , nor encouragement to the bad : 1. it is no reasonable discouragement to good men ; for though we do not know what it is , yet we know it is a great happiness ; so it is represented to us in scripture , as a kingdom , and a crown , an eternal kingdom , and a never fading crown : now would any man be unwilling to leave a mean and homely cottage to go and take possession of a kingdom , because he had never yet seen it , though he had heard very glorious things of it , from very faithful and credible witnesses ? for let us a little consider in what sence the happiness of the other world is unknown . 1. that it is not such a kind of happiness as is in this world , that it is like nothing , which we have seen or tasted yet : but a wise and good man cannot think this any disparagement to the other world , though it would have been a real disparagement to it , had it been like this world : for here is nothing but vanity and vexation of spirit , nothing but an empty scene , which makes a fine show , but has no real and solid joys : good men have enough of this world , and are sufficiently satisfied , that none of these things can make them happy , and therefore cannot think it any disadvantage to change the scene , and try some unknown and unexperienced joys ; for if there be such a thing as happiness to be found , it must be something which they have not known yet , something that this world does not afford . 2. when we say , that the state of the other world is unknown , the only meaning of it is , that it is a state of such happiness , so far beyond any thing we ever experienced yet , that we cannot form any notion or idea of it ; we know that there is such a happiness , we know in some measure wherein this happiness consists , viz. in seeing god , and the blessed jesus , who loved us , and gave himself for us ; in praising our great creator and redeemer ; in conversing with saints and angels ; but how great , how ravishing and transporting a pleasure this is , we cannot tell , because we never yet felt it ; our dull devotions , our imperfect conceptions of god in this world , cannot help us to guess what the joys of heaven are ; we know not how the sight of god , how the thoughts of him , will peirce our souls , with what extasies and raptures we shall sing the song of the lamb , with what melting affections perfect souls shall embrace , what glories and wonders we shall there see and know , such things as neither eye hath seen , nor ear heard , neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive . now methinks this should not make the thoughts of death uneasie to us , should not make us unwilling to go to heaven ; that the happiness of heaven is too great for us to know , or to conceive in this world : for , 3. men are naturally fond of unknown and untried pleasures ; which is so far from being a disparagement to them , that it raises our expectations of them , that they are unknown : in the things of this world , enjoyment usually lessens our esteem and value for them , and we always value that most , which we have never tried ; and methinks the happiness of the other world , should not be the only thing we despise , before we try it ; all present things are mean , and appear to be so , when they are enjoyed : but what ever expectations we have of the unknown happiness of the other world , the enjoyment of them will as much exceed our biggest expectations , as other things usually fall below them ; that we shall be forced to confess , with the queen of sheba , when she saw solomon's glory , that not the half of it was told her : it is some encouragement to us , that the happiness of heaven is too big to be known in this world ; for did we perfectly know it now , it could not be very great ; and therefore we should entertain ourselves with the hopes of this unknown happiness , of those joys , which now we have such imperfect conceptions of . 2. nor is it on the other hand any encouragement to bad men , that the miseries of the other world are unknown ; for it is known , that god has threatned very terrible punishments against bad men ; and that what these punishments are , is unknown , makes them a great deal more formidable ; for who knows the power of god's wrath ? who knows how miserable god can make bad men ? this makes it a sensless thing for men to harden themselves against the fears of the other world , because they know not what it is : and how then can they tell , though they could bear up under all known miseries , but that there may be such punishments as they cannot bear ? that they are unknown , argues , that they are something more terrible than they are aquainted with in this world ; they are represented indeed by the most dreadful and terrible things , by lakes of fire and brimstone , blackness of darkness , the worm that never dieth , and the fire that never goeth out : but bad men think this cannot be true in a literal sence , that there can be no fire to burn souls , and torment them eternally . now suppose it were so , yet if they believe these threatnings , they must believe that some terrible thing is signified by everlasting burnings ; and if fire and brimstone serve only for metaphors to describe these torments by , what will the real sufferings of the damned be ! for the spirit of god does not use to describe things by such metaphors as are greater than the things themselves . and therefore let no bad man encourage himself in sin , because he does not know what the punishments of the other world are . this should possess us with the greater awe and dread of them , since every thing in the other world , not only the happiness , but the miseries of it , will prove greater , not less , than we expect . chap. ii. concerning the certainty of our death . having thus shewed you under what notions we are to consider death , and what wisdom we should learn from them , i proceed to the second thing , the certainty of death ; it is appointed to men once to die : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it remains , it is reserved , and as it were , laid up for them . i believe no man will desire a proof of this , which he sees with his eyes ; one generation succeeds another , and those who live longest , at last yeild to the fatal stroke . there were two men indeed , enoch and elias , who did not die , as death signifies the separation of soul and body , but were translated to heaven without dying ; but this is the general law for mankind , from which none are excepted , but those whom god by his soveraign authority , and for wise reasons thinks fit to except ; which have been but two since the creation , and will be no more till christ comes to judge the world : for then st. paul tells us , those who are alive at christ's second coming , shall not die , but shall be changed , 1 cor. 15. 51 , 52. behold , i shew you a mystery , we shall not all sleep , but we shall all be changed , in a moment , in the twinkling of an eye , at the last trump ; for the trumpet shall sound , and the dead shall be raised incorruptible , and we shall be changed . this is such a change as is equivalent to death , it puts us in the same state with those who are dead , and at the last judgment rise again . sect . i. a vindication of the iustice and goodness of god , in appointing death for all men. but before i shew you what use to make of this consideration , that we must all certainly die , let us examine , how mankind comes to be mortal : this was no dispute among the heathens , for it was no great wonder that an earthly body should die , and dissolve again into dust : it would be a much greater wonder to see a body of flesh and blood preserved in perpetual youth and vigour , without any decays of nature , without being sick or growing old . but this is a question among us , or if it may not be called a question , yet it is what deserves our consideration , since we learn from the history of moses , that as frail and brittle as these earthly tabernacles are , yet if man had not sinned , he had not died . when god created man , and placed him in paradise , he forbad him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil : of every tree of the garden , thou mayest freely eat , but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil , thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the day thou eatest thereof , thou shalt surely die , 2. gen. 16 , 17. and when , notwithstanding this threatning , our first parents had eat of it , god confirms and ratifies the sentence , dust thou art , and to dust thou shalt return , 3. gen. 19. what this tree of knowledge of good and evil was , is as great a mystery to us , as what the tree of life was , for we understand neither of them ; which makes some men , who would not be thought to be ignorant of any thing , to flie to allegorical sences : but though i would be glad to know this , if i could , yet i must be contented to leave it a mystery , as i find it . that which we are concerned in is , that this sentence of death and mortality , which was pronounced on adam , fell on all his posterity : as st. paul tells us , 1 cor. 15. 21 , 22. that by man came death , and in adam all die . and this he does not only assert , but prove , 5. rom. 12 , 13 , 14. wherefore by man sin entred into the world , and death by sin , and so death passed upon all men , for that all have sinned : for until the law sin was in the world , but sin is not imputed , where there is no law ; nevertheless death reigned from adam till moses , even over them who had not sinned , after the similitude of adam's trangressions . the design of all which is to prove , that men die , or are mortal , not for their own sins , but for the sin of adam : which the apostle proves by this argument , because tho' all men , as well as adam , have sinned , yet till the giving the law of moses , there was no law , which threatned death against sin , but only that law given to adam in paradise , which no man else ever did , or ever could transgress , but he : now sin is not imputed where there is no law ; that is , it is not imputed to any man to death , before there is any law which threatens death against it : that no man can be reckoned to die for those sins , which no law punishes with death . upon what account then , says the apostle , could those men die , who lived , between adam and moses , before the law was given , which threatens death ? and yet die they all did , even those who had not sinned after the similitude of adam's transgression ; who had neither eaten the forbidden fruit , nor sinned against any other express law threatning death : this could be for no other sin but adam's ; he sinned and brought death into the world , and thus death passed upon all men for his sin , notwithstanding they themselves were sinners ; for tho' they were sinners , yet that they died , was not owing to their own sins , because they had not sinned against any law , which threatned death , but to the sin of adam ; and therefore in a proper sence , in adam all die . now this is thought very hard , that the sin of adam should bring death upon all his posterity , that one man sinned , and all men must die ; and therefore , i suppose , no man will think it improper to my present argument , to give you such an account of this matter , as will evidently justifie the wisdom and goodness , as well as the justice of god in it . i. in the first place then i observe , that an immortal life in this world , is not the original right of earthly creatures , but was wholly owing to the grace and favour of god. i call that an original right , which is founded in the nature of things ; for otherwise , properly speaking , no creatures have any right either to being , or to subsistance , which is a continuance in being : it is the goodness and the power of god , which both made the world , and upholds and sustains all things in being . and therefore plato confesses , that the inferiour gods , those immortal spirits , which he thought worthy of divine honours , were both made by the supreme god , and did subsist by his will : for he who made all things , can annihilate them again , when he pleases ; and therefore their subsistence is as much owing to the divine goodness , as their creation : but yet there is a great difference between the natural gift and bounty of god , and what is supernatural , or above the nature of things : what god makes by nature immortal , so that it has no principles of mortality in its constitution , immortality may be said to be its natural right , because it is by nature immortal , as spirits and the souls of men are : and in this case it would be thought very hard , that a whole race of immortal beings should be made mortal for the sin of one ; which would be to deprive them of their natural right to immortality , without their own fault . but when any creature is immortal not by nature , but by supernatural grace , god may bestow this supernatural immortality upon what conditions he pleases , and take the forfeiture of it , when he sees fit ; and this was the case of man in innocence . his body was not by nature immortal , for a body made of dust , will naturally resolve into dust again ; and therefore without a supernatural power , an earthly body must die ; for which reason god provided a remedy against mortality , the tree of life , which he planted in paradise , and without which man could not be immortal : so that mortality was a necessary consequence of his losing paradise , for when he was banished from the tree of life , he could have no remedy nor preservative against death . now , i suppose , no man will question , but god might very justly turn adam out of paradise for his disobedience , and then he must die , and all his posterity die in him : for he being by nature mortal , must beget mortal children , and having forfeited the tree of life , he and his posterity , who are all shut out of paradise with him , must necessarily die : which takes nothing from them to which any man had a right , ( for no man had a natural right to paradise , or the tree of life ) but only leaves them to those laws of mortality , to which an earthly creature is naturally subject . god had promised paradise and the tree of life to no man , but to adam himself , whom he created and placed in paradise ; and therefore he took nothing away from any man , but from adam , when he thrust him out of paradise ; children indeed must follow the condition of their parents ; had adam preserved his right to the tree of life , we had enjoyed it too , but he forfeiting it , we lost it in him , and in him die : we lost , i say , not any thing that we had a right to , but such a supernatural priviledge , as we might have had ; had he preserved his innocence : and this is a sufficient vindication of the justice of god in it . he has done us no injury ; we are by nature mortal creatures , and he leaves us in that mortal state : and to withdraw favours upon a reasonable provocation , is neither hard nor unjust . ii. for we must consider farther , when sin was once entred into the world , an immortal life here became impossible , without a constant series of miracles . adam had sinned , and thereby corrupted his own nature , and therefore must necessarily propagate a corrupt nature to his posterity : his earthly passions were broke loose , he now knew good and evil , and therefore was in the hands of his own counsel , to refuse or choose the good or evil : and when the animal life was once awakned in him , there was no great dispute , which way his affections would incline . to be sure it is evident enough in his posterity , whose boisterous passions act such tragedies in the world. now suppose in a state of innocence , that the tree of life would have preserved men immortal , when no man would injure himself , nor another ; when there was no danger from wild beasts , or an intemperate air , or poisonous herbs ; yet , i suppose , no man will say , but that even in paradise itself , ( could we suppose any such thing ) adam might have been devoured by a beast , or killed with a stab at the heart , or had there been any poison there , it would have killed him , had he eaten or drunk it , or else he had another kind of body in paradise than we have now , for i am sure that these things would kill us : consider then how impossible it is , that in this fallen and apostate state , god should preserve man immortal without working miracles every minute : mens passions are now very unruly , and they fall out with one another , and will kill one another , if they can ; of which the world had a very early example in gain , who slew his brother abel ; and all those murders and bloody wars since that day , put this matter out of doubt : now this can never be prevented , unless god should make our bodies invulnerable , which a body of flesh and blood cannot be without a miracle : some die by their own hands , others by wild beasts , others by evil accidents , and there are so many ways of destroying these brittle bodies , that it is the greatest wonder that they last so long ; and yet adam's body in paradise was as very earth , and as brittle as our bodies are ; but all this had been prevented , had men continued innocent ; they would not then have quarrelled or fought , they would not have died by their own hands , nor drunk themselves into a feavour , nor over-loaded nature with riotous excesses ; there had been no wild beasts to devour , no infectious air , or poisonous herbs , and then the tree of life would have repaired all the decays of nature , and preserved a perpetual youth ; but in this state we are now , the tree of life could not preserve us immortal ; if a sword or poison can kill , which shews us how impossible it was , but that sin and death must come into the world together : man might have been immortal , had he never sinned ; but brutish and ungovern'd passions will destroy us , without a miracle . and therefore we have no reason now to quarrel at the divine providence , that we are mortal , for in the ordinary course of providence , it is impossible it should be otherwise . iii. considering what the state of this world necessarily is , since the fall of man , an immortal life here is not desireable : no state ought to be immortal , if it be designed as an act of favour and kindness , but what is completely happy ; but this world is far enough from being such a state . some few years give wise men enough of it , tho' they are not oppressed with any great calamities ; and there are a great many miseries , which nothing but death can give relief to : this puts an end to the sorrows of the poor , of the oppressed , of the persecuted ; it is a haven of rest after all the tempests of a troublesome world ; it knocks off the prisoners shackles , and sets him at liberty ; it dries up the tears of the widdows and fatherless ; it cases the complaints of a hungry belly , and naked back ; it tames the proudest tyrants , and restores peace to the world ; it puts an end to all our labours , and supports men under their present adversities , especially when they have a prospect of a better life after this . the labour and the misery of man under the sun is very great , but it would be intolerable , were it endless : and therefore since sin is entred into the world , and so many necessary miseries and calamities attend it , it is an act of goodness , as well as justice , in god , to shorten this miserable life , and transplant good men into a more happy , as well as immortal state. iv. since the fall of man , mortality and death is necessary to the good government of the world : nothing else can give check to some mens wickedness , but either the fear of death , or the execution of it ; some men are so outragiously wicked , that nothing can put a stop to them , and prevent that mischief they do in the world , but to cut them off : this is the reason of capital punishments among men , to remove those out of the world , who will be a plague to mankind , while they live in it . for this reason god destroyed the whole race of mankind by a deluge of water , excepting noah and his family , because they were incurably wicked : for this reason he sends plagues , and famines , and sword , to correct the exorbitant growth of wickedness , to lessen the numbers of sinners , and to lay restraints on them : and if the world be such a bedlam as it is , under all these restraints , what would it be , were it filled with immortal sinners ! ever since the fall of adam , there always was , and ever will be a mixture of good and bad men in the world : and justice requires that god should reward the good , and punish the wicked : but that cannot be done in this world , for these present external enjoyments are not the proper rewards of vertue . there is no complete happiness here ; man was never turned into this world , till he sinned , and was flung out of paradise ; which is an argument , that god never intended this world for a place of reward and perfect happiness ; nor is this world a proper place for the final punishment of bad men , because good men live among them ; and without a miracle bad men cannot be greatly punished , but good men must share with them ; and were all bad men punisht to their deserts , it would make this world the very image and picture of hell , which would be a very unfit place for good men to live and to be happy in : as much as good men suffer from the wicked in this world , it is much more tolerable , then to have their ears filled with the perpetual cries of such miserable sinners , and their eyes terrified with such perpetual and amazing executions : good and bad men must be separated , before the one can be finally rewarded , or the other punished , and such a separation as this , cannot be made in this world , but must be reserved for the next . so that considering the fallen state of man , it was not fitting , it was not for the good of mankind , that they should be immortal here . both the wisdom , and goodness , and justice of god required , that man should die , which is an abundant justification of this divine decree , that it is appointed for men once to die . v. as a farther justification of the divine goodness in this , we may observe , that before god pronounced that sentence on adam , dust thou art , and to dust thou shalt return , he expresly promised , that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head , 3. gen. 15. in his curse upon the serpent , who beguiled eve , i will put enmity between thee and the woman , and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head , and thou shalt bruise his heel : which contains the promise of sending christ into the world , who by death should destroy him , who had the power of death , that is , the devil , and deliver them , who through fear of death , were all their life time subject to bondage ; i. e. before he denounces the sentence of death against man , he promises a saviour and deliverer , who should triumph over death , and raise our dead bodies out of the dust , immortal and glorious . here is a most admirable mixture of mercy and judgment ! man had forfeited an earthly immortality , and must die ; but before god would denounce the sentence of death against him , he promises to raise up his dead body again to a new and endless life : and have we any reason to complain then , that god has dealt hardly with us , in involving us in the sad consequences of adam's sin , and exposing us to a temporal death , when he has promised to raise us from the dead again , and to bestow a more glorious immortality on us , which we shall never lose . when man had sinned , it was necessary that he should die , because he could never be completely and perfectly happy in this world , as you have already heard ; and the only possible way to make him happy , was to translate him into another world , and to bestow a better immortality on him : this god has done , and that in a very stupendious way , by giving his own son to die for us ; and now we have little reason to complain , that we all die in adam , since we are made alive in christ : to have died in adam , never to have lived more , had indeed been very severe upon mankind ; but when death signifies only a necessity of going out of these bodies , and living without them for some time , in order to re-assume them again immortal and glorious , we have no reason to think this any great hurt : nay , indeed , if we consider things aright , the divine goodness has improved the fall of adam , to the raising of mankind to a more happy and perfect state : for though paradise , where god placed adam in innocence , was a happier state of life than this world , freed from all the disorders of a mortal body , and from all the necessary cares and troubles of this life , yet you 'll all grant , that heaven is a happier place than an earthly paradise ; and therefore it is more for our happiness to be translated from earth to heaven , than to have lived always in an earthly paradise : you will all grant , that the state of good men , when they go out of these bodies , before the resurrection , is a happier life than paradise was , for it is to be with christ , as st. paul tells us , which is far better , 1. phil. 23. and when our bodies rise again from the dead , you will grant , they will be more glorious bodies than adam's was in innocence : for the first man was of the earth earthy , but the second man is the lord from heaven , 1 cor. 15. 47. adam had an earthly mortal body , tho' it should have been immortal by grace ; but at the resurrection our bodies shall be fashioned like unto christ's most glorious body : the righteous shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of the father , that as we have born the image of the earthy , we shall also bear the image of the heavenly , 1 cor. 15 49. so that our redemption by christ has infinitely the advantage of adam's fall , and we have no reason to complain , that by man came death , since by man also came the resurrection of the dead . that st. paul might well magnifie the grace of god in our redemption by christ , above his justice and severity , in punshing adam's sin with death , 5. rom. 15 , 16 , 17. but not as the offence , so also is the free gift : for if through the offence of one many be dead ; much more the grace of god , and the gift by grace , which is by one man , iesus christ , hath abounded unto many . and not as it was by one that sinned , so is the gift : for the judgment was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification . for if by one man's offence , death reigned by one ; much more they which receive abundance of grace , and of the gift of righteousness , shall reign in life by one , iesus christ. where the apostle magnifies the grace of god upon a fourfold account : 1. that death was the just reward of sin , it came by the offence of one , and was an act of justice in god ; whereas our redemption by christ is the gift of grace , the free gift , which we had no just claim to . 2. that by christ we are not only delivered from the effects of adam's sin , but from the guilt of our own : for though the judgement was by one to condemnation ; the free gift is of many offences unto justification . 3. that though we die in adam , we are not barely made alive again in christ , but shall reign in life by one iesus christ ; which is a much happier life , than what we lost in adam . 4. that as we die by one man's offence , so we live by one too ; by the righteousness of one , the free gift comes upon all men unto justification of life . we have no reason to complain , that the sin of adam is imputed to us to death , if the righteousness of christ purchase for us eternal life . the first was a necessary consequence of adam's losing paradise ; the second is wholly owing to the grace of god. thus we see , what it is that makes us mortal : god did not make death ; he created us in a happy and immortal state , but by man sin entred into the world , and death by sin . what ever aversion then we have to death , should beget in us a greater horrour of sin , which did not only at first make us mortal , but is to this day both the cause of death , and the sting of it : no degree indeed of vertue now can preserve us from dying ; but yet vertue may prolong our lives , and make them happy , while sin very often hastens us to the grave , and cuts us off in the very midst of our days . an intemperate and lustful man destroys the most vigorous constitution of body , dies of a feavour , or a dropsie , of rottenness and consumptions , others fall a sacrifice to private revenge , or publick justice , or a divine vengeance , for the wicked shall not live out half their days . however , setting aside some little natural aversions , which are more easily conquered , and death were a very innocent , harmless , nay , desirable thing , did not sin give a sting to it , and terrifie us with the thoughts of that judgment , which is to follow : quarrel not then at the divine justice in appointing death , god is very good , as well as just in it , but vent all your indignation against sin ; pull out this sting of death , and then you will see nothing but smiles and charms in it , then it is nothing but putting off these mortal bodies , to reassume them again with all the advantages of an immortal youth . it is certain indeed we must die , this is appointed for us , and the very certainty of our death will teach us that wisdom which may help us to regain a better immortality then we have lost . sect . ii. how to improve this consideration , that we must certainly die. for , 1. if it be certain that we must die , this should teach us frequently to think of death , to keep it always in our eye and view : for , why should we cast off the thoughts of that which will certainly come , especially when it is so necessary to the good government of our lives , to remember that we must die ? if we must die , i think it concerns us to take care , that we may die happily , and that depends upon our living well ; and nothing has such a powerful influence upon the good government of our lives , as the thoughts of death : i have already shewed you , what wisdom death will teach us ; but no man will learn this , who does not consider , what it is to die ; and no man will practise it , who does not often remember , that he must die : but he that lives under a constant sence of death , has a perpetual antidote against the follies and vanities of this world , and a perpetual spur to vertue . when such a man finds his desires after this world enlarge beyond , not onely the wants , but the conveniencies of nature , thou fool , says he , to himself , what is the meaning of all this ? what kindles this insatiable thirst of riches ? why must there be no end of adding house to house , and field to field ? is this world thy home , is this thy abiding city ? dost thou hope to take up an eternal rest here ? vain man ! thou must shortly remove thy dwelling , and then whose shall all these things be ? death will shortly close thy eyes , and then thou shalt not so much as see the god thou worshippest ; the earth shall shortly cover thee , and then thou shalt have thy mouth and belly full of clay and dust . such thoughts as these will cool our desires to this present world ; will make us contented when we have enough , and very charitable and liberal of what we can spare : for what should we do with more in this world , than will carry us thorough it ? what better and wiser use can we make of such riches , as we cannot carry with us into the other world , than to return them thither before hand in acts of piety and charity , that we may receive the rewards and recompences of them in a better life ? that we may make to our selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness , that when we fail , they may receive us into everlasting habitations . when he finds his mind begin to swell , and to encrease as his fortune and honours do , lord , thinks he , what a bubble is this ! which every breath of air can blow away . how vain a thing is man in his greatest glory , who appears gay and beautiful like a flower in the spring , and is as soon cut down and withered ! though we should meet with no change in our fortune here , yet we shall suddenly be removed out of this world ; the scene of this life will change , and there is an end of earthly greatness . and what a contemptible mind is that , which is swelled with dying honours , which looks big indeed , as a body does which is swelled out of all proportion with a dropsy , or timpany , but that is its disease , not a natural beauty . what am i better than the poorest man , who beggs an alms , unless i be wiser and more vertuous than he ? can lands and houses , great places and titles , things which are not ours , and which we cannot keep , make such a mighty difference between one man and another ? are these the riches , are these the beauties and glories of a spirit ? are we not all made of the same mould ? is not god the father of us all ? must we not all die alike , and lie down in the dust together ? and can the different parts we act in this world , which are not so long as the scene of a play , compared to an eternal duration , make such a vast difference between men ? this will make men humble and modest in the highest fortune , as minding them , that when they are got to the top-round of honour , if they keep from falling , yet they must be carried down again , and laid as low as the dust . thus , when he finds the body growing upon the mind , and intoxicating it with the love of sensual pleasures , he remembers , that his body must die , and all these pleasures must die with it ; that they are indeed killing pleasures , which kill a mortal body before its time ; that it does not become a man who is but a traveller in this world , but a pilgrim and a stranger here , to study ease , and softness , and luxury ; that a soul , which must live for ever , should seek after more lasting pleasures , which may survive the funeral of the body , and be a spring of ravishing joys , when he is stript of flesh and blood. these are the thoughts which the consideration of death will suggest to us , as i have already shewed you : and it is impossible for a man , who has always these thoughts at hand , to be much imposed on by the pageantry of this world , by the transient honours and pleasures of it . it is indeed , i think , a very impracticable rule , which some men give , to live always , as if we were to die the next moment . our lives should always be as innocent , as if we were immediately to give up our accounts to god ; but it is impossible to have always those sensible apprehensions of death about us , which we have when we see it approaching : but though we cannot live as if we were immediately to die , ( which would put an end not only to all innocent mirth , but to all the necessary business of the world , which i believe no dying man would concern himself for , ) yet we may , and we ought to live as those who must certainly die , and ought to have these thoughts continually about us , as a guard upon our actions : for whatever is of such mighty consequence to us , as death is , if it be certain , ought always to give laws to our behaviour and conversation . 2ly , if it be certain we must die , the very first thing we ought to do in this world , after we come to years of understanding , should be to prepare for death , that whenever death comes , we may be ready for it . this , i confess , is not according to the way of this world ; for dying is usually the last thing they take care of : this is thought a little unseasonable , while men are young and healthful and vigorous ; but , besides the uncertainty of our lives , and that it is possible , while we delay , death may seize on us before we are provided for it ; and then we must be miserable for ever ; which i shall speak to under the next head. i doubt not but to convince every considering man , that an early preparation for death is the very best means to make our lives happy in this world , while we do continue here . nor shall i urge here , how a life of holiness and vertue , which is the best and only preparation for death , tends to make us happy in this world , delivers us from all those mischiefs which the wildness and giddiness of youth , and the more confirmed debaucheries of riper years expose men too ; for this is properly the commendation of vertue , not of an early preparation for death : and yet this is really a great engagement and motive to prepare betimes for death , since such a preparation for death will put us to no greater hardships and inconveniencies , than the practice of such vertues as will prolong our lives , preserve or increase our fortunes , give us honour and reputation in the world , and makes us beloved both by god and men . but setting aside these things , there are two advantages of an early preparation for death , which contribute more to our happiness , than all the world besides , 1. that it betimes delivers us from the fears of death , and consequently from most other fears . 2ly , that it supports us under all the troubles and calamities of this life . 1. it betimes delivers us from the sears of death ; and indeed it is then only a man begins to live , when he is got above the fears of death . were men thoughtful and considerate , death would hang over them in all their mirth and jollity , like a fatal sword by a single hair ; it would sowre all their enjoyments , and strike terror into their hearts and looks : but the security of most men is , that they put off the thoughts of death , as they do their preparation for it : they live secure and free from danger , onely because they will not open their eyes to see it . but these are such examples as no wise man will propose to himself , because they are not safe : and there are so many occasions to put these men in mind of death , that it is a very hard thing not to think of it , and when ever they do , it chills their blood and spirits , and draws a black and melancholly veil over all the glories in the world. how are such men surprized , when any danger approaches ? when death comes within view , and shews his sithe , and only some few sands at the bottom of the glass ? this is a very frightful sight to men who are not prepared to die ; and yet should they give themselves liberty to think , in what danger they live every minute , how many thousand accidents may cut them off , which they can neither foresee nor prevent ; fear , and horror , and consternation would be their constant entertainment , till they could think of death without fear ; till they were reconciled to the thoughts of dying , by great and certain hopes of a better life after death . so that no man can live happily , if he lives like a man , with his thoughts , and reason , and consideration about him , but he who takes care betimes to prepare for death and another world : till this be done , a wise man will see himself always in danger , and then he must always fear : but he is a happy man who knows and considers himself to be mortal , and is not afraid to die : his pleasures and enjoyments are sincere and unmixt , never disturbed with a hand writing upon the wall , nor with some secret qualms and misgivings of mind ; he is not terrified with present dangers , at least not amazed and distracted with them . a man who is delivered from the fears of death , fears nothing else in excess , but god : and fear is so troublesome a passion , that nothing is more for the happiness of our lives , than to be delivered from it . 2. as a consequent of this , an early preparation for death will support men under all the troubles and calamities of this life : there are so many troubles , that mankind are exposed to in this world , that no man must expect to escape them all ; nay , there are a great many troubles , which are unsupportable to humane nature , which there can be no releif for in this world : the hopes and expectations of a better life , are , in most cases , the safest retreat : a man may bear his present sufferings with some courage , when he knows that he shall quickly see an end of them , that death will put an end to them , and place him out of their reach : for there the wicked cease from troubling , and there the weary be at rest ; there the prisoners rest together , they hear not the voice of the oppressor ; the small and great are there , and the servant is free from his master , 3. job 17 , 18 , 19. so that in many cases the thoughts and expectations of death is the only thing , that can support us under present sufferings ; but while the thoughts of death itself are terrible to us , this will be a poor comfort : men who are under the sence of guilt , are more afraid of death , than they are of all the evils of this world : whatever their present sufferings are , they are not so terrible as lakes of fire and brimstone , the worm that never dieth , and the fire that never goeth out : so that such men , while they are under the fears and terrors of death , have nothing to support them under present miseries . the next world , which death puts us into the possession of , is a very delightful prospect to good men ; there they see the rewards of their labour and sufferings , of their faith and patience : they can suffer shame and reproach , and take joyfully the spoiling of their goods ; since these light afflictions , which are but for a season , will work for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory . but men who are not prepared to die , while they are afraid of death , can find no relief in the thoughts of it , and therefore want the greatest support that we can have in this life against the sufferings of it : the sooner we prepare to die , the sooner we are delivered from the fears of death , and then the hope of a better life will carry us chearfully through this world whatever storms we meet with . 3ly , since we must certainly die , it makes it extreamly reasonable to sacrifice our lives to god , whenever he calls for them ; that is , rather to chuse to die a little before our time , then to renounce god , or to give his worship to idols , or any created beings , or to corrupt the faith and religion of christ : there are arguments indeed enough to encourage christians to martyrdom , when god calls them to suffer for his sake : the love of christ in dying for us , is a sufficient reason why we should chearfully die for him ; and the great rewards of martyrdom , that glorious crown which is reserved for such conquerors , made the primitive christians ambitious of it : it is certain there is no hurt in it , nay , that it is a peculiar favour to die for christ , because those persons who were most dear to him were crowned with martyrdom ; but our present argument shews us , at what an easie rate we may purchase so glorious a crown ; for we part with nothing for it : we die for god , and we must die whether we die martyrs or not : and what man then , who knows he must die , and believes the rewards of martyrdom , can think it so terrible to die a martyr ? no good christian can think that he loses any thing by the bargain , to exchange this life for a better : for as many years as he goes sooner out of this world , then he should have done by the course of nature , so many years he gets sooner to heaven ; and i suppose that is no great loss : it is indeed a noble expression of our love to god , and our entire obedience and subjection to him , and of a perfect trust in him , to part with our lives for his sake ; but what can a man , who knows he must die , do less for god then this , to part with a life , which he cannot keep , willingly to lay down a life for god , which would shortly be taken from him , whether he will or not . 4ly , this shews us also , what little reason we have to be afraid of the power of men ; the utmost they can do , is to kill the body ; a mortal body which will die whether they kill it or not : which is no mighty argument of power , no more than it is to break a brittle glass ; nor any great hurt to us , no more than it is to die , which we are all born to , and which is no injury to a good man : and therefore our saviour's counsel is very reasonable , 12. luke 4 , 5. be not afraid of them who kill the body , and after that have no more that they can do : but i will forewarn you , whom you shall fear , fear him , which after he hath killed , hath power to cast into hell ; yea , i say unto you , fear him . this is very reasonable , when the fear of god and men is opposed to each other , which is the only case our saviour supposes . no man ought foolishly to fling away his life , nor to provoke and affront princes , who have the power of life and death : this is not to die like a martyr , but like a fool , or a rebel . but when a prince threatens death , and god threatens damnation , then our saviour's counsel takes place , not to fear men but god : for indeed god's power in this is equal to mens at least ; men can kill , for men are mortal , and may be killed ; and this is only for a mortal creature to die a little out of order : but god can kill too ; and thus far the case is the same . it is true , most men are of the mind , in such a case , rather to trust god then men , because he does not always punish in this world , nor execute a speedy vengeance . and yet when our saviour takes notice , that god kills as well as men , it seems to intimate to us , that such apostates , who rather chuse to provoke god then men , may meet with their deserts in this world : for no man is secure , that god will not punish him in this world ; and apostates of all others , have least reason to expect it . those who renounce god , for fear of men , are the fittest persons to be examples of a sudden vengeance . but then when men have killed , they can do no more , they cannot kill the soul ; and here the power of god and men is very unequal , for when he has killed , he can cast both body and soul into hell fire : this is a very formidable power indeed , and we have reason to fear him ; but the power of men , who can only kill a mortal body , is not very terrible ; it ought not to fright us into any sin , which will make us obnoxious to that more terrible power , which can destroy the soul. chap. iii. concerning the time of our death , and the proper improvement of it . let us now consider the time of our death , which is once , but when uncertain . now when i say the time of our death is uncertain , i need not tell you that i mean only it is uncertain to us , that is , that no man knows when he shall die ; for god certainly knows when we shall die , because he knows all things , and therefore , with respect to the foreknowledge of god , the time of our death is certain . thus much is certain as to death , that we must all die ; and it is certain also , that death is not far off , because we know our lives are very short : before the flood men lived many hundred years ; but it is a great while now since the psalmist observed , that the ordinary term of humane life had very narrow bounds set to it , the days of our years are threescore years and ten ; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years , yet is their strength labour and sorrow : for it is soon cut off , and we flie away , 90. psal. 10. there are some exceptions from this general rule , but this is the ordinary period of humane life , when it is spun out to the greatest length ; and therefore within this term we may reasonably expect it , for in the ordinary course of nature our bodies are not made to last much longer . thus far we are certain ; but then , how much of this time we shall run out , how soon , or how late we shall die , we know not , for we see no age exempted from death ; some expire in the cradle , and at their mother's breasts , others in the heat and vigour of youth , others survive to a decrepit age , and it may be follow their whole family to their graves . death very often surprizeth us , when we least think of it , without giving us any warning of its approach ; and that is proof enough , that the time of our death is unknown and uncertain to us . but these things deserve to be particularly discoursed ; and therefore with reference to the time of our death , i shall observe these four things , not so much to explain them , for most of them are plain enough of themselves , as to improve them for the government of our lives : i. that the general period of humane life , which is the same thing with the time of our death , is fixt and determin'd by god. ii. that the particular time of every man's death , though it be foreknown by god , who foreknows all things , yet it does not appear , that it is peremtorily decreed and determined by god. iii. that the particular time , when any of us shall die , is unknown and uncertain to us . iv. that we must die but once ; it is appointed for all men once to die . sect . i. that the general period of humane life is fixt and determin'd by god , and that it is but very short . i. that the general period of humane life , which is the same thing with the time of our death , is fixt and determin'd by god : that is , there is a time set to humane life , beyond which no man shall live , as iob speaks : 14 job 5. his days are determined , the number of his months are with thee , thou hast appointed his bounds , that he cannot pass . which does not refer to the period of every particular man's life , but is spoken of man in general , that there are fixt bounds set to humane life , which no man can exceed . what these bounds are , god has not expresly declared , but that must be learnt from observation : such a time as most commonly puts a period to mens lives , who live longest , may generally pass for the common measure of humane life , though there may be some few exceptions . before the flood , no man lived a thousand years , and therefore we may conclude , that the longest term of humane life , after the sentence of death was passed on man , was confined within a thousand years . methusalah , who was the longest liver , lived but nine hundred sixty nine years , and he died ; so that no man ever lived a thousand years : and comparing this observation with that promise of a thousand years reign with christ , which is called the first resurrection , and is the portion only of martyrs and confessors , and pure and sincere christians , 20 revel . i have been apt to conclude , that to live a thousand years , is the priviledge only of immortal creatures ; that if adam had continued innocent , he should have lived no longer on earth , but have been translated to heaven without dying ; for this thousand 's years reign of the saints with christ , whatever that signifies , seems to be intended as a reparation of that death which they fell under by adam's sin : but then these thousand years do not put an end to the happiness of these glorious saints , but they are immortal creatures , and though this reign with christ continues but a thousand years , their happiness shall have no end , though the scene may change and vary ; for over such men the second death hath no power : or else this thousand years reign with christ must signifie an eternal and unchangable kingdom , a thousand years being a certain earnest of immortality ; but there is an unreasonable objection against that , because we read of the expiring of these thousand years , and what shall come after them , even the final judgment of all the world. but this is a great mystery , which we must not hope perfectly to understand , till we see the blessed accomplishment of it . but though before the flood some persons lived very near the thousand years , yet after the flood the term of life was much shortned : some think this was done by god , when he pronounced that sentence , 6 gen. 3. and the lord said , my spirit shall not always strive with man , for that he also is flesh , yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years . as if god had then decreed , that the life of man should not exceed an hundred and twenty years ; but this does not agree with that account we have of mens lives after the flood ; for not only noah and his sons , who were with him in the ark , lived much longer than this after the flood ; but arphazad lived five hundred and thirty years , salah four hundred and three years , eber four hundred and thirty years , and abraham himself a hundred seventy five years , and therefore this hundred and twenty years cannot refer to the ordinary term of man's life , but to the continuance of god's patience with that wicked world , before he would bring the flood upon them to destroy that corrupt generation of men ; that is , that he would bear with them a hundred and twenty years , before he would send the flood to destroy them . but afterwards by degrees life was shortned , insomuch that though moses himself lived a great deal longer , yet if the 90 psalm were composed by him , as the title tells us it was , the ordinary term of life in his days , was but threescore and ten , or fourscore years , 10 v. the days of our years are threescore years and ten ; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years , yet is their strength labour and sorrow ; so soon passeth it away , and it is gone . and this has continued the ordinary measure of life ever since ; which is so very short , that david might well say , behold , thou hast made my days as an hand-breadth , and mine age is as nothing before thee : verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity , 39 psal. 5. i shall not scrupulously inquire into the reason of this great change , why our lives are reduced into so narrow a compass : some will not believe that it was so , but think that there is a mistake in the manner of the account ; that when they are said to live eight or nine hundred years , they computed their years by the moon , not by the sun ; that is , their years were months , twelve of which make but one of our years ; and then indeed the longest livers of them did not live so long as many men do at this day , for methusalah himself , who lived nine hundred sixty nine years , according to this computation of months for years , lived but fourscore years and five months . but it is very absurd to imagine , that moses should use two such different accounts of time , that sometimes by a year he should mean no more than a month , and sometimes twelve months , without giving the least notice of it , which is unpardonable in any historian : and therefore others complain much that they were not born in those days , when the life of man was prolonged for so many hundred years : there had been some comfort in living then , when they enjoyed all the vigour and gaiety of youth , and could relish the pleasure of life for seven , eight or nine hundred years . a blessing which men would purchase at any rate in our days : but now we can scarce turn ourselves about in the world , but we are admonished by gray hairs , or the sensible decays of nature , to prepare for our winding-sheet . and therefore , for the farther improvement of this argument , i shall , 1. shew you , what little reason we have to complain of the shortness of life . 2. what wise use we are to make of it . sect . ii. what little reason we have to complain of the shortness of humane life . 1. what little reason we have to complain of the shortness of life , and the too hasty approaches of death to us : for , 1. such a long life is not reconcileable with the present state of the world. and , 2ly , our lives are long enough for all the wise purposes of living . 1. such a long life is not reconcileable with the present state of the world. what the state of the world was before the flood , in what manner they lived , and how they employed their time , we cannot tell , for moses has given no account of it ; but taking the world as it is , and as we find it , i dare undertake to convince those men , who are most apt to complain of the shortness of life , that it would not be for the general happiness of mankind , to have it much longer : for , 1. the world is at present very unequally divided ; some have a large share and portion of it , others have nothing , but what they earn by very hard labour , or extort from other mens charity by their restless importunities , or gain by more ungodly arts : now , though the rich and prosperous , who have the world at command , and live in ease and pleasure , would be very well contented to spend some hundred years in this world , yet i should think , fifty or threescore years abundantly enough for slaves and beggars ; enough to spend in hunger and want , in a jaol and a prison . and those who are so foolish as not to think this enough , owe a great deal to the wisdom and goodness of god , that he does : so that the greatest part of mankind have great reason to be contented with the shortness of life , because they have no temptation to wish it longer . 2ly , the present state of this world requires a more quick succession : the world is pretty well peopled , and is divided among its present inhabitants ; and but very few , in comparison , as i observed before , have any considerable share in the division : now let us but suppose , that all our ancestors , who lived an hundred , or two hundred years ago , were alive still , and possessed their old estates and honours , what had become of this present generation of men , who have now taken their places , and make as great a show and busle in the world as they did ? and if you look back three , or four , or five hundred years , the case is still so much the worse ; the world would be over-peopl'd , and where there is one poor miserable man now , there must have been five hundred , or the world must have been common , and all men reduced to the same level ; which i believe the rich and happy people , who are so fond of long life , would not like very well . this would utterly undo our young prodigal heirs , were their hopes of succession three or four hundred years off , who , as short as life is now , think their fathers make very little hast to their graves : this would spoil their trade of spending their estates before they have them , and make them live a dull sober life , whether they would or no ; and such a life , i know , they don't think worth having : and therefore , i hope , at least they will not make the shortness of their fathers lives an argument against providence ; and yet such kind of sparks as these , are commonly the wits , that set up for atheism , and , when it is put into their heads , quarrel with every thing which they fondly conceive will weaken the belief of a god , and a providence , and among other things , with the shortness of life , which they have little reason to do , when they so often out-live their estates . 3ly , the world is very bad as it is , so bad , that good men scarce know how to spend fifty or threescore years in it ; but consider how bad it would probably be , were the life of man extended to six , seven or eight hundred years . if so near a prospect of the other world , as forty or fifty years , cannot restrain men from the greatest villanies , what would they do , if they could as reasonably suppose death to be three or four hundred years off ? if men make such improvements in wickedness in twenty or thirty years , what would they do in hundreds ? and what a blessed place then would this world be to live in ? we see in the old world , when the life of man was drawn out to so great a length , the wickedness of mankind grew so insufferable , that it repented god he had made man , and he resolved to destroy that whole generation excepting noah and his family : and the most probable account that can be given , how they came to grow so universally wicked , is the long and prosperous lives of such wicked men , who by degrees corrupted others , and they others , till there was but one righteous family left , and no other remedy left , but to destroy them all , leaving only that righteous family as the seed and future hopes of the new world. and when god had determined in himself , and promised to noah , never to destroy the world again by such an universal destruction , till the last and final judgment , it was necessary by degrees to shorten the lives of men , which was the most effectual means to make them more governable , and to remove bad examples out of the world ; which would hinder the spreading of the infection , and people and reform the world again by new examples of piety and vertue : for when there are such quick successions of men , there are few ages but have some great and brave examples , which give a new and better spirit to the world. many other things might be added , to convince those who complain of the shortness of humane life , that it would be no desirable thing , as the state of the world now is , to live seven or eight hundred years in it ; but this i suppose is enough , if i can make good the second thing i proposed , that our lives are long enough for all the wise purposes of living . now i will not promise myself to satisfie all men in this matter ; for those who think it the only end of living , to eat and drink , and enjoy the more impure delights of flesh and sence , will never be satisfied , that threescore and ten years are as good as eight or nine hundred for this purpose ; for the longer they enjoy these pleasures , and the oftner they repeat them , the better it is : but these men ought to be convinced , that this is not the true end of living , that these are only means to preserve life , which god has sweetned with such proper satisfactions , or made the neglect of them so uneasie and painful , that no man might forget to take care to preserve himself ; but man was made at first for higher and nobler ends , and since by the sin of adam we are all become mortal , this life is not for itself , but in order to a better life . we come into this world , not to stay here , or to take up our abode and rest , for then indeed the longer we lived the better ; but this world is only a state of trial and discipline , to exercise our vertues , to perfect our minds , to prepare and qualifie ourselves for the more pure and refined and spiritual enjoyments of the other world : we come into this world , not so much to enjoy , as to conquer it , and to triumph over it , to baffle its temptations , to despise its flatteries , and to endure its terrors ; and if we live long enough to do this , we live long enough , and ought to thank god , that our work , and labour , and temptations are at an end ; for what labouring man is not glad that his work is over , and he may go to rest ? what mariner is not glad that he has weathered all storms , and steered a safe course to his desired haven ? there are two things necessary to the improvement of our minds , knowledge and vertue : and as god has shortned our lives , so he has shortned our work too , and given us a more easie and compendious way to both . knowledge indeed is an infinite and endless thing , and it is impossible thoroughly to satisfie that appetite in great and genorous minds , in this blind and obscure state of life ; but the comfort is , all the knowledge that is necessary to carry us to heaven , is now plain and easie , and will not take up many years to learn it , for , this is life eternal to know god , and iesus christ whom he hath sent ; which is plainly revealed to us in the gospel : and when we get to heaven , we shall quickly understand all the difficulties of nature and providence in another manner , then the greatest philosophers do now , or can do , though they should live many hundred years . and as for vertue , we have as short and easie a way to it : the plainest and most perfect precepts , the most admirable examples , the most encouraging and inviting promises , and which is more than all , the most powerful assistances of the divine spirit to renew and sanctifie us ; and he who is not reformed by these divine and supernatural methods of grace , in forty or fifty years , is not likely to be the better for them , though he should live to methusalah's age . as for doing good , i confess , the longer a good man lives , the more good he will do , and make himself the more useful to the world ; but this is god's care , and whenever he calls him out of the world , he excuses him from doing any more good in it . the truth is , nothing could be more improper , under the state of the gospel , then such a long life , as worldly men are very fond of ; for our saviour has taught us to expect persecutions and sufferings for his name ; and this is very often the portion of true and sincere christians , that st. paul could say , if in this life only we had hope , we were of all men the most miserable . thanks be to god , it is not always so , but when it is , it would be too great a temptation for humane nature , to live some hundred years in a state of persecution , as they might , if they and the persecuting prince should live so long . nay , such a long life as these men talk of , would greatly weaken the promises and threatnings of the gospel , which are all absent and unseen things , to be expected in the other world ; but if the next world were so many hundred years off , both the promises and threatnings of it , would lose their effect upon the generality of mankind : nay , it might be thought very hard upon good men , who are taught by the gospel of christ to live above this world , and to have a very mean opinion of , and a great indifferency to all the delights of it , to live so many hundred years in it ; not so much to enjoy it , as to despise it , and to contend with it . and it is not less hard for men , who are transported with the ravishing hopes and expectations of a better life , whose hearts and conversations are already in heaven , to be kept so long out of it : this is a severe trial of their patience , for hope when it is so long delayed , is a very troublesome and uneasie passion ; and though few men long to die , yet a great many good men do very impatiently long to be in heaven , and can be contented , whenever god pleases , to submit to dying , though with some natural reluctancy , that they may get to heaven . in short , this life is long enough for a race , for a warfare , for a pilgrimage ; it is long enough to fight and contend with this world , and all the temptations of it ; it is long enough to know this world , to discover the vanity of it , and to live above it ; it is long enough , by the grace of god , to purge and refine our minds , and to prepare ourselves to live for ever in god's presence ; and when we are in any measure prepared for heaven , and possessed with great and passionate desires of it , we shall think it a great deal too long to be kept out of it . sect . iii. what use to make of the fixt term of humane life . 2. let us consider what wise use is to be made of this ; and here are two things distinctly to be considered : 1. that the general term of humane life is fixt and determined by god. 2. that this common term and period of life , at the utmost extent of it , is but very short . 1. that the general term of humane life is fixt and determined by god ; and this is capable of very wise improvements : for , 1. when we know that we cannot live above threescore or fourscore years , or some few years over or under , we should not extend our hopes and expectations and designs beyond this term . 2. we should frequently count our days , and observe how our lives wast , and draw near to eternity . 3. when this period draws nigh , and death comes within view , it more especially concerns us to apply ourselves to a more serious and solemn preparation for death . 1. we should not extend our hopes and expectations and designs beyond this term , which god has fixt for the conclusion of our lives : we should not live as if we were immortal creatures , who are never to die ; for if god have set bounds to our lives , it is absurd for us to expect to live any longer , unless we hope to alter the decrees of heaven . and yet it is more absurd , if it be possible , to extend our hopes and desires , our projects and designs for this world , beyond the term of our living here ; for how unreasonable is it for us to trouble ourselves about this world longer then we are like to continue in it ? and yet if this were observed , it would ease us of a great deal of labour and care , and deliver the world from those great troubles and disorders , which the designs and projects for future ages create . men might see some end of their labours , and of their cares , of increasing riches , and adding house to house , and field to field , did they stint their desires with their lives ; did they consider how long they were to live , and what is a sufficient and necessary provision for their continuance here : whereas now the generality of mankind drudge on to the last moment they have to live , and still heap up riches till they know no end of them , as if their lives and their enjoyment of them , were to have no end neither . the only tolerable excuse , that can be made for this , is the care of posterity , to leave a liberal provision for children , that they may live happily after us : but this indeed is rather an excuse than a reason , for thus we see it is , when there is no such reason for it ; when men have no children to provide for , nor it may be any relations , for whom they are much concerned ; on when they have a sufficient provision for all their children , to encourage their industry and vertue , though not to maintain them in idleness and vice , which no wise and good father would desire ; nay , it may be , when they have no other heir to an over-grown estate , but either a daughter , whose fortune may make her a rich prey , as is too often seen , or a prodigal son , who is ruined already by the expectation of so great a fortune , and will quickly be even with his fortune , and ruine that , when he has it . a competent provision for children , is a just reason to continue our industry , though we have enough for our selves , as long as we live , but to make them rich and great , is not . the piety and charity of parents , which entails a blessing upon their posterity , and an industrious and vertuous education of children , is a better inheritance for them , than a great estate : but men who are so intent to the very last upon encreasing their estates , seldom do it for any other reason , but to satisfie their own insatiable thirst , which is to hoard up riches for a time when they can't enjoy them , to provide for their living in this world a much longer time , than they know they can possibly live in it . this is much greater folly than the man in the parable was guilty of , whose ground brought forth plentifully , and he pulled down his barns , and built greater , and said to his soul , soul thou hast much goods laid up for many years , take thine ease , eat , drink , and be merry . he was so wise as to know when he had enough , and when it was fit to retire and take his ease : yet god said unto him , thou fool , this night shall thy soul be required of thee ; and then whose shall all these things be , which thou hast provided ? 12 luke 16 , &c. thus how big are most men with projects and designs , which there is little hope should ever take effect , while they live ? especially aspiring monarchs , and busie politicians , who draw the scheme , and frame their design of an universal empire , through a long series of events , or meditate changes and alterations of government , of the laws and religion of a nation , by insensible steps and methods ; which , though it were never so hopeful a project , they can't hope to live to see effected , and therefore exceed their own bounds , and trouble the world at present , with what no body now living may ever be concerned in ; they undertake to govern the world , when they are dead and gone , whereas every age brings forth new projects and counsels , as it does a new generation of men , and new scenes of affairs , and a new set of politicians : would but men confine their cares and projects within the bounds of their own lives , and mind only what concerns themselves , and their own times , and they would live more at ease , and the world enjoy more peace and quiet , than now it is ever likely to do : and yet one would think this very reasonable , not to concern our selves about the world any longer than we are like to live in it ; to do no injury to posterity as near as we can , and to do what good we can for them , without disturbing the present peace and good government of the world , but to leave the care of the next age to those who shall succeed , and to that good providence which governs and takes care of all ages and generations of men. 2. since we know the common period of humane life , we should frequently count our days , and observe how our lives wast , and draw near to eternity . our time slides away insensibly , and fow men take notice how it goes ; they find their strength and vigour continues without any decay ; and they reckon upon living threescore and ten , or fourscore years , but seldom consider that it may be thirty or forty years are already gone , that is , the best half of their lives ; they put a cheat upon themselves by computing the whole duration of their lives , without considering how much of this is already past , and how little of it is to come ; which if men would seriously think of , they would not be so apt to flatter themselves with a long life ; for no man accounts twenty or thirty years a long life , and that is the most they have to live now , though they should attain to the longest period of humane life , much less could they flatter themselves with a long life , when they could not probably reckon above fifteen or ten years to come . and would men observe how their life shortens every day , this , if any thing , would make them grow chary of their time , and begin to think of living , that is , of minding the true ends and purposes of life , of doing the work for which they came into the world , and which they must do before they die , or they are miserable for ever . 3. when men draw near the end of their reckoning , nay , it may be are past the common reckoning of mankind , it more especially concerns them to apply themselves to a more serious and solemn preparation for death : for how vigorous soever their age is , death cannot be far off ; it will be unpardonable in them , to be deceived with the hopes of living much longer , who have already attained to the common period of humane life , and are in the borders and confines , nay in the very quarters of death , and have already , if i may so speak , borrowed some years from the other world. now when i speak of such mens preparing for death , i do not mean , that they should then begin to think of dying , that is a great deal of the latest to begin such a work ; though if they have not done it before , it is without doubt high time to begin it then , in the last minute of their lives , and to do what they can in that little time that remains , to obtain their pardon of god for spending a long life in sin and vanity , and in a forgetfulness of their maker and redeemer . but that which i now intend , concerns those who have thought of dying long before , and govern'd their lives under the conduct and influence of such thoughts , and therefore are not wholly unprepared for death , but are ready to welcome it , whenever it comes ; but there is a decent way of meeting death , which becomes such men , which i call a more solemn preparation for it ; that is , when their condition and circumstances of life will permit it , to take a timely leave of the world , and to withdraw from the noise and business of it ; when they are placed just in the confines of both worlds , to direct their face wholly to that world whither they are a going , to spend the little remains of their lives in conversing with themselves , with god , and with the other world. 1. in conversing with themselves , which god knows very few men do , while they are engaged in the business of this world ; the cares of life , or the pleasures of it , our families , or our friends , or strangers themselves , take us from ourselves , and therefore it is fit , before men go out of this world , that they should recover the possession of themselves , and grow a little more acquainted and intimate with themselves ; retire from the world to take a more thorough review of their lives and actions , what they have still to do , to make their peace with god , and their own consciences ; whether there be any sin which they have not thoroughly repented of , and heartily begged god's pardon for ; any injury they have done their neighbour , for which they have not made sufficient restitution and reparation ; whether they have any quarrel with any man , which is not composed and reconciled ; whether there is any part of their duty , which they have formerly too much neglected , as charity to the poor , the wise education and instruction of their children and families , and to apply themselves to a more diligent discharge of it ; what distempers there are in their minds , which still need to be rectified , what graces are weakest , what passions are most disorderly and unmortified , and to apply proper remedies to them . this is an excellent preparation for death , because it will give us great hope and assurance in dying ; it gives us peace and satisfaction in our own minds , by a thorough knowledge of our own state , and by rectifying whatever was amiss ; it delivers our consciences from guilty fears , and so disarms death of its sting and terrors , for the sting of death is sin , and when this sting is pulled out , we have nothing else to contend with , but some little natural aversions to dying , which are more easily conquered . 2. thus in this preparatory retirement from the world , we should spend great portions of our time in the worship of god , in our publick or private devotions ; for commonly men of business are very much in arrears with god upon this account : in their active age they had little time to spare , or little mind to spare it for the uses of religion ; and therefore we may well retire some time before we die , to make up that defect , and when we have done with the world , to give up ourselves wholly to the service of god : we should now be very importunate in our prayers to god , that for the merits and intercession of christ , he would freely pardon all the sins , and frailties , and errors of our past life , and give us such a comfortable hope and sence of his love to us , as may support us in the hour of death , and sweeten the terrors and agonies of it : we should meditate on the great love of god in sending christ into the world to save sinners ; and contemplate the height and depth and length and breadth of that love of god , which passeth all humane understanding : we should represent to ourselves the wonderful condescension of the son of god in becoming man , his amazing goodness in dying for sinners , the just for the unjust , to reconcile us to god : and when we have warmed our souls with such thoughts as these , we should break forth into raptures and extasies of devotion in the praise of our maker and redeemer : worthy is the lamb that was slain , to receive power , and riches , and wisdom , and strength , and honour , and glory , and blessing . blessing , and honour , and glory , and power be unto him that sitteth on the throne , and to the lamb for ever and ever , 5 revel . 12 , 13. and besides other reasons , which makes this a very proper preparation for death , this accustoms us to the work and employment of the next world , for heaven is a life of devotion and praise ; there we shall see god and admire and adore him , and sing eternal halelujahs to him : and therefore nothing can so dispose and prepare us for heaven , as to have our hearts ready tuned to the praises of god , ravished with his love , transported with his glory and perfections , and swallowed up in the most profound and humble adorations of him . 3. thus when we are going into another world , it becomes us most to have our thoughts there ; to consider what a blessed place that is , where we shall be delivered from all the fears and sorrows and temptations of this world , where we shall see god and the blessed jesus , and converse with angels and glorified spirits , and live an endless life without fear of dying ; where there is nothing but perfect love and peace , no cross interests and factions to contend with , no storms to ruffle or discompose our joy and rest to eternity ; where there is no pain , no sickness , no labour , no care to refresh the weariness , or to repair the decays of a mortal body , not so much as the image of death to interrupt our constant enjoyments ; where there is a perpetual day , and an eternal calm , where our souls shall attain their utmost perfection of knowledge and vertue ; where we shall serve god not with dull , and sleepy , and unaffecting devotion , but with piercing thoughts , with life and vigour , with ravishment and transport ; in a word , where there are such things , as neither eye hath seen , nor ear heard , neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive . these are proper thoughts for a man who is to compose himself for death , not to think of the pale and ghastly looks of death , when he shall be wrapt up in his winding-sheet ; not to think of the dark and melancholly retirements of the grave , where his body must rot and putrifie , till it be raised up again immortal and glorious , but to lift up his eyes to heaven , to view that lightsom and happy country , with moses to ascend up into the mount , and take a prospect of the heavenly canaan , whither he is going : this will conquer even the natural aversions to death , and make us with st. paul , desirous to be dissolved , and to be with christ , which is best of all ; make it as easie to us to leave this world for heaven , as it is to remove into a more pleasant and wholesome air , or into a more convenient and beautiful house ; so easie , so pleasant will it be to die with such thoughts as these about us . this indeed ought to be the constant exercise of the christian life ; it is fit for all times and for all persons , and without some degree of it , it is impossible to conquer the temptations of the world , or to live in the practice of divine and heavenly vertues : but this ought to be the constant business , or entertainment rather , of those happy men who have lived long enough in the world , to take a fair leave of it , who have run through all the scenes and stages of humane life , and have now death and another world in view and prospect . and it is this makes a retirement from the world so necessary or very useful , not meerly to ease our bodily labours , and to get a little rest from business , to dissolve in sloth and idleness , or to wander about to seek a companion , or to hear news , or to talk politicks , or to find out some way to spend time , which now lies upon their hands , and is more uneasy and troublesom to them than business was : this is a more dangerous state , and does more indispose them for a happy death , than all the cares and troubles of an active life ; but we must retire from this world to have more leisure and greater opportunities to prepare for the next , to adorn and cultivate our minds , and dress our souls like a bride , who is adorned to meet her bridegroom . when men converse much in this world , and are distracted with the cares and business of it , when they live in a crowd of customers or clients , and are hurried from their shops to the exchange or custom-house , or from their chambers to the bar , and when they have discharged one obligation , are pressed hard by another , that at night they have hardly spirits left to say their prayers , nor any time for them in the morning , and the lord's day itself is thought more proper for rest and refreshment , than devotion ; i say , what dull cold apprehensions must such men have of another world ? and after all the care we can take , how will this world insinuate itself into our affections , when it imploys our time and thoughts , when our whole business is buying and selling , and driving good bargains , and making conveyances and settlements of estates ? how will this disorder our passions , occasion feuds and quarrels , give us a tincture of pride , ambition , covetuousness ; that there is work enough after a busie life , even for very good men , to wash out these stains and pollutions , and to get the tast and relish of this world out of their mouths , and to revive and quicken the sence of god and of another world. this is a sufficient reason for such men , as i observed before , to think when it is time to leave off , and if not wholly to withdraw from the world , yet to contract their business , and to have the command of it , that they may have more leisure to take care of their souls , before they have so near a call and summons to death ; but much more necessary is it , when death is even at the door , and by the course of nature we know that it is so . it is very proper to leave the world , before we are removed out of it , that we may know how to live without it , that we may not carry any hanckerings after this world with us into the next ; and therefore it is very fitting , that there should be a kind of a middle state between this world and the next ; that is , that we should withdraw from this world , to wean ourselves from it , even while we are in it ; which will make it more easie to part with this world , and make us more fit to go to the next . but it seems strangely undecent , unless the necessities of their families , or the necessities of the publick call for it , and exact it , to see men who are just a going out of the world , who it may be bow as much under their riches , as under their age , plunging themselves over head and ears in this world , courting new honours and preferments with as much zeal , as those who are but entring into the world. it is to be feared , such men think very little of another world , and will never be satisfied with earth , till they are buried in it . sect . iv. what use to make of the shortness of humane life . 2. as the general period of humane life is fixt and determin'd by god , so this term of life at the utmost extent of it , is but very short : for what are threescore and ten , or fourscore years ? how soon do they pass away like a dream , and when they are gone , how few and empty do they appear ? the best way to be sensible of this , is not to look forward , for we fancy time to come , to be much longer than we find it , but to look backward upon the time which is past , and as long as we can remember ; and how suddenly are thirty or forty years gone ? how little do we remember , how they past ? but gone they are , and the rest are a going apace , while we eat , and drink , and sleep , and when they are gone too , we shall be sensible , that all together was but very short . now from hence i shall observe several things of very great use for the government of our lives . 1. if our lives be so very short , it concerns us to lose none of our time ; for does it become us to be prodigal of our time , when we have so little of it ? we either ought to make as much of our lives as we can , or not complain , that they are short , for that is a greater reproach to ourselves , than to the order of nature , and the providence of god : for it seems we have more time than we care to live in , more than we think necessary to improve to the true ends and purposes of living ; and if we can spare so much of our lives , it seems they are too long for us , how short soever they are in themselves : and when our lives are too long already for the generallity of mankind to improve wisely , why should god give us more time to play with , and to squander away ? and yet let us all reflect upon ourselves , and consider , how much of our lives we have perfectly lost , how careless we have been of our time , which is the most precious thing in the world ; how we have given it to every body that will take it , and given away so much of ourselves , and our own being with it . should men set down , and take a review of their lives , and draw up a particular account of the expence of their time , after they came to years of discretion and understanding , what a shameful bill would it be ? what unreasonable abatements of life ? how little time would there be at the foot of the account , which might be called living ? so much extraordinary for eating , and drinking , and sleeping , beyond what the support and refreshment of nature required ; so much in courtship , wantonness and lust ; so much in drinking and revelling ; so much for the recovery of the last night's debauch ; so much in gaming and mascarades ; so much in paying and receiving formal and impertinent visits , in idle and extravagant discourses , in censuring and reviling our neighbours or our governours ; so much in dressing and adorning our bodies ; so many blanck and long parentheses of life , wasted in doing nothing , or in counting the slow and tedious minutes , or chiding the sun for making no more haste down , and delaying their evening assignations : but how little would there appear in most mens account , spent to the true ends of living ? the very naming of these things is sufficient to convince any considering man , that this is really a mispending of time , and a flinging away great part of a very short life to no purpose ; but to make you all sensible of this , consider with me , when we may be said to lose our time ; for time passes away very swiftly , and we can no more hold it , than we can stop the charriot wheels of the sun , but all time that is past , is not lost ; indeed no time is our own , but what is past or present , and its being past makes it never the less our own , if ever it was so ; but then we lose our time . 1. when it turns to no account to us , when it is gone ; when we are never the better for it in body or soul : this is the true way of judging , by our own sense and feeling , whether we have spent our time well or ill , by observing what relish it leaves upon our minds , and what the effects of it are , when it is past ; how vainly soever men spend their time , they find some pleasure and diversion and entertainment in it , while it lasts , but the next morning it is all vanished , as their night dreams are ; and if they are not the worse for it , they find themselves never the better : and this is a certain sign , that our time was vainly and foolishly spent , that when it is gone , it can be brought into no account of our lives , but that of idle expences . whatever is good , whatever is in any degree useful , leaves some satisfaction when it is gone , and time so spent , we can place to our account , and all such time is not lost ; but men who spend one day after another in mirth , and jollity , and entertainments , in visits or gaming , &c. can give no other account of it , but that it is a pleasant way of spending time : and that is the true name for it , not living , but spending time , which they know not how otherwise to pass away ; when their time is spent , they have all they intended , and their enjoyments pass away with their time , and there is an end of both ; and it were somewhat more tolerable , if they themselves could end with their time too : but when men must out-live time , and the effects of time must last to eternity , that time , which if it have no ill , yet has no good effects more lasting than itself , is utterly lost . 2dly , to be sure that time is doubly lost , which we cannot review without amazement and horror ; i mean , in which we have contracted some great guilt , which we have not only spent vainly , but wickedly , which we ourselves wish had never been , which we desire to forget , and could be glad , that both god and men would forget it too : for is not that lost time , which loses us , which undoes us , which distracts us with guilty fears , which we would give all the world we could lose out of the account of our lives , and could lose the very remembrance of it ? i think that somewhat worse than lost time , which forfeits a blessed eternity , and for which men must lose their souls for ever . 3dly , that is lost time too , which men must live over again , and tread back their steps like him who has mistaken his way : not that we can recal our past time , and those minutes that are fled from us , but we must substitute some of our remaining time in its room , and begin our lives again , and undo what we had formerly done . this is the case of those who have spent great part of their lives ill , whenever they are convinced of their folly and danger ; they must give all their past lives for lost , and it may be , when half or two thirds , or more of their lives are spent , they must then begin to live , and to undo , by repentance and reformation , the errours , and follies , and impieties of their former lives : now i suppose all men will confess that time to be lost , which they must unlive again ; to be sure penitents are very sensible it is , and i wish all those would consider it , who resolve to spend their youthful and vigorous age in sin , and to repent hereafter ; that is , they resolve to fling away the greatest and best part of their lives , and to begin to live when they see themselves a dying : this i am sure is no remedy against a short life , to resolve not to live one third of it . 2dly , since our life is so very short , it becomes us to live as much as we can in so short a time ; for we must not measure the length or shortness of our lives by days or months or years , that is the measure of our duration or being , but to live and to be , are two things , and of a distinct consideration and account . to live , when we speak of a man , signifies to act like a reasonable creature , to exercise his understanding and will upon such objects as answer the dignity and perfection of humane nature , to be employed in such actions as are proper to his nature , and distinguish a man from all other creatures : and therefore though a man must eat and drink , and perform the other offices of a natural life , which are common to him with beasts ; yet this is not to live like a man , any otherwise than as these common actions are governed by reason and rules of vertue , but he who minds nothing higher than this , lives like a beast , not like a man : a life of reason , religion , and vertue , is properly the life of a man , because it is peculiar to him , and distinguishes him from all other creatures in this world ; and therefore he who improves his knowledge and understanding most , who has his passions and appetites under the best government , who does most good , and makes himself most useful to the world , though he does not continue longer , yet he lives more and longer than other men ; that is , he exerts more frequent and more perfect acts of a rational life . but besides this , this life is only in order to a better life ; it is not for it self , but only a passage to , a state of trial and probation for immortality ; and it were hardly worth the while to come into the world upon any meaner design : and therefore he lives most , who improves the grace of god to make himself most fit for heaven , and qualified for the greatest rewards , for the richest and the brightest crown : who knows god most , and worships him in the most perfect manner , with the greatest ravishments and transports of spirit , who lives most above this world in the exercise of the most divine vertues , who does most service to god in the world , and improves all his talents to the best advantage ; in a word , who most adorns and perfects his own mind , brings most glory to god , and does most good to men : such a man at thirty years old , has lived more , nay , indeed may properly be said to have lived longer , than an old decrepit sinner ; for he has not lived at all to the purposes of a man , or to the ends of the other world. that man has lived a great while , how short soever the time be , who is old enough for heaven , and for eternity , who has laid up rich and glorious treasures for himself in the other world ; who has answered the ends of this life , and is fit to remove out of it : this is the true way of measuring our lives by acts of piety and vertue , by our improvements in knowledge , and grace , and wisdom , by our ripeness for another world ; and therefore if we would live a great while in this world , we must 1. begin to live betimes . 2. we must have a care of all interruptions and intermissions of life . 3. we must live apace . 1. we must begin to live betimes ; that is , must begin betimes to live like men , and like christians , to live to god , and to another world , that is in a word , to be good betimes : for those who begin to live with the first bloomings of reason and understanding , and give early and youthful specimens of piety and vertue , if they reach to old age , they live three times as long as those who count indeed as many years as they do , but it may be have not lived a third of their time , but have lost it in sin and folly. the first can look back to the very beginning of his life , and enjoy all his past years still , review them with pleasure and satisfaction , and bring them all to account : but a late penitent must date his life from his repentance and reformation ; he dares look no farther back , for all beyond is lost , or worse than lost : it is like looking back upon the rude chaos , which was nothing but confusion and darkness before god formed the world , such is the life of a sinner before this new birth and new creation ; and therefore he has but a very little way to look back , can give but a very short account of his life , has but a very few years of his life which he dares own , and carry into the other world with him . 2. we must have a care of all interruptions and intermissions of life ; that is of falling back into sin again , after some hopeful beginnings : this is too often seen , that those , who by the care , and good government , and wise instructions of parents and tutors , have had the principles of vertue and piety early instilled into them , and have had a good relish of it themselves , yet when they are got loose from these restraints , and fall into ill company , and into the way of temptations , have a mind to try another kind of life , and to tast those pleasures which they see mankind so fond of , and too often try so long till they grow as great strangers to piety and vertue , as they were ignorant of vice before . now if such men ever be reclaimed again , yet all their early beginnings of life are lost , for here is a long interruption and intermission of life , which sets them back in the account of eternity ; and thus it is proportionably in every wilful sin we commit , it makes a break in our lives , does not only stop our progress for a while , but sets us backward . but he who begins betimes to live , without any or very few , and very short interruptions , will be able to reckon a very long life , by that time he attains to the common period of humane life : 3. especially if he live apace : there is a living apace , as some call it , not to lengthen but to shorten life ; when men by minding their business well , can in ten or twenty years destroy such a constitution of body , and exhaust that vital heat and vigour , which would have lasted another man sixty or eighty years : this is to live much in a little time , and to make an end of their lives quickly ; and the living apace , i mean ▪ is to live much also in a little time , but to double and treble our lives , not to shorten them : that is , to do all the good that ever we can , for the more good we do , the more we live ; life is not meer duration , but action ; time is not life , but we live , that is , we act in time ; and he who does two days work in one , lives as much in one day , as other men do in two : he who in one year does as much improve his mind in knowledge and wisdom , and all christian graces and vertues , worships god as much and more devoutly , does as much good to the world in all capacities and relations of life , as another man does in two or three or four , he lives so much proportionably longer than those other men ; he does the work of so much time , and this is equivalent to , nay much better than being so much time ; for he who can have the reward of two hundred years in the next world , and not live above threescore or fourscore here , i take to be a much happier man , than he who spends two hundred years in this world : this is the best way of lengthening our lives by living doubly and trebly , which will make a vast addition to our lives in fifty or sixty years ; and then there will be no reason to complain of the shortness of them . 3dly , if our lives are so very short as most men complain they are , surely we have little reason to complain of spending the whole of these short lives in the service of god , for an eternal reward : what are threescore or fourscore years , when compared to eternity ? and therefore setting aside all the present advantages and pleasures of a life of religion , that this only is to live to improve and perfect our own natures , to serve god , and to do good in the world : suppose there were nothing in religion , but hardships and difficulties , a perpetual force and violence to nature , a constant war with the world and the flesh ; cannot we indure all this so short a time , for an endless reward ? men think their day's work very well spent , when they receive their wages at night , and can go home and sup chearfully with their family , and sleep sweetly , as labouring men use to do , all night ; and yet our saviour compares all the work and industry of our lives , to day-labourers , in the parable of the housholder , who at several hours of the day , hired labourers to work in his vineyard , and paid them their wages at night , 20 matth. 1 , &c. we all confess , that threescore and ten years , if we live so long , is but a very short time in itself , and quickly passes away ; i am sure we all think so , when it is gone ; and yet consider , how much of this time is cut off by infancy , childhood , and youth , while we are under the care and conduct of parents and governours , and are not our own men ; how much is spent in sleeping , in eating and drinking , and necessary diversions , for the support and repair of these mortal bodies ; in our necessary business to provide for our families , or to serve the publick , which god allows and requires of us , and accounts it serving himself ; while we live like men , are sober and temperate , and just and faithful to our trust , which we should do for our own sakes , and which all well governed societies require of us , without any consideration of another world ; so that there is but very little of this very short life spent purely in the service of god , and in the care of our souls , and the concernments of a future state ; and is this too much for an eternity of bliss and happiness ? to complain of sobriety and temperance and moral honesty , as such unsufferable burdens , that a man had better be damned than submit to them , is not so much to complain of the laws of god , as of all the wise governments in the world , even in the heathen world , which branded all these vices with infamy , and restrained and corrected them with condign punishments ; it is to complain of humane nature , which has made all these vices infamous , and to think it better to be damned than to live like men ; and yet above two thirds of our time require the exercise of few other vertues but these ; and whatever difficulties men may imagine in other acts of religion , if they can possibly think it so intolerable to love the greatest and the best being , to praise and adore him to whom we owe ourselves and all we have , to ask the supply of our wants from him who will be sure to give , if we faithfully ask ; to raise our hearts above this world , which is a scene of vanity , emptiness , or misery , and to delight ourselves in the hope and expectations of great and eternal happiness , wherein the very life of religion consists : i say , if these be such very difficult and uneasy things , which one would wonder how they came to be difficult , or why they should be thought so ; yet they imploy very little of our time , and methinks a man might bear it to be happy for ever : i am sure men take a great deal more pains for this world , than heaven would cost them , and when they have it ▪ don't live to enjoy it ; and if this be thought worth their while , surely to spend a short life in the service of god , to obtain an endless and eternal happiness , is the best and most advantageous spending our time ; and we must have a very mean opinion of heaven and eternal happiness , if we think it not worth the obedience and service of a few years , how difficult soever that were ? 4hly , if our lives are so very short at their utmost extent , the sinful pleasures of this world can be no great temptation , when compared with an eternity of happiness or misery ? those sensual pleasures , which men are so fond of , and for the sake of which they break the laws of god , and provoke his justice , forfeit immortal life , and expose themselves to all the miseries and sufferings of an eternal death , can last no longer than we live in this world ; and how little a while is that ? when we put off these bodies , all bodily pleasures perish with them ; nay , indeed as our bodies die and decay by degrees , before they tumble into the grave , so do our pleasures sensibly decay too : as short as our lives are , men may out-live some of their most beloved vices , and therefore how luscious soever they may be , such short and dying pleasures ought not to come in competition with eternal happiness or mifery ; what ever things are in their own nature , the value of them increases or diminishes according to the length or shortness of their enjoyment ; that which will last our lives , and make them easy and comfortable , is to be prefered , by wise men , before the most ravishing enjoyments of a day ; and a happiness which will out-last our lives , and reach to eternity , is to be preferred before the perishing enjoyments of a short life ; unless men can think it better to be happy for threescore years , than for ever ; nay , unless men think the enjoyments of threescore years a sufficient recompence for eternal want and misery . 5hly , the shortness of our lives are a sufficient answer to all these arguments against providence , taken from the prosperity of bad men , and the miseries and afflictions of the good ; for both of them are so short , that they are nothing in the account of eternity . were this life to be considered by it self , without any relation to a future state , the difficulty would be greater , but not v●ry great ; because a short happiness , or a short misery , chequered and intermixt as all the happiness and miseries of this life are , is not very considerable ; nor were it worth the while either to make objections against providence , or to answer them , if death put an end to us . bad men who make these objections against providence , are very well contented to take the world as they find it , so they may have it without a providence , which is a sign that it is not their dislike of this world ( though many times they suffer as much in it , as good men do ) which makes them quarrel at providence , but the dread and fear of another world : and this proves , that they think this world a very tolerable place , whether there be a providence or not . and if so short a life as this is , be but tolerable , it is a sufficient justification of providence , that this life is well enough for its continuance , a very mixt and imperfect state indeed , but very short too ; such a state as bad men themselves would like very well without another world after it , and such a state as good men like very well with another life to follow : it is not a spight at humane life , which makes them reject a providence , as any one would guess , who hears them object their own prosperity , and the calamities of good men , as arguments against providence , both which they like very well ; and whatever there may be in these objections , supposing there were no other life after this , yet when they all vanish at the very naming of another life , where good men shall be rewarded , and the wicked punished , it is ridiculous to prove , that there is no other life after this , because rewards and punishments are not dispensed with that exact justice in this life , as we might suppose god would observe , if there were no other life . to prove that there is no other life after this , because good and bad men do not receive their just rewards in this life , is an argument which becomes the wit and understanding of an atheist ; for they must first take it for granted , that there is no providence , before this argument can prove any thing ; for if there be a providence , then the prosperity of bad men , and the sufferings of the good , is a much better argument , that there is another life after this , where rewards and punishments shall be more equally distributed : thus when they dispute against providence from the prosperity of bad men , and the calamities of the good , before this can prove any thing , they must take it for granted , that there is no other life after this , where good men shall be rewarded , and the wicked punished ; for if there be , it is easie enough to justifie the providence of god , as to the present prosperity of bad men , and the sufferings of the good : so that they must of necessity dispute in a circle , as the papists do between the church and the scriptures , when they either prove , that there is no providence , or no life after this , from the unequal rewards and punishments of bad and good men in this world : for in effect they prove that there is no providence , because there is no life after this , or that there is no life after this , because there is no providence ; for the prosperity of bad men , and the sufferings of the good , proves ne●●her of them , unless you take the other for granted ; and if you will prove them both by this medium , you must take them both for granted by turns ; and that is the easier and safer way to take them for granted , without exposing themselves to the scorn of wise men by such kind of proofs . but yet though this were no objection against the being of another world , and a providence , yet had the prosperity of bad men , and the calamities of the good continued some hundred years , it had been a greater difficulty , and a greater temptation , than now it is : the prosperity of the wicked is a much less objection , when it is so easily answered , as the psalmist does , yet a little while , and the wicked shall not be ; yea , thou shalt diligently consider his place , and it shall not be , 37 psal. 10. when the very same persons , who have been the spectators and witnesses of his prosperous villanies , live to see a quick and sudden end of him : i have seen the wicked in great power , and spreading himself like a green bay-tree ; yet he passed away , and lo he was not ; yea , i sought him , but he could not be found , 35 , 36 ▪ and this is enough also to support the spirits of good men : for this cause we faint not , but though our outward man perish , yet the inward man is renewed day by day ; for our light affliction , which is but for a moment , worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory , 2 cor. 4. 16 , 17. sect . v. the time , and manner , and circumstances of every particular man's death , is not determined by an absolute and unconditional decree . ii. though god , who knows all things , does know also the time and manner and circumstances of every particular man's death , yet it does not appear , that he has by an absolute and unconditional decree , fixed and determined the particular time of every man's death . this is that famous question , which beverovicius , a learned physitian , was so much concerned to have resolved , and consulted so many learned men about , as supposing it would be a great injury to his profession , did men believe , that the time of their death was so absolutely determined by god , that they could neither die sooner , nor live longer then that fatal period , whether they took the advice and prescriptions of the physicians or not . but this was a vain fear , for there are some speculations , which men never live by , how vehemently soever they contend for them : a sceptick , who pretends that there is nothing certain , and will dispute with you as long as you please about it , yet will not venture his own arguments so far as to leap into fire or water , nor to stand before the mouth of a loaded canon , when you give fire to it . thus men who talk most about fatal necessity , and absolute decrees , yet they will eat and drink to preserve themselves in health , and take physick when they are sick , and as heartily repent of their sins , and vow amendment and reformation , when they think themselves a dying , as if they did not believe one word of such absolute decrees , and fatal necessity , as they talk of at other times . i do not intend to engage in this dispute of necessity and fate , of prescience and absolute decrees , which will be disputes as long as the world lasts , unless men grow wiser than to trouble themselves with such questions as are above their reach , and which they can never have a clear notion and perception of ; but all that i intend is to shew you , according to the scripture account of it , that the period of our lives is not so peremptorily determined by god , but that we may lengthen or shorten them , live longer or die sooner , according as we behave ourselves in this world. now this is very plain from all those places of scripture , where god promises long life to good men , and threatens to shorten the lives of the wicked , 91 psal. 16. with long life will i satisfie him , and shew him my salvation . solomon tells us of wisdom , length of days is in her right hand , and in her left riches and honours , 3 prov. 16. the fear of the lord prolongeth days , but the years of the wicked shall be shortned , 10 prov. 27. thus god has promised long life to those who honour their parents , in the fifth commandment ; and the same promise is made in more general terms to those who observe the statutes and commandments of god , 4 deut. 40. upon the same condition god promised long life to king solomon , 1 kings 3. 14. and if thou wilt walk in my ways , to keep my statutes and commandments ; as thy father david did walk , then will i lengthen thy days . the same is supposed in david's prayer to god , not to take him away in the midst of his days , 102 psal. 24. and in 55 psal. 23. he tells us , that bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days . now one would reasonably conclude from hence , that god has not absolutely and unconditionally determined the fatal period of every man's life , because he has conditionally promised to prolong mens lives , or threatned to shorten them ; for what place can there be for conditional promises , where an absolute decree is past ? how can any man be said not to live out half his days , if he lives as long as god has decreed he shall live ? for if the period of every particular man's life be determined by god , none are his days , but what god has decreed for him . as for matter of fact , it is plain and evident , both that men shorten their own lives , and that god shortens them for them , and that in such a manner as will not admit of an absolute and unconditional decree : thus some men destroy a healthful and vigorous constitution of body by intemperance and lust , and do as manifestly kill themselves , as those who hang , or poison , or drown themselves ; and both these sorts of men , i suppose , may be said to shorten their own lives ; and so do those who rob or murder , or commit any oother villany , which forfeits their lives to publick justice , or quarrel and fall in a duel , and the like ; and yet you will no more say , that god decreed and determined the death of these men , then he did their sin . thus god himself very often shortens the lives of men , by plague , and famine , and sword , and such other judgments , as he executes upon a wicked world ; and this must be confest to be the effect of god's counsel and decrees , as a judge decrees and pronounces the death of a malefactor ; but this is not an absolute and unconditional decree , but is occasioned by their sins and provocations , as all judgments are ; they might have lived longer , and escaped these judgments , had they been vertuous , and obedient to god : for if they should have lived no longer , whether they had sinned or not , their death , by what judgments soever they are cut off , is not so properly the execution of justice , as of a peremtory decree ; their lives are not shortned , but their fatal period is come . indeed , unless we make the providence of god , not the government of a wise and free agent , who acts pro re nata , and rewards and punishes as men deserve , as the scripture represents it , but an unavoidable execution of a long series of fatal and necessary events from the beginning to the end of the world , as the stoicks thought ; we must acknowledge , that in the government of free agents , god has reserved to himself a free liberty of lengthning or shortning mens lives , as will best serve the ends of providence : for if we will allow man to be a free agent , and that he is not under a necessity of sinning , and deserving to be cut off at such a time , or in such a manner , the application of rewards and punishments to him must be free also , or else they may be ill applied : he may be punished when he deserves to be rewarded ; the fatal period of life may fall out at such a time when he most of all deserves long life , and when the lengthning his life would be a publick blessing to the world. fatal and necessary events can never be fitted to the government of free agents , no more than you can make a clock , which shall strike exactly for time and number , when such a man speaks , let him speak when , or name what number he pleases : and yet there is nothing of greater moment in the government of the world , than a free power and liberty of lengthning or shortning mens lives ; for nothing more over-aws mankind , and keeps them more in dependance on god ; nothing gives a more signal demonstration of a divine power , or vengeance , or protection ; nothing is a greater blessing to families or kingdoms , or a greater punishment to them , than the life or death of a parent , of a child , of a prince , and therefore it is as necessary to reserve this power to god , as to assert a providence . there are two or three places of scripture , which are urged in favour of the contrary opinion , 14 job 5. seeing his days are determined , the number of his months are with thee , thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass . 7 job 1. is there not an appointed time to man upon earth ? are not his days also like the days of an hireling ? which refer not to the particular period of every man's life , but as i observed before , to the general period of humane life , which is fixt and determined , which is therefore called the days or the years of man , because god has appointed this the ordinary time of man's life ; as when god threatens , that the wicked shall not live out half their days , that is , half that time which is allotted for men to live on earth ; for they have no other interest in these days , but that they are the days of a man , and therefore might be their days too . from what i have now discoursed , there are two things very plainly to be observed : 1. that men may contribute very much to the lengthening or shortning their own lives . 2. that the providence of god does peculiarly over-rule and determine this matter . 1. as for the first , there is no need to prove it , for we see men destroy their own lives every day , either by intemperance and lust , or more open violence ; by forfeiting their lives to publick justice , or by provoking the divine vengeance ; and therefore who ever desires a long life , to fill up the number of his days , which god has allotted us in this world , must keep himself from such destructive vices , must practise the most healthful vertues , must make god his friend , and engage his providence for his defence : can any thing be more absurd , than to hear men promise themselves long life , and reckon upon forty or fifty years to come , when they run into those excesses , which will make a quick and speedy end of them ? which will either inflame and corrupt their bloud , and let a feavour or a dropsy into their veins , or bring rottenness into their bones , or engage them in some fatal quarrel , or ruine their estates , and send them to seek their fortune upon the road , which commonly brings them to the gallows ; what a fatal cheat is this , which men put upon themselves ? especially when they sin in hope of time to repent , and commit such sins as will give them no time to repent in . the advice of the psalmist is much better , what man is he , that desireth life , and loveth many days , that he may see good ? keep thy tongue from evil , and thy lips from speaking guile , depart from evil , and do good , seek peace and persue it : these are natural and moral causes of a long life ; but that is not all , for the eyes of the lord are upon the righteous , and his ears are open unto their cry ; the face of the lord is against them that do evil , to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth : that is , god will prolong the lives of good men , and cut off the wicked ; not that this is a general rule without exception , but it is the ordinary method of providence , 34 psal. 12 , 13 , &c. 2. for though god has not determined how long every man shall live , by an absolute and unconditional decree , yet if a sparrow does not fall to the ground without our father , much less does man : no man can go out of this world , no more than he can come into it , but by a special providence ; no man can destroy himself , but by god's leave ; no disease can kill , but when god pleases ; no mortal accident can befal us , but by god's appointment ; who is therefore said to deliver the man into the hands of his neighbour , who is killed by any evil accident , 19 deut. 4 , 5. those wasting judgments of plague and pestilence , famine and sword , are appointed by god , and have their particular commissions where to strike ; as we may see 26 lev. 47. ier. 6. 7. 65 isai. 12. 15 ierem. 2. 91 psal. and several other places . all the rage and fury of men cannot take away our lives , but by god's particular permission , 10 matth. 28 , 29 , 30 , 31. and this lays as great an obligation on us , as the love of life can , which is the dearest thing in this world , to serve and please god ; this will make us secure from all fears and dangers : my times , saith david , are in thy hand , deliver me from the hand of mine enemies , and from them that persecute me , 31 psal. 15. this encourages us to pray to god for ourselves , or our friends , whatever danger our lives are in , either from sickness or from men : there is no case wherein he can't help us , when he sees fit ; he can rectify the disorders of nature , and correct an ill habit of body , and rebuke the most raging distempers which mock at all the arts of physick , and powers of drugs , and many times does so by insensible methods : to conclude , this is a great satisfaction to good men , that our lives are in the hands of god ; that though there be not such a fixt and immoveable period set to them , yet death cannot come but by god's appointment . sect . vi. the particular time , when we are to die is unknown and uncertain to us . iii. the particular time when any of us are to die , is unknown and uncertain to us ; and this is that which we properly call the uncertainty of our lives ; that we know not when we shall die , whether this night or to morrow , or twenty years hence . there is no need to prove this , but only to mind you of it , and to acquaint you , what wise use you are to make of it : 1. this shews how unreasonable it is to flatter ourselves with the hope of long life ; i mean of prolonging our lives near the utmost term and period of humane life , which though it be but short in itself , is yet the longest that any man can hope to live : no wise man will promise himself that which he can have no reason to expect , but what has very often failed others : for let us seriously consider , what reason any of us have to expect a long life ; is it because we are young and healthful and vigorous ? and do we not daily see young men die ? can youth or beauty or strength secure us from the arrests of death ? is it because we see some men live to a great age ? but this was no security to those , who died young , and left a great many men behind them , who had lived twice or thrice their age , and therefore we also may see a great many old men , and die young ourselves . it is possible , we may live to old age , because some do ; but it is more likely we shall not , because there are more that die young . the truth is , the time of dying is so uncertain , the ways of dying so infinite , so unseen , so casual and fortuitous to us , that instead of promising ourselves long life , no wise man will promise himself a week , nor venture any thing of great moment and consequence upon it : the hope of long life is nothing else but self-flattery ; the fondness men have for life , and that partiality they have for themselves , perswades them , that they shall live as long as any man can live , and shall escape those diseases and fatal accidents , with which our bills of mortality are filled every week : but then you should consider , that other men are as dear to themselves , as you are , and flatter themselves as much with long life , as you do , but their hopes very often deceive them , and so may yours . but you 'll say , to what purpose is all this ? why so much pains to put us out of conceit with the hopes of living long ? for what hurt is it , if we do flatter ourselves a little more in this matter , than we have reason for ? if it should prove only a deceitful dream , yet it makes life chearful and comfortable , and gives us a true relish of it ; and why should we disturb ourselves , and make life uneasy , by the perpetual thoughts of dying ? now , i confess , were there no hurt and danger in it , this were as ill-natured and spightful a thing , as could be done ; and the least recompence i could make , would be to ask your pardon for it , and leave you to enjoy the comforts of life securely for the future , to live on as long as you can , and let death come when it will , without being lookt for ; but i apprehend a great deal of danger in such deceitful and flattering hopes , and that is the reason why i disswade you from it . for , 1. the hope of long life is apt to make us fond of this world , which is as great a mischief to us , as to expose us to all the temptations and flatteries of it : that we must die , and leave this world , is a good reason indeed , why we ought not to be fond of it , why we should live like pilgrims and strangers here , as i observed before : but few men , who hope to live threescore or fourscore years , think much of this ; though it be comparatively short in respect of eternity , yet it is a great while to live , and a great while to enjoy this world in , and that is thought a very valuable happiness , which can be enjoyed so long ; and then men let loose their desires and affections , endeavour to get as much of this world as they can , and to enjoy as much of it as they can , and not only to tast , but to take full and plentiful draughts of the intoxicating pleasures of it : and how dangerous this is , i need not tell any man , who considers , that all the wickedness of mankind , is owing to too great a fondness and passion for this world. and therefore if we would live like pilgrims , and set loose from all the enjoyments of this world , we must remember , that our stay is uncertain here ; that we have no lease of our lives , but may be turned out of our earthly tenements at pleasure : for what man would be fond of laying up great treasures on earth , who remembers , that this night his soul may be taken from him , and then , whose shall all these things be ? what man would place his happiness in such enjoyments , which for ought he knows , he may be taken from to morrow ? these are indeed melancholy and mortifying considerations , and that is the true use of them ; for it is necessary , we should be mortified to this world , to cure the love of it , and conquer its temptations ; for if any man love the world , the love of the father is not in him : for all that is in the world , the lusts of the flesh , the lusts of the eye , and the pride of life , is not of the father , but of the world . 2. as the hopes of long life give great advantage to the temptations of this world , so they weaken the hopes and fears of the other world ; they strengthen our temptations , and weaken us , which must needs be of very fatal consequence to us in our spiritual warfare . all that we have to oppose against the flattering temptations of this world , are the hopes and fears of the world to come ; but the hope of long life sets the next world at too great a distance to conquer this : what is present , works more powerfully upon our minds , than what is abfent , and the farther any thing is off , the less powerful it is . to make you sensible of this , i shall only desire you to remember , what thoughts you have had of another world , when the present fears of dying have given you a nearer view of it : good lord , what agonies have i seen dying sinners in ! how penitent , how devout , how resolved upon a new course of life , which too often vanish like a dream , when the fear of death is over ; what is the reason of this difference ? heaven and hell is the very same , when we are in health , as when we are sick ; and i will suppose , that you do as firmly believe a heaven and a hell in health , as in sickness ; the onely thing then , that makes the thoughts of the other world so strong and powerful and affecting , when we are sick , is that we see the other world near us , that we are just a stepping into it , and this makes it our present concernment ; but in health , we see the other world a great way off , and therefore do not think it of such near and present concernment ; and what we do not think ourselves at present concerned in , or not much concerned in , how great and valuable soever it be in itself , will either not affect us at all , or very little . thus while bad men place the other world at a great distance from them , and out of sight , they have no restraint at all upon their lusts and passions ; and good men themselves at the greater distance they see the other world , are so much the less affected by it , which damps their zeal and their devotion , and makes them less active and vigorous in doing good . and there is so much the more danger in this , because men look upon the other world as farthest off , and so are least concerned about it , when the thoughts of the other world are most useful and most necessary to them : in the heat and vigour of youth , men are most exposed to the temptations of flesh and sense , and have most need to think of another world , and a future judgment ; but those who promise themselves a long life , see death and another world so far off , while they are young , that it moves them as little , as if there were no other world. and though one would think , that as our lives wast , and the other world grows near , so we should recover a more lively sence of it , yet we find it quite otherwise : when men have been used to think the next world a great way off , they will never think it near , till it comes ; and when they have been used to think of the other world without any passion or concernment for it , it is almost an impossible thing , to give any quickness and passion to such thoughts ; for when any thoughts , and the passion that properly belongs to such thoughts , have been a great while separated , it is a hard thing to unite them again ; to begin to think of that with passion and concern , which we have been used for thirty or forty years to think of without any concernment . 3. another dangerous effect of flattering ourselves with long life , is , that it encourages men to sin with the vain hopes and resolutions of repenting before they die : when men are convinced , that if they live and die in sin , they must be miserable for ever ; as i believe most profest christians are , as i am sure all must be , who believe the gospel of our saviour ; there is no other possible way to ward off this blow , and to sin securely under such convictions , but by resolving to repent , and to make their peace with god before they die : they flatter themselves , they have a great while yet to live , judgment is a great way off , and therefore they may indulge themselves a while , and enjoy the sweets of sin , and gratifie their youthful inclinations , and learn the vanity of the world by experience , as their forefathers have done before them , and then they will grow as wise and grave , and declaim against the follies and vanities of youth , and be as penitent , and as devout and religious , as any of them all . whoever considers the uncertainty of humane life , if he should hear men talk at this rate , would either conclude , that they were mad , or merrily disposed , but could never guess , that they were in their wits , and in good earnest too : but if he will allow men to be in their wits , who can promise themselves long life , when they see every day , how uncertain life is ; ( and if we will not allow such men to be in their wits , above two thirds of the world are mad ) this gives a plain account , how men may resolve to sin , while they are young , and to repent when they are old : for it is only the flattering hopes of long life , that can encourage men in a course of sin : men , indeed , who do not promise themselves long life , may commit a particular sin , and resolve to repent of it , as soon as they have done , which are a more modest sort of sinners , of which more presently ; but i speak now of those ( and too many such there are ) who resolve to take their fill of this world , while youth and strength and health last , and to grow sober and religious , when they grow old ; the consequent of which is , that they resolve to be damned , unless they live till they are old , or till they grow weary of their sins , and learn more wisdom by age and experience . now i shall not insist at present upon the hazard such men run , of not living till the time comes , which they have allotted for their repentance , which belongs to another argument , but onely what a dangerous thing it is to be tempted to a custom and habit of sinning , by the hope of long life , and of time enough to repent in ; for there is not a greater cheat in the world , that men put upon themselves , than to indulge themselves in all manner of wickednesses , to contract strong and powerful habits of vice , with a resolution to repent of their sins , and to forsake them before they die . the experience of the world sufficiently proves , how vain this is ; for though some such men may live while they are old , how seldom is it seen , that they repent of their youthful debaucheries , when they grow old ? they still retain their love and affection for those sins , which they can commit no longer ; and repent of nothing , but that they are grown old , and cannot be so wicked as they were , when they were young . and is there any reason in the world to expect it should be otherwise ? do we not know , what the power of habit and custom is ? how the love of sin increases , with the repeated commission of it ? and is the spending our youthful strength and vigour in sin , likely to dispose and prepare us to be sincere penitents , when we grow old ? do we not see , that a custom of sinning , in some men , destroys the modesty of humane nature , in others all sence of god and of religion , or of the natural differences of good and evil ? some men sin on till they despise repentance , others till they think repentance is too late ; so that though men were sure , that they should live long enough to grow wiser , and to repent and reform the sins and extravagances of youth , yet no man , who enters upon a wicked course of life , has any reason to expect , that he shall ever repent : and therefore it is extreamly dangerous to flatter ourselves into a habit and custom of sinning , with the hopes and expectations that we shall live to repent of our sins ; and if this be dangerous , it must be very dangerous to flatter ourselves with the hopes of long life , which is the great temptation to men to sin on , and to delay their repentance till old age . 2. since the time of our death is so unknown and uncertain to us , we ought always to live in expectation of it ; to be so far from promising ourselves long life , that we should not promise ourselves a day : and the reason for it is plain and necessary , because we are not sure of a day . this you 'll say is hard indeed , to live always in expectation of dying , which is no better then dying every day , or enduring the repeated fears and terrors of death every day , which is the most uncomfortable part of dying ; at this rate we never live , but instead of dying once , as god has appointed , we are always a dying : nay , this indeed is a fine saying , but signifies nothing ; for no man does it , nor can do it ; though we may die every day , we see that men live on forty , fifty , threescore years ; and therefore though we know , that our lives are uncertain , yet no man can think every day , that he shall die to day . this is very true , and therefore to live always in expectation of dying , does not signifie a belief that we shall die to day , but only that we may ; which answers the objection against the uncomfortableness of it ; for such an expectation as this , has nothing of dread and terror in it , but only prudence and caution . men may live very comfortably , and enjoy all the innocent pleasures of life , with these thoughts about them : to expect death every day , is like expecting thieves every night , which does not disturb our rest , but only makes us lock and bar our doors , and provide for our own defence : thus to expect death , is not to live under the perpetual fears of dying , but to live as a wise man would do , who knows , not that he must , but that he may die to day . that is , to be always prepared for death , not to defer our repentance , and return to god one moment ; not to commit any wilful sin , least death should surprize us in it ; not to be slothful and negligent , but to be always imployed in our master's business , according to our saviour's counsel , 12 luke 35 , &c. let your loyns be girded about , and your lamps burning ; and ye yourselves like unto men , that wait for their lord , when he will return from the wedding , that when he cometh and knocketh , they may open unto him immediately . blessed are those servants , whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching . and this know , that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come , he would have watched , and not suffered his house to be broken through . be ye therefore ready also ; for the son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not . this our saviour also warns us of in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins , 25 mat. while the bridegroom tarried they all slept ; but the wise virgins they presently arose and trimmed their lamps , and went in with him to the marriage , and the door was shut : the foolish virgins had no oyl , and their lamps were gone out , and while they went to buy oyl , they were shut out , and could afterwards procure no admission , watch therefore , for ye know neither the day nor the hour , when the son of man cometh . this is the danger of a sudden death , and the reason why our church prays against it ; for were we always in a preparation to die , with our lamps trimmed and burning , like virgins , who expect the bridegroom , to die then without notice , without fear and apprehension , without the melancholy solemnities of dying , were a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the most desirable way of dying ; but the danger of a sudden death is , that men are surprized in their sins , and hurried away to judgment , before their accounts are ready , that they are snatched out of this world before they have made any provision for the next ; and the only way to prevent this , is to be always upon our watch , always in expectation of death , and always prepared for it . some men think themselves very safe , if after an age of sin and vanity , they have but so much notice of death , as to ask god's pardon upon a sick bed , to confess and bewail the wickedness of their past lives , to die in horrors and agonies of mind , which they call repentance , but indeed are nothing else , but the sad presages of an awakened conscience , distracted with its own guilt , and the terrible expectations of vengeance : but though this be a very comfortless way of dying , and i fear generally very hopeless too ; yet no man can promise himself so much as this , who does not live in a constant expectation of death . we may be cut off by a sudden stroke , or seized with distraction or stupidness , that if only asking god pardon before we die , would save our souls , we could not do it : and this is the case of so many sinners , that it should be a warning to all : men , who know not when , nor how , or in what manner they must die , ought to be ready prepared against all accidents and surprizing events . 3. since the time of our death is so very uncertain , it concerns us to improve our present time , because no time is ours , but what is present : i observed before , that the shortness of our lives , though we were to live to the utmost extent of them , threescore and ten , or fourscore years , was a sufficient reason to lose none of our time , but to improve it to the best and wisest purposes ; and the surest way to lose none of our time , is to improve the present time ; and there is a plain necessary reason , why we should do that , because our lives are uncertain , and therefore no time is ours , but what is present . the time past was ours , but that is gone , and we can never recal it , nor live it over again ; if we have spent it well , we shall find it ours still in our account , but it is no longer our time to live and act in ; the time to come may be ours , and it may not , because we know not whether we shall live to it , and therefore we cannot reckon upon it ; the time present is ours , and that is the only time that is ours ; and therefore if we will improve our time , we must improve our present time , we must live to day , and not put off living till to morrow . all mankind are sensible of the necessity and prudence of this in all other matters , excepting the concernments of their souls : an epicurean sensualist is for the present gratification of his lusts ; vive hodie , is his motto , let us eat and drink , for to morrow we die . men who are intent upon increasing riches , and advancing their fortune and honors , are for taking the present time and opportunity to do it : indeed , setting aside the consideration of the uncertainty of our lives , there are some things which a wise man will not delay , or put off to another time , when he has opportunity to do it at present . what is necessary to be done , he will do as soon as he can , the very first moment , that it becomes necessary , if opportunity serves . what is necessary every day , he will not put off from one day to another , but will do it every day ; as eating and drinking and sleeping are . what he resolves to do , and may as well do at present , and is as fit to be done at present , as at any other time , he will do at present . what may suffer by delays , he will do the first time he can do it . what is proper for some peculiar times and seasons , he will do , when those times and seasons come : as the husbandman observes the seasons for sowing and reaping ; the tradesman his markets and fairs . what is of present use and convenience to him , what he takes great pleasure in , or what he mightily longs for and desires , he will by no means delay , but is for doing it present . now all these are very weighty reasons , why we should take care of our souls , repent of our sins , live in the practise of all christian graces and vertues , and do all the good we can at present , but much more , when we consider , that our lives are so uncertain , that we may have no other time to do any thing of this in , but what is present . for , 1. is any thing of more absolute necessity , than the salvation of our souls ? this is that one thing needful ; the salvation of our souls is needful as a necessary end ; and the practise of true religion needful as subservient to that end : if to escape eternal misery , and to obtain eternal happiness , be not necessary , i know not what can make any thing necessary ? and if this cannot be done without the knowledge and practise of true religion , that is as necessary as the salvation of our souls is : and can any present time , how early soever it be , be too soon to do that , which is necessary to be done ? especially when we are not sure of any other time to do it in : no time is too soon to do that which is absolutely necessary ; and no wise man will neglect doing that at present , which unless it be done , he must be miserable for ever ; and yet it may never be done , if it be not done at present . 2. is not religion , and the care of our souls , the work of every day , as much as eating and drinking to preserve our bodily health and strength is ? must we not pray to god every day , and make his laws the rule of our actions every day , and repent of our sins , and do what good we can every day ? and what is the work of every day , we ought to do every day , though we were secure of living till to morrow , much more when we know that we may die before another day comes ? 3. do ye not all resolve to repent of your sins , and reform your lives , before ye die ? and is it not as necessary to repent of your sins to day , as ever it will be ? is not to day as proper a time to repent in , as ever you are likely to have ? are you sure of having another day to repent in , if you neglect this ? this may convince any considering man , that no resolutions of repenting hereafter , can be sincere , because such men resolve indeed to repent , but do not resolve to do it at such a time when they can do it ; that is , the present time , which alone they are sure of , but put it off till another time , which may never be theirs : i grant , men may sincerely resolve to do that hereafter , a month , or half a year , or a year hence , which they do not think so fitting and convenient to do at present ; but then this is not an absolute resolution to do such a thing ; but a conditional resolution , that they will do it , if they live till such a time , when it will be convenient to be done . consider then , which of these you mean , when you resolve to repent ; is it onely a conditional resolution , that you will repent , if you live till such a time ? i grant , there is some sence in this resolution ; but i wish you would consider , what danger there is in it too ; for are you contented to be eternally miserable , if you do not live , till your time of repentance comes ? no , this you tremble at the thoughts of , and resolve to repent , because you resolve not to be miserable for ever ; that is , you absolutely resolve to repent ; you are convinced this is absolutely necessary ; it is a work that must be done , and you are resolved to do it : consider then , how vain and contradictory this resolution is , to resolve to repent hereafter ; which is an absolute resolution , with a condition annexed to it , and a very uncertain one too ; a resolution certainly to repent , but not in a certain , but uncertain time ; and yet those who repent , must repent in some time ; and repentance can never be certain , when the time to repent in , is uncertain . indeed no resolution is good , which is not for the present time , when there are no exceptions against doing it at present , especially when there is such manifest danger in deferring it . to resolve to repent hereafter , when the present time is the only certain time to repent in , only signifies , that men are convinc'd of the necessity of repentance ; but love their sins so well , that they cannot part with them yet , and therefore , that they may sin on securely , without the perpetual fears and terrors of another world , they resolve to repent hereafter . now though there were no such manifest danger in a delay , from the uncertainty of our lives , yet let any man judge , whether such resolutions as these , are ever like to take effect ; a resolution which is owing to a great love to sin , and is intended onely to silence mens guilty fears , and give them a present security in sinning : for this reason they resolve not to repent now , but to repent hereafter ; and if they keep this resolution , they will never repent , for their hereafter will never come , which does not signifie any set and determined time , but any time which is not present : the reason why they resolve not to repent to day , will extend to every day , when it comes ; that is , that they love their sins , and are unwilling to part with them ; and the reason why they resolve to repent hereafter , will serve for all hereafters , but will never serve for any time present , viz. because they will not repent yet , and yet will flatter themselves into security with the vain hopes of repentance : flatter not yourselves then with vain hopes ; he who resolves to repent , but does not resolve to repent presently , though he knows he is sure of no other time but the present to repent in , does not sincerely resolve to repent , but only resolves to delay his repentance . the like may be said concerning the danger of delays , concerning missing the proper times and seasons of action , and neglecting that which is of present use to us , and which we ought above all things to desire , viz. to secure the happiness of our immortal souls ; but i shall only add this one thing to make you sensible , what it is to let slip the present time , without improving it to any wise purposes ; that he who loses his present time , loses all the time he has , all the time that he can call his own ; which is the sum of all other arguments ; that the present time is the only time he has to live in , to repent in , to serve god , and to do good to men in , to improve his knowledge , and to exercise his graces , and to prepare himself for a blessed immortality ; which are the most necessary , the most useful , the most desirable things in the world ; and that which gives the value to time itself , which is valuable only for the sake of what may be done , and what may be enjoyed in it . but you 'll say , at this rate we must spend our whole lives in the duties of religion , in thinking of god , and another world , in acts of repentance and mortification , in prayer and fasting , and such like exercises of devotion : here will be no time left for the ordinary affairs of life , scarce to eat or drink , or sleep in , but that they will have some of our time , whether we will or no ; but here is no allowance made for recreations and diversions , for the conversation of friends , and innocent mirth and pastime , to refresh our wearied bodies and minds ; for if we must be so careful to improve our present time to the best purposes , our present time is our whole time , for we have no time , but what is present , and as one minute succeeds another , still we must improve it to the best purposes ; that is , we can do but one thing all our lives , and the best way then would be to turn hermits , and sequester ourselves from the world and humane conversation . the answer to this objection will teach us , what it is to improve our present time , and how it must be done : now , 1. i allow the objection so far , that if a man have mis-spent great part of his life , have contracted great guilt , and powerful habits of vice , the chief , and almost the only thing such a man can do , is to bewail his sins before god , and with earnest and repeated importunities to beg his pardon ; to live in a state of penance and mortification , to deny himself the pleasures and comforts of life , till he has in some measure subdued his love to sin , and regained the command and government of his passions , and has recovered the peace of his mind , and some good hopes , that god has forgiven him , and received him into favour for the sake of christ : thus he ought to do , and when he is made thoroughly sensible of his sins , and the danger he is in , he can do no otherwise : while he is terrified with the fears of hell , he has little stomach to the necessary affairs and business of life , much less to the mirth and pleasures of it ; but this is such an interruption to the ordinary and regular course of life , as a fit of sickness is , which confines us to our bed , or to our chamber , and makes us incapable of minding any thing , but the recovery of our health : and when this is the case , then indeed the care of our souls is the only necessary business and imployment of our time . 2. but when this is not the case , the wise improvement of our present time does not confine us always to be upon our knees , or doing something which has a direct and immediate aspect upon god and another world , for the state of this world will not admit of that : but he imploys his time well , who divides it among all the affairs and and offices of life , between this world and the next , and imploys the several portions of his time in things fit and proper for such a season ; who begins and ends the day with adoring his maker and redeemer , blessing him for all his mercies both temporal and spiritual , begging the pardon of all his sins , the protection of his providence , the assistance of his grace , and then minds his secular affairs , with justice and righteousness , eats and drinks with sobriety and temperance , does all good offices for men , as occasion serves , and if he have any spare time , improves it for the encrease of his knowledge , by reading and meditating on the scriptures , or other useful books , or refreshes himself with the innocent and chearful conversation of his friends , or such other diversions as are not so much a loss and expence of time , as a necessary relaxation of the mind , to recruit our spirits , and to make us more fit either for business or devotion ; but then on days set apart for the more publick and solemn acts of worship , religion is his chief employment , for that is the proper work of the day , to worship god , and to examine the state of his own soul , to learn his duty more perfectly , and to affect his mind with such a powerful sence of god and another world , as may arm him against all temptations , when he returns to this world again . this is to improve our present time well , to observe the proper times and seasons of action , and to do , what is fit and proper for such seasons ; never to do any thing which is evil , and as for the several kinds of good actions , to do what particular times and seasons require . thus we may give a good account of our whole time , even of our most loose and vacant hours ; which it becomes us to do , though we were certain to live many years , but does more nearly concern us , when our time is so uncertain . 4. since our lives are so very uncertain , this ought to cure an anxious care and solicitude for times to come : we may live many years , though our lives are uncertain ; and therefore a provident care becomes us ; but we may die also very quickly , and why then should we disturb ourselves with to-morrow's cares , much less with some remoter possibilities ? hast thou at any time an ill prospect before thee of private or publick calamities ? do the storms gather ? are the clouds black and lowring , and charged with thunder , and ready to break over thy head ? shelter thy self as well as thou canst , make all prudent provisions for a storm , because thou maist live to see it ; but be not too much dismaied and terrified with a storm at a distance , for thy head may be laid low enough , and out of its reach , before it breaks ; and then all this trouble and perplexity is in vain . many such examples have i seen , of men disturbed with ill presages of what was coming , which besides that these things did not happen , which they expected , or were not so black and dismal as their affrighted fancy painted them , if they had come , they were very safe first , and got out of their way . i do not intend by this to comfort men against foreseen evils , that they may die , before they come ; which is a small comfort to most men , when it may be , death is the most formidable thing in the evils they fear ; but since our lives are uncertain , and we may die , and never see the evils we fear , it is unreasonable to be as much distracted with them , as if they were present and certain : the uncertainty of future events , is one reason why we ought not to be anxious and solicitous about them , and the uncertainty of our lives is another ; and what is so very uncertain , ought not to be the object of any great concern or passion . 5. for the same reason we ought not to be greatly afraid of men , nor to put our trust and confidence in them , because their lives are very uncertain , they may not be able to hurt us , when we are most apprehensive of danger from them , nor to help us , when we need them most : this is the psalmist's argument , 146 psal. 3 , 4. put not your trust in princes , nor in the son of man , in whom there is no help : his breath goeth forth , he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish . 2 isai. 22. cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils ; for wherein is he to be accounted of ? men , especially great and powerful men , may do us a great deal of hurt , and may do us a great deal of good ; and therefore common prudence will teach us by all wise and honest arts to gain their favour , and to avoid all unreasonable and needless provocations ; but yet at best they are such brittle creatures , that they can be the objects only of a subordinate fear or hope ; when the fear of man comes in competition with the fear of god , it is wise counsel which the prophet isaiah gives , say ye not , a confederacy , to all them to whom this people shall say , a confederacy ; neither fear ye their fear , nor be afraid . sanctifie the lord god of hosts himself , and let him be your fear , and let him be your dread : and he shall be for a sanctuary , 8 isai. 12 , 13 , 14. there is a vast difference between the power of god and men , which is our saviour's reason , why we should fear god more than men : be not afraid of them who can kill the body , and after that , have no more that they can do ; but i will forewarn ye , whom ye shall fear , fear him which after he hath killed , hath power to cast into hell ; yea , i say unto you , fear him , 12 luke 4 , 5. but whatever power men may have to hurt , while they live , they can do us no hurt when they are dead , and their lives are so very uncertain , that we may be quickly eased of those fears . the same may be said with respect to hope and confidence in men ; though their word and promise were always sacred , yet their lives are uncertain ; their breath goeth forth , they return to the earth ; in that very day their thoughts perish ; all the good and all the evil they intended to do : but happy is he , that hath the god of iacob for his help , whose hope is in the lord his god , which made heaven and earth , the sea , and all that therein is , who keepeth truth for ever , 146 psal. 5. 6. 6. for a conclusion of this argument , i shall briefly vindicate the wisdom and goodness of god , in concealing from us the time of our death : this we are very apt to complain of , that our lives are so very uncertain , that we know not to day , but that we may die to morrow ; and we would be mighty glad to meet with any one who could certainly inform us in this matter , how long we are to live : but if we think a little better of it , we shall be of another mind . for , 1. though i presume many of you would be glad to know , that you shall certainly live twenty or thirty or forty years longer , yet would it be any comfort to know , that you must die to morrow , or some few months , or a year or two hence ? which may be your case for ought you know ; and this i believe you are not very desirous to know ; for how would this chill your blood and spirits ? how would it overcast all the pleasures and comforts of life ? you would spend your days like men under the sentence of death , while the execution is suspended . did all men , who must die young , certainly know it , it would destroy the industry and improvements of half mankind , which would half destroy the world , or be an insupportable mischief to humane societies : for what man who knows that he must die at twenty or five and twenty , a little sooner or later , would trouble himself with ingenious or gainful arts , or concern himself any more with this world , than just to live so long in it ? and yet how necessary is the service of such men in the world ? what great things do they many times do ? and what great improvements do they make ? how pleasant and diverting is their conversation , while it is innocent ? how do they enjoy themselves , and give life and spirit to the graver age ? how thin would our schools , our shops , our universities , and all places of education be , did they know how little time many of them were to live in the world ? for would such men concern themselves to learn the arts of living , who must die as soon as they have learnt them ? would any father be at a great expence in educating his child , only that he might die with a little latine and greek , logick and philosophy ? no : half the world must be divided into cloysters , and nunneries , and nurseries for the grave . well , you 'll say , suppose that ; and is not this an advantage above all the inconveniencies , you can think of , to secure the salvation of so many thousands , who are now eternally ruined by youthful lusts and vanities , but would spend their days in piety and devotion , and make the next world their only care , if they knew , how little while they were to live here ? right ! i grant , this might be a good way to correct the heat and extravagancies of youth ; and so it would be to shew them heaven and hell ; but god does not think fit to do either , because it offers too much force and violence to mens minds ; it is no trial of their vertue , of their reverence for god , of their conquests and victory over this world by the power of faith , but makes religion a matter of necessity , not of choice ; now god will force and drive no man to heaven ; the gospel-dispensation is the trial and discipline of ingenuous spirits ; and if the certain hopes and fears of another world , and the uncertainty of our living here , will not conquer these flattering temptations , and make men seriously religious , as those who must certainly die , and go into another world , and they know not how soon , god will not try , whether the certain knowledge of the time of their death , will make them religious : that they may die young , and that thousands do so , is reason enough to engage young men to expect death , and prepare for it ; if they will venture , they must take their chance , and not say they had no warning of dying young , if they eternally miscarry by their wilful delays . and besides this , god expects our youthful service and obedience , though we were to live on till old age : that we may die young , is not the proper , much less the only reason , why we should remember our creator in the days of our youth , but because god has a right to our youthful strength and vigour ; and if this will not oblige us to an early piety , we must not expect that god will set death in our view , to fright and terrifie us ; as if the only design god had in requiring our obedience , was not that we might live like reasonable creatures , to the glory of their maker and redeemer , but that we might repent of our sins time enough to escape hell. god is so merciful , as to accept of returning prodigals , but does not think fit to encourage us in sin , by giving us notice , when we shall die , and when it is time to think of repentance . 2dly , though i doubt not , but that it would be a great pleasure to you to know , that you shall live till old age ; yet consider a little with yourselves , and then tell me , whether you yourselves can judge it wise and fitting for god to let you know this . i observed to you before , what danger there is in flattering ourselves with the hopes of long life , that it is apt to make us too fond of this world , when we expect to live so long in it ; that it weakens the hopes and fears of the next world , by removing it at too great a distance from us ; that it encourages men to live in sin , because they have time enough before them to indulge their lusts , and to repent of their sins , and make their peace with god before they die ; and if the uncertain hopes of this undoes so many men , what would the certain knowledge of it do ? those who are too wise and considerate to be imposed on by such uncertain hopes , might be conquered by the certain knowledge of a long life : this would take off all restraints from men , and give free scope to their vicious inclinations , when they know , that how wicked soever they were , they should not die before their time was come , and could never be surpiz'd by death , since they certainly knew when it will come ; which destroys one great motive to obedience , that sin shall shorten mens lives , and that vertue and piety shall prolong them ; that the wicked shall not live out half their days ; that the fear of the lord prolongeth days , but the years of the wicked shall be shortned , 10 prov. 27. such promises and threatnings as these , must be struck out of the bible , should god let all men know the time of their death : nay , this would frustrate the methods and designs of providence for the reclaiming sinners : some times publick calamities , plague , and famine , and sword , alarum a wicked world , and summon men to repentance ; sometimes a dangerous fit of sickness awakens men into a sence of their sins , and works in them a true and lasting repentance ; but all this would be ineffectual , did men know the time of their death , and that such publick judgments , or threatning sickness , should not kill them . the uncertainty of our lives , is a great motive to constant watchfulness , to an early and persevering piety ; but to know when we shall die , could serve no good end , but would encrease the wickedness of mankind , which is too great already ; which is a sufficient vindication of the wisdom of god , in leaving the time of death unknown and uncertain to us . sect . vii . that we must die but once , or that death translates us to an unchangable state , with the improvement of it . the last thing to be consider'd is , that we must die but once ; it is appointed for men once to die : there are some exceptions from this rule , as there are from dying ; that as enoch and elias did not die , so some have been raised again from the dead , to live in this world , and such men died twice : but this is a certain rule in general , that as all men must die once , so they must die but once ; which needs no other proof , but the daily experience and observation of mankind . but that which i intend by it is this : that once dying , determines our state and condition for ever ; when we put off these mortal bodies , we must not return into them again , to act over a new part in this world , and to correct the errours and miscarriages of our former lives ; death translates us to an immutable and unchangeable state ; that in this sence , what the wise man tells us is true , if the tree fall towards the south , or toward the north , in the place where the tree falleth , there it shall be , 11 eccles. 3. this is a consideration of very great moment , and deserves to be more particularly explain'd , which i shall do in these following propositions : 1. that this life is the only state of trial and probation for eternity : and therefore , 2. death when ever it comes , as it puts a final period to this life , that we die once for all , and must never live again , as we do now in this world , so it puts a final end to our work too , that our day of grace , and time of working for another world ends with this life : and 3dly , as a necessary consequence of both these , once dying puts us into an immutable and unchangeable state . 1. that this life only is our state of trial and probation for eternity ; whatever is to be done by us , to obtain the favour of god , and a blessed immortality , must be done in this life . i observed before , that this life is wholly in order to the next ; that the great , the only necessary , business we have to do in this world , is to fit and prepare ourselves to live for ever in god's presence ; to finish the work god has given us to do , that we may receive the reward of good and faithful servants , to enter into our master's rest ; i now add , that the only time we have to do this in , is while we live in this world : this is evident from what s. paul tells us , that we must all appear before the judgement-seat of christ , that every one may receive the things done in his body , according to that he hath done , whether it be good or bad , 2 cor. 5. 10. now if we must be judged , and receive our final sentence according to what we have done in the body , then our only time of trial and working is , while we live in these bodies ; for the future judgment relates only to what is done in the body . the gospel of christ is the rule , whereby we must be judged , even that gospel which st. paul preached , 2 rom. 16. and all the laws and precepts of the gospel concern the government of our conversation in this world ; and therefore if we be judged by the gospel , we must be judged only for what we have done in this world. this life , throughout the scripture , is represented as the time of working ; as a race , a warfare , a labouring in the vineyard ; the other world , as a place of recompence , of rewards , or punishments : and if there be such a relation between this world and the next , as between fighting and conquering , and receiving the crown , as between running a race and obtaining a prize , as between the work and the reward ; then we must fight and conquer , run our race , and finish our work in this world , if we expect the rewards of the next . many of those graces and vertues , which our saviour has promised to reward with eternal life , can be exercised only in this world : faith and hope are peculiar only to this life , while the other world is absent and unseen : and these are the great principles and graces of the christian life , to believe what we do not see , and to live and act upon the hopes of future rewards ; the government of our bodily appetites and passions , by the rules of temperance , sobriety , and chastity , necessarily supposes , that we have bodies , and bodily appetites and passions to govern ; and therefore these vertues can be exercised only while we live in these bodies , which solicite and tempt us to sensual excesses . to live above this world , to despise the tempting glories of it , is a vertue only while we live in it , and are tempted by it ; to have our conversation in heaven , which is the most divine temper of mind , is a gospel-grace , only while we live in this world , at a great distance from heaven ; to be contented in all conditions , to trust god in the greatest dangers , to suffer patiently for righteousness sake , &c. i need not tell you , are vertues proper only for this world , for there can be no exercise for them in heaven , unless we can think it a vertue to be patient and contented with the happiness and glory of that blessed place . thus most of the sins , which the gospel forbids under the penalty of eternal damnation , can be committed by us only in this world , and in these bodies , such as fornication , adultery , uncleanness , rioting , drunkenness , injustice , murder , theft , oppression of the poor and fatherless , earthly pride and ambition , covetuousness , a fond idolatry of this world , disobedience to parents and governours , &c. now if these be the things , for which men shall be saved or damned , it is certain , that men must be saved or damned only for what they do in this life . bad men , who are fond of this world , and of bodily pleasures , which makes them impatient of the severe restraints of religion , complain very much of this , that their eternal happiness or misery depends upon such a short and uncertain life ; that they must spend this life under the awe and terrour of the next ; that some few momentary pleasures must be punished with endless misery ; and that if they out-slip their time of repentance , if they venture to sin on too long , or die a little too soon , there is no remedy for them for ever . but let bad men look to this , and consider the folly of their choice ; i am sure , how hard soever it may be thought , to be eternally damned for the short pleasures of sin , no man can reasonably think it a hard condition of eternal salvation , to spend a short life in the service of god : and if we will allow , that god may justly require our service and obedience for so great a reward as heaven is , where can we do him this service , but on earth ? if a corrupt nature must be cleansed and purified , if an earthly nature must be spiritualized and refined , before it can be fit to live in heaven , where can this be done , but on earth , while we live in these bodies of flesh , and are encompass'd with sensible objects ? this is the time for a divine soul , which aspires after immortality , to raise itself above the body , to conquer this present world , by the belief and hope of unseen things , to awaken and exercise its spiritual powers and faculties , and to adorn itself with those graces and vertues , which come down from heaven , and by the mercies of god , and the merits of our saviour , will carry us up thither . there is no middle state , between living in this body , and out of it , and therefore whatever habits and dispositions of mind are necessary to make a spirit happy , when it goes out of this body , must be formed and exercised while it is in it ; earth and heaven are two extreams , and opposite states of life , and therefore it is impossible immediately to pass from one to t'other ; a soul , which is wholly sensualiz'd by living in the body , if it be turn'd out of the body without any change , cannot ascend into heaven , which is a state of perfect purity ; for in all reason , the place and state of life must be fitted to the nature of things ; and therefore a life of holiness , while we live in these bodies , is a kind of a middle state , between earth and heaven ; such a man belongs to both worlds ; he is united to this world by his body , which is made of earth , and feels the impression of sensible objects , but his heart and affections are in heaven ; by faith he contemplates those invisible glories , and feels and relishes the pleasures of a heavenly life ; and he who has his conversation in heaven , while he lives in this body , is ready prepared and fitted to ascend thither , when he goes out of it : he passes from earth to heaven , through the middle region ( if i may so speak ) of a holy and divine life . besides this , it was necessary to the happiness and good government of this present world , that future rewards or punishments should have relation to the good or evil , which we do in this life . this in many cases lays restraints upon the lusts and passions of men , when the rods and axes of princes cannot reach them ; it over-awes them with invisible terrours , and makes a guilty conscience it s own judge and tormenter ; it sowers all the pleasures of sin , stuffs the adulterer's pillow with thorns , and mingles gall and wormwood with the drunkard's cups ; it governs those , who are under no other government , whose boundless and uncontroulable power gives them opportunity of doing what mischief they please , and gives them impunity in doing it : but the most lawless tyrants , who fear no other power , yet feel the invisible restraints of conscience , and those secret and severe rebukes , which make them tremble : nay , many times the fear of the other world governs those , whom no present evils or punishments could govern : men who would venture whatever they could suffer in this life by their sins , are yet afraid of hell , and dare not venture that : those who would venture being sick after a debauch , who would venture to sacrifice their bodies , their estates , their reputation , in the service of their lusts , who are contented to take their fortune at the gallows , or at the whipping-post , yet dare not venture lakes of fire and brimstone , the worm that never dieth , and the fire that never goeth out . thus on the other hand , how much is it for the present happiness of the world , that men should live in the practise of those christian graces and vertues , which no humane laws command , and the neglect of which no humane laws will punish ? as to instance only in the love of enemies , and forgiveness of injuries , and such an universal charity , as does all the good it can to all men. i need not prove , that the exercise of these vertues is for the good of the world , or that no humane laws require the exercise of them , in such noble measures and degrees , as the gospel does . the laws of the land allow scope enough , to satisfie the most revengful man , who will use all the extremities , and all the vexatious arts of prosecution , unless nothing will satisfie his revenge , but bloud , and a speedy execution ; for the laws ought to punish those injuries which a good christian ought to forgive ; and then some men may be undone by legal revenge , and others damned for taking it . if no man should do any good offices ▪ for others , but what the law commands , there would be very little good done in the world ; for laws are principally intended for the preservation of justice , but the acts of a generous and bountiful charity , are free : and men may be as charitable , as the law requires , without any degree of that divine charity , which will carry them to heaven . nothing , but the hopes and fears of the next world , can enforce these duties on us ; and this justifies the wisdom and goodness of god , in making the present exercise of these vertues necessary to our future rewards . i shall only add , that whatever complaints bad men may make , that their future happiness or misery depends upon the government and conduct of their lives , in this world , i am sure , all mankind would have had great reason to complain , if it had been otherwise : for how miserable must it have made us , to have certainly known , that we must be eternally happy , or eternally miserable in the next world , and not to have as certainly known how to escape the miseries and obtain the hap●iness of it ? and how could that be possibly known , if the trial of it had been reserved for an unknown state ? what a terrible thing had it been to die , could no man have been sure , what would have become of him in the next world , as no man could have been upon this supposal ; for how can any man know what his reward shall be , when he is so far from having done his work , that he knows not what he is to do , till he comes into the next world. but now since we shall be rewarded according to what we have done in this body , every man certainly knows , what will make him happy or miserable in the next world , and it is his own fault , if he do not live so as to secure immortal life ; and what a blessed state is this , to have so joyful a prospect beyond the grave , and to put off these bodies with the certain hopes of a glorious resurrection ! this , i think , is sufficient to vindicate the wisdom and goodness of god , in making this present life a state of trial and probation for the happiness of the next . but to proceed : 2. if this life only be our state of trial and probation for eternity , then death , as it puts a final period to this life , so it puts a final end to our work too ; our day of grace , and time of working for another world , ends with this life . we shall easily apprehend the necessity of this , if we remember , that death , which is the punishment of sin , is not meerly the death of the body , but that state of misery , to which death translates sinners : and therefore if we die , while we are in a state of sin , under the curse , and under the power of death , there is no redemption for us , because the justice of god has already seiz'd us ; the sentence is already executed , and that is too late to obtain a pardon : for in this case death answers to our casting into prison , from whence we shall never come forth , till we have paid the uttermost farthing , as our saviour represents it , 5 matt. 25 , 26 : for indeed sin is the death of the soul ; and those who are under the power of sin , are in a state of death , and if they die , before they have a principle of a new life in them , they fall under the power of death , that is , into that state of misery and punishment , which is appointed for such dead souls : and therefore our redemption from death , by christ is begun in our dying to sin , and walking in newness of life , which is our conformity to the death , and the resurrection of christ , 6 rom. 4. this is to be dead to sin , and to be alive to god , as christ is ; and if we die with christ , we shall rise with him also into immortal life , which is begun in this world , and will be perfected in the next , which is the sum of st. paul's argument , v. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. thus he tells us , 8 rom. 10 , 11. if christ be in you , the body is dead , because of sin , but the spirit is life , because of righteousness ; that is , our bodies are mortal , and must die , by an irreversible sentence , which god pronounc'd against adam , when he had sinned ; but the soul and spirit has a new principle of life , a principle of righteousness and holiness , by which it lives to god , and therefore cannot fall into a state of death , when the body dies ; but if the spirit of him that raised up iesus from the dead , dwell in you ; he that raised up christ from the dead , shall also quicken your mortal bodies , by his spirit that dwelleth in you : that is , when the divine spirit has quicken'd our souls , and raised them into a new life , though our bodies must die , yet the same divine spirit will raise them up also into immortal life . this is the plain account of the matter : if death arrests us while we are in a state of sin and death , we must die for ever ; but if our souls are alive to god , by a principle of grace and holiness , before our bodies die , they must live for ever : a dead soul must die with its body ; that is , sink into a state of misery , which is the death , and the loss of the soul : a living soul survives the body in a state of bliss and happiness , and shall receive its body again , glorious and immortal , at the resurrection of the just : but this change of state must be made while we live in these bodies ; a dead soul cannot revive in the other world , nor a living soul die there ; and therefore this life is the day of god's grace and patience , the next world is the place of judgment . and the reason st. peter gives , why god is not hasty in executing judgment , but is long suffering to us ward , is because he is not willing , that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance , 2 pet. 3. 5. hence the apostle to the hebrews exhorts them , wherefore as the holy ghost saith , to day if ye will hear his voice , harden not your hearts , as in the provocation , in the day of temptation in the wilderness , when your fathers tempted me , proved me , and saw my works forty years : wherefore i was grieved with that generation , and said , they do alway err in their hearts ; and they have not known my ways . so i swear in my wrath , they shall not enter into my rest . there is some dispute , what is meant by to day , whether it be the day of this life , or such a fixt and determin'd day and season of grace , as may end long before this life : the example of the israelites , of whom god swear in his wrath , that they should die in the wilderness , and never enter into his rest , that is , into the land of canaan , seems to incline it to the latter sence ; for this sentence , that they should not enter into his rest , was pronounc'd against them long before they died ; for which reason they wandered forty years in the wilderness , till all that generation of men were dead : and if we are concern'd in this example , then we also may provoke god to such a degree , that he may pronounce the final sentence on us , that we shall never enter into heaven , long before we leave this world : our day of grace may have a shorter period than our lives , and we may wander about in this world , as the israelites did in the wilderness , under an irreversible doom and sentence . and the scope of the apostle's argument seems to require this sence , which is to engage them to a speedy repentance , to day if you will hear his voice , harden not your hearts : but why to day ? is it because our lives are uncertain , and we may die before to morrow ? no ; but lest we provoke god to swear in his wrath , that we shall not enter into his rest . all men know , that if they die in a state of sin , they must be miserable for ever ; and this is a reason to repent before they die : but the apostle seems to argue farther , that by their delays , and repeated provocations , they may tempt god to shorten their day of grace , and pronounce an irrevocable sentence on them , which leaves no place for repentance ; which else where he inforces from the example of esau , who sold his birth-right , 12 heb. 15 , 16 , 17. v. looking diligently , lest any man fail of the grace of god ; lest any root of bitterness springing up , trouble you , and thereby many be desiled : lest there be any fornicator , or prophane person , as esau , who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right . for ye know how that afterward when he would have inherited the blessing , he was rejected : for he found no place of repentance , though he sought it carefully with tears ? the stating of this matter may be thought a digression from my present design , but indeed it is not ; for if by to day , be meant the whole time of this life , that proves , that death puts a final period to our day of grace ; and if any shorter period than this life be meant by it , it proves it much stronger ; for if our sentence be passed before we die , it will not be revoked after death . but the stating this question , is a matter of so great consequence to us , that if it were a digression , it were very pardonable : for many devout minds , when they are disturbed and clouded with melancholy , are afflied with such thoughts as these , that their day of grace is past , that god has sworn in his wrath , that they shall not enter into his rest ; and therefore their repentance and tears will be as fruitless as esau's were , which could not obtain the blessing . now for the resolving this question , i shall say these three things : 1. that the day of grace , according to the terms of the gospel , is commensurate with our lives . 2. that notwithstanding this , men may shorten their own day of grace , and god may in wrath and justice confirm the sentence . 3. that the reasons for lengthning the day of grace , together with our lives , do not extend to the other world , and therefore death must put a final period to it . 1. that the day of grace , according to the terms of the gospel , is commensurate with our lives ; and there needs no other proof of this , but that the promise of pardon and forgiveness is made to all true penitents , without any limitation of time : whoever believes in christ , and repents of his sins , he shall be saved ; this is the doctrine of the gospel : and if this be true , then it is certain , that at what time soever a sinner sincerely repenteth of his sins , he shall be saved ; for otherwise some true and sincere penitents , if they repent too late , after the day of grace is expired , shall be damned , and then it is not true , that all sincere penitents shall be saved . i know but one objection against this , from the example of esau , who having sold his birth-right , when afterwards he would have inherited the blessing , was rejected ; for he found no place for repentance , though he sought it carefully with tears . it seems then , that esau repented too late , and so may we ; his repentance would not be accepted : and if we are concerned in this example , as the apostle intimates we are , then we may repent of our sins when it is too late , and lose the blessing as esau did . but this objection is founded on a mistake of esau's case ; the repentance here mentioned , is not esau's repentance , but isaac's ; that is , when isaac had blessed iacob , esau with all his tears and importunity , could not make him recal it ; i. e. isaac would not repent of the blessing he had given to iacob , i have blessed him , yea and he shall be blessed , 27 gen. 33. esau's case then was not , that his repentance came too late to be accepted , but that he could not obtain the blessing , after he had sold his birth-right , to which the blessing was annexed . now to apply this to the state of christians , that which answers to esau's birth-right , is their right and title to future glory , being made the sons of god by baptismal regeneration , and faith in christ ; to sell this birth-right , is to part with our hopes of heaven , for the pleasures , or riches , or honours of this world , as esau sold his birth-right for one morsel of meat ; that is , as the apostle speaks , to fail of the grace of god , either through unbelief , which he calls the root of bitterness , a renouncing the faith of christ , and returning to iudaism , or pagan idolatries , or by an impure and wicked life , lest there be any fornicater , or prophane person , as esau , who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right ; i. e. who despises the hopes of heaven , for the sinful pleasures and transient enjoyments of this world : men , who thus fail of the grace of god , and finally do so , as esau finally sold his birth-right , when our heavenly father comes to give his blessing , those great rewards he has promised in his gospel , how importunate soever they shall then be for a blessing , as esau was , who sought it carefully with tears , they shall find no place for repentance ; god will not alter his purposes and decrees for their sakes . our saviour has given us a plain comment on this , 7 mat. 21 , 22 , 23. not every one that saith unto me , lord , lord , shall enter into the kingdom of heaven : but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven . many will say unto me at that day , that is , the day of judgment , when the blessing is to be given , lord , lord , have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name cast out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? here is esau's importunity for the blessing . and then will i profess unto them , i never knew you : depart from me ye that work iniquity . they were profane esau's , who had sold their birth-right for a morsel of meat , and now they found no place for repentance : our lord will not be perswaded by all their importunities to alter his sentence , but depart from me ye that work iniquity . this example then of esau does not concern our present case ; it does not prove , that a wicked man , who hath spent the greatest part of his life in sin and folly , shall not be accepted and rewarded by god , if he sincerely repent of his sins , and reform his life ; but it only proves , that a wicked & ungodly christian who prefers the pleasures and enjoyments of this world , before the hopes of heaven , and defiles his soul with impure and worldly lusts , what pretences soever he may make to the blessing , or how importunate soever he may be for it , shall receive no blessing from god ; that is , that without holiness no man shall see god , which is the very thing the apostle intended to prove by this example , as you may see , v. 14. i grant the case is different , as to churches and nations ; sometimes their day of grace is fixt and determin'd , beyond which without repentance , they shall no longer enjoy the light of the gospel . thus the appearance of christ in the flesh , and his preaching the gospel to them , was the last trial of ierusalem , and determin'd the fate of that beloved city : and therefore when christ rode into ierusalem , in order to his crucifixion , when he was come near , he beheld the city , and wept over it , saying , if thou hadst known , even thou , at least in this thy day , the things which belong unto thy peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes . for the days shall come upon thee , that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee , and compass thee round , and keep thee in on every side ; and shall lay thee even with the ground , and thy children within thee ; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another : because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation , 19 luke 41 , &c. and this our saviour warned them of before , 12 joh. 35 , 36. yet a little is the light with you : walk while ye have the light , lest darkness come upon you : for he that walketh in darkness , knoweth not whither he goeth . while ye have light , believe in the light , that ye may be the children of light : which signifies , that unless they believed on him , while he was with them , they must be utterly destroyed , the kingdom of god should be taken from them , and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof ; as he proves by the parable of the housholder who planted a vineyard , 21 mat. 33 , &c. and this was in some measure the case of the seven churches of asia , to whom st. iohn directed his epistles , to summon them to repentance , and to threaten them with the removal of the candlestick , if they did not repent . the judgments of god in the overthrow of some flourishing churches , and in transplanting the gospel from one nation to another , are very mysterious and unsearchable ; but as for particular persons , who enjoy the light of the gospel , unless they shorten their day of grace themselves , god does not shorten it : as long as they live in this world , they are capable of grace and mercy , if they truly repent . 2. men may shorten their own day of grace ; not by shortning the time of grace and mercy , for that lasts as long as this life does ; but by out-living the possibility of repentance , and when they are past repentance , their day of grace is at an end , and this may be much shorter than their lives : that is , men may so harden themselves in sin , as to make their repentance morally impossible , and god in his just and righteous judgments may give up such men to a state of hardness and impenitence . every degree of love to sin , proportionably enslaves men to the practice of it ; makes repentance as uneasie and difficult , as it is to pluck out a right eye , and cut off a right hand , 5 mat. 29 , 30 ; as painful as dying , as crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts , which few men will submit to , 8 rom. 13. 3 col. 5. an habit and custom of sin turns into nature , and is as difficultly altered as nature is ; can the aethiopian change his skin , or the leopard his spots ? then may you also do good , who are accustomed to do evil , 13 jer. 23. some sins are of such a hardening nature , that few men , who are once entangled by them , can ever break the snare ; such as adultery , or the love of strange women ; of whom solomon tells us , her house inclineth unto death , and her paths unto the dead ; none that go unto her return again , neither take they hold of the paths of life , 2 prov. 18 , 19. covetuousness is such another hardening sin , that our saviour tells us , it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle , than for a rich man to enter into heaven ; those who love , and those who trust in their riches , 10 matth. 23 , 24 , 25. those who have been once enlightned , and fall back again into infidelity ; who have been instructed in the reasons of faith , and the motives of obedience ; who have had the heavenly seed of god's word sown in their hearts , but have not brought forth the fruits of it , are near the curse of barren ground , which drinketh in the dews and rain of heaven , and brings forth briars and thorns , which is rejected , and is nigh unto cursing , whose end is to be burnt , 6 heb. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. when men obstinately resist the perpetual motions and solicitations of the holy spirit , he withdraws from them , and gives them up to their own counsels , as we leave off perswading those who will not be perswaded . and when the spirit of god forsakes such men , the evil spirit seizeth them , that spirit which ruleth in the children of disobedience , 2 eph. 3. for the world is divided into the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light , 1 col. 13 ; and those who are not under the government of the divine spirit , are led captive by the devil at his will , 2 tim. 2. 6 : and therefore our saviour hath taught us to pray to be delivered from evil , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the evil one , that is , from the devil : for that is a hopeless state , when god gives us up to the government of evil spirits : nay , when men harden themselves in sin , they are rejected by the good providence of god , which secures good men from , or delivers them out of temptations , as our saviour has taught us to pray , lead us not into temptation ; as a father keeps a watchful eye over a dutiful child , to preserve him from any harm , and to choose the most proper condition and circumstances of life for him , but suffers a prodigal to go where he pleases , and undo himself as fast as he can . and whoever considers the weakness and folly of humane nature , and the power of temptations , must needs conclude that man given up to ruine , who is rejected by the good spirit of god , and cast out of the care of his providence . into this miserable state men may bring themselves by sin , which though it does not make them uncapable of mercy , if they do repent , yet it makes it morally impossible , that they should repent . it is this the apostle to the hebrews warns them against , from the example of the hardness and infidelity of the israelites in the wilderness , of whom god swear , that they should not enter into his rest ; as appears from the application he himself makes of it , 3 heb. 12 , 13. take heed , brethren , lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief , in departing from the living god : but exhort one another daily , while it is called , to day ; lest any of you be hardned through the deceitfulness of sin . this is a plain account of that great question , concerning the length of the day of grace : men may out-live the time of repentance , may so harden themselves in sin , as to make their repentance morally impossible ; but they cannot out-live the mercies of god to true penitents : this is reason enough to discourage men from delaying their repentance , and indulging themselves in a vicious course of life , lest they should be hardned by the deceitfulness of sin , and should be forsaken by god ; but it is no reason to discourage true penitents from trusting in the mercy of god , how late soever their repentance be ; for while we live in this world , the door of grace and mercy is not shut against true penitents . 3. but yet the reasons of lengthning the day of grace and mercy , do not reach beyond this life : this sufficiently appears from what i have already said ; and for a further confirmation of it , i shall add but this one comprehensive reason , viz. that the grace of the gospel is confined to the church on earth ; and therefore this life is the only time to obtain the remission of our sins , and a title to future glory : we shall be finally absolved from all our sins , and rewarded with eternal life at the day of judgment ; but we must sue out our pardon , and make our calling and election sure in this world. the gospel of christ , which is the gospel of grace , and contains the promises of pardon and immortal life , is preached only to men on earth , and concerns none else . for this reason christ became man , cloathed with flesh and blood as we are , that he might be the saviour of mankind ; which he need not have done , had not their salvation been to be wrought in this world ; for could they have been saved in the next , his grace might have met them soon enough there : and therefore , at the birth of our saviour , the angels sang , glory be to god in the highest , on earth peace , good will towards men , 2 luke 14. the sacrifice of christ upon the cross , ( as all iewish sacrifices , which were types of the sacrifice of the cross , were ) was offered for the expiation of the sins of living men , or at least considered as living , not of the dead . he carried his blood into heaven , as the high-priest did the blood of the sacrifice into the holy of holies ) there to make expiation , and to interceed for us ; but this intercession , though made in heaven , relates only to men on earth , as his sacrifice did : the earthly tabernacle was a type of the church on earth , and that only , and the worshippers in it , was expiated by sacrifices . there are two sacraments whereby the grace of the gospel is applied to us , and which are the ordinary means of salvation , baptism and the lord's supper , and they are confined to the church on earth , and if they have not their effect here , they cannot have it in the next world : these unite us to christ , as members of his body , and then the holy spirit , which animates the body of christ , takes possession of us , renews and sanctifies us ; but if we prove dead and barren branches in this spiritual vine , if the censures of the church do not cut us off from the body of christ , death will , and then we can never be re-united to him , nor saved by him in the next world. faith in christ , and repentance from dead works , are the great gospel-terms of pardon and salvation , and these are confined to this world : there may be something like them in the next world ; such a faith as makes the devils tremble ; such a repentance as is nothing else but despairing agonies , and a hopeless and tormenting remorse ; but such a faith as purifies the heart , as conquers this present world , as brings forth the fruits of righteousness ; such a repentance as reforms our lives , as undoes all our past sins , as redresses the injuries we have done to our neighbours , and the scandal we have given to the world ; such a faith , and such a repentance , which alone are the true christian graces of faith and repentance , are proper only for this life , and can be exercised only in this life , while we have this world to conquer , and the flesh to subdue to the spirit , while we can restore our ill-gotten riches , and set a visible example of piety and vertue . from hence it is very evident , that no man , who dies in a state of sin and impenitence , can be saved by christ , and by the grace of the gospel in the next world , for the whole ministration of gospel-grace is confined to this life , and if they cannot be saved by christ , i know no other name , whereby they can be saved : and thus death puts an end to all the flattering hopes of sinners . 3. now if this life be our only state of trial and probation for eternity ; if death puts a final end to our day of grace and time of working , then death must translate us to an immutable and unchangeable state . by this i do not mean , that as soon as we go out of these bodies , our souls will immediately be as happy or miserable , as ever they shall be ; the perfect rewards of good men are reserved for the day of judgment , as the final punishments of bad men are ; when our lord shall say to those on his right hand , come ye blessed of my father , inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world : and to them on the left hand , go ye cursed into everlasting fire , prepared for the devil and his angels , 25 mat. 34 , 41. but though the happiness or miseries of the next world may increase , yet the state can never alter ; that is , if we die in a state of grace and favour with god , we shall always continue so ; if we die in a state of sin , under the wrath and displeasure of god , there is no altering our state in the other world ; we must abide under his wrath for ever . this is the necessary consequence of what i have already said , which all aimed at this point , that once dying puts us into an immutable and unchangeable state : and therefore i shall wave any further proof of this , and only desire you seriously to consider of it . 1. now first , since death puts an end to our day of grace , and determines our final state for ever , and this death comes but once , all men must confess of what mighty consequence it is to die well , that death find us well disposed and well prepared for another world. men use their utmost prudence and caution in doing that , which can be done but once for their whole lives , especially if the happiness of their whole lives depends on it ; for no errour can be corrected in what is to be done but once ; and certainly we have much more reason to prepare to die once , which translates us to an immutable state of happiness or misery . this ought to be the work and business of our whole lives , to prepare for death , which comes but once , but that once is for eternity : what unpardonable folly is it , for any man to be surprized by death ! to fall into the grave without thinking of it ! to commit a mistake , which may be retrieved again , to be guilty of some neglect and inadvertency , when the hurt we suffer by it , may be repair'd by future diligence and caution , is much more excusable , because it is not so fatal and irreparable a folly : in this case experience may teach wisdom , and wisdom is a good purchase , though we may pay dear for it : but a wise man will use great caution in making an experiment , which if it fail , will cost him his life , because that can never be tried a second time ; and experience is of no use in such things , as can be done but once . and this is the case of dying ; we can die but once , and if we miscarry that once , we are undone for ever : and what considering man would make such dangerous experiments , as sinnres do every day , when their souls are the price of the experiment ! who would try , how long death will delay its coming ? how long he may sin on safely , without thinking of death or judgment ? whether death will give him timely notice to repent ? or whether god will give him grace to repent , if it does ? who would venture the infinite hazards of a death-bed-repentance ? whether after a long life of sin and wickedness , a few distracted , confused , and almost despairing sighs and groans will carry him to heaven ? if such bold adventurers as these , when they have discovered their mistake and folly , could return back into this world , and live over their lives again , the hazard were not so great ; but this is an experiment not to be twice made : if they sin on , till they harden themselves in sin , and are forsaken of the grace of god ; if death comes long before they expected , and cut them off by surprize , and without warning ; if their dying and despairing agonies and horrours should not prove a true godly sorrow , not that repentance to salvation never to be repented of , they are lost to eternity : and what wise man would expose his soul to such a hazard as this ? who would not take care to make his calling and election sure , before death comes , and in a matter of such infinite concernment , wherein one miscarriage is irreparable , to prevent danger at a distance ? 2dly , we hence learn , how necessary it is for those who begin well , to persevere unto the end : it is the conclusion of our lives , which determines our future state ; as god expresly tells us by his prophet ezekiel , 18 ezek. 21 , 24. if the wicked will turn from all his sins , that he hath committed , and keep my statutes , and do that which is lawful and right , he shall surely live , he shall not die : all his transgressions that he hath committed , they shall not be mentioned unto him ; in his righteousness that he hath done , he shall live . — but when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness , and committeth iniquity , and doth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doth , shall he live ? all the righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned ; in his trespass that he hath trespassed , and in his sin that he hath sinned , in them shall he die . and throughout the new testament the reward is promised only to those who continue to the end . and what i have now discoursed , gives a plain account of this ; for our whole life is a state of trial and probation , and if we leave off before our work be done , if we stop or run backwards , before we come to the end of our race , we must lose our reward , our crown : the christian life is a state of warfare , and we know the last battel gives the final conquest : and this cannot be otherwise , because what comes last , undoes what went before ; when a wicked man turns from his wickedness , and does good , god in infinite mercy , thro' the merits and mediation of christ , will forgive his sins , because he has put them away from him , and undone them by repentance and a new life ; when a righteous man turns from his righteousness , and does wickedly , his righteousness shall be forgotten , because he has renounced it , and parted with it , and is a righteous man no longer : now when god comes to judge the world , he will judge men as he then finds them ; he will not inquire what they have been , but what they are ; he will not condemn a righteous man , because he has been wicked , nor justifie a wicked man , because he has been righteous ; for this would be to punish the righteous , and to reward the wicked : such as we are , when we die , such we shall continue for ever ; and therefore it is the last scene of our lives , which determines our future state . and should not this make us very jealous and watchful over ourselves ? to take heed , lest there be in any of us an evil heart of unbelief , in departing from the living god. looking diligently , lest any man fail of the grace of god ; lest any root of bitterness springing up , trouble you , and thereby many be defiled : lest after we have escaped the pollutions of the world , through the knowledge of the lord and saviour iesus christ , we are again entangled therein , and overcome , and it happen to us according to the true proverb , the dog is turned to his vomit again ; and the sow that was washed , to her wallowing in the mire . this , as the same apostle tells us , makes our latter end worse than the beginning ; for it had been better for us not to have known the way of righteousness , than after we have known it , to turn from the holy commandment delivered to us . let those consider this , who have been blessed with a religious education , and trained up in the exercises of piety and vertue ; who have preserved themselves from the pollutions of youthful lusts , and spent their vigorous age in the service of god ; can you be contented to lose all these hopeful beginnings ? to lose all your triumphs and victories over the world and the flesh ? when you have out-rid all the storms and hurricanes of a tempting world for so many years , will you suffer yourselves to be shipwracked in the haven ? when you are come within view of the promised land , will you suffer your hearts then to fail you ? will you then murmur and rebel against god , and die in the wilderness ? there has been a very warm dispute about the perseverance of saints , whether those who are once in a state of grace , shall always continue so ? i will not undertake to decide this controversie ; but thus much i will say , ( and that i think is all that is needful for a christian to know about it ) that to be in a state of grace , is to have an inward principle of holiness , which brings forth the fruits of a holy life ; that to persevere in a state of grace , is to persevere in the practice of holiness and vertue ; that many who have begun well , and have thought themselves , and have been thought by others , to be truly good men , have afterwards been overcome by the temptations of the world , and defiled themselves with the impure lusts of it ; that if such men ever were good men , and in a state of grace , they fall from grace when they forsake the paths of holiness ; and that those who do thus fall away , who after promising beginnings , do all the abominations of the wicked , and live and die in such a state , shall never enter into heaven : we shall receive our final doom and sentence according to that state and condition in which death finds us : what is said upon another account , that we must call no man happy before death , is true in this sence ; no man is a conqueror , but he who dies so : those men deceive themselves , who confidently pretend to be still in a state of grace and favour with god , because formerly they were good men , though now they are grown very bad : this is to persevere in a state of favour with god , without persevering in holiness , which overthrows the gospel of our saviour , and will miserably deceive those men , who have no better foundation for their hopes . 3. we hence learn , how dangerous it is to die in the actual commission of any known and wilful sin : such men go into the other world , and go to judgement with actual guilt upon them , they die in their sins ; for they could not repent of them before they died , because they died in the commission of them , and there is no repentance , and therefore no pardon in the next world. this has been , and very often is , the miserable , and i fear the hopeless state of a great many sinners : how many are there , who not only drink themselves into a feavour , which takes some time to kill them , and gives them some time to repent of their sins , and to ask god's pardon , but drink themselves dead , or which is much at one , as to this case , drink away their reason and senses , and then fall from their horses , or down a precipiece , and perish by some evil accident ; or when they are inflamed with wine , forget their old friendships , and fall by each others hands ? how many others have perished in the very act of adultery , or which is much the same , in quarrelling for a strumpet , in the rage and fury of lust ? how many die in the very act of theft and robbery ? all such men receive the present punishment of their sins in this world , and carry the unrepented guilt of them into the next ; and if men shall be damned , who die in their sins without repentance , such mens condition is desperate . and this may be the case of any man who ventures upon a wilful sin ; he may die in the very act of it , and then his repentance will come too late in the next world : and this so often happens , that no wise man would venture his soul upon it . but there are two sins especially , which this consideration should deter men from , viz. duelling and self-murder . when men have such a resentment of affronts and injuries , as to revenge themselves with their swords , and either to thirst after each others blood , or at least to stake their lives , and to venture killing or being killed , to decide the quarrel : these men have the hearts of murderers , who would kill if they could ; or at least will venture killing their brother to appease their resentments or revenge , which is a mortal and a murdering revenge , whether it murder or not ; and therefore if such men fall in the quarrel , as many do , without time to ask god's pardon with their last breath , they die under the guilt of murder unrepented of ; though they do not kill , but are killed , yet they die with murderous intentions , with a mortal hatred and revenge , for they would have killed , if they could : and st. iohn tells us , he that hateth his brother , is a murderer ; and we know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him , 1 john 3. 15. so that these duellers do not only venture their lives , but their souls too , if they fall in the quarrel : and how little soever they value their lives , it is a little too much to pawn their souls upon a point of honour . as for self-murder , if we will allow it to be a sin , it is certain that no man who commits it , can repent of it in this world , and there is no pardon for sins in the next world , which are not repented of in this . and yet why we should not think it as great a sin to murder ourselves , as to murder our brother , i cannot imagine , for it has all the marks of a very great sin upon it . it is as much murder to kill ourselves , as it is to kill another man ; and therefore it is a breach of the sixth commandment , thou shalt not kill : the reason against murder is the same , for in the image of god made he man , 9 gen. 6 ; and he who kills himself destroys god's image , as much as he who kills another man. the more unnatural the sin is , or the greater obligations we have to preserve the life of the person whom we kill , the greater the sin is : to murder a kind friend , and a benefactor , is a greater evil than to murder a stranger ; to murder a parent or a child , a wife or a husband , is still a greater evil , because they are so much nearer ourselves ; and if the nearness of the relation increases the sin , no body is so near to us as our selves , and therefore there is no such unnatural murder as this . the excuses which are made for self-murder , will not justifie the murder of any other man in the world : though we should see a friend whom we love like ourselves , labouring under intolerable pains , or insupportable misfortunes and calamities of life , though he should importune and beseech us to put an end to his sufferings , by putting an end to a miserable life ; though out of great kindness and compassion we heartily desire to follow him to his grave , yet we must not kill him ; neither the laws of god nor man will allow this : and yet if self-love be the measure of our love to other men , and will justifie self-murder , when we are grown weary of life , when we either despise the world , or think it best to make our escape out of it , i cannot imagine , why we may not do the same kindness for a friend or a brother , when he desires it , as we may do for ourselves ; the reason is the same in both , and if it will not justifie both , it can justifie neither . for there is no foundation , that i know of , for what some pretend , that god has given us greater power over our own lives , than over other mens : we find no such power given us in scripture , which is the only revelation of god's will ; and i am sure nature teaches us no such thing ; nay , nature teaches the quite contrary ; the natural aversions to death , and the natural principle of self-preservation , were not only intended to make us cautious of any hurt or mischief , which other men may do us , but to make us careful to do no hurt to , much less to destroy ourselves ; and therefore the voice of nature is , that we must preserve our own lives and being . when god made us , he did not make us the absolute lords and masters of our selves ; we cannot dispose of ourselves as we please , but are his creatures and subjects , and must receive laws from him , and that in such instances , wherein the injury is done only to ourselves : we must not abuse our own bodies by intemperance and luxury , or lust , though neither the publick , nor any private persons are injured by it ; and if we have not power over our own bodies in lesser instances , much less to kill them . and if it be a sin to destroy our own lives , it is the most mortal and damning sin , for it destroys soul and body together , because it makes our repentance impossible , unless men can repent of their sin , and obtain god's pardon for it , before they have committed it , or can repent and obtain their pardon in the next world. did men seriously consider this , it is impossible , that the greatest shame and infamy , want or suffering , or whatever it is , that makes them weary of life , should be thought so intolerable , as to make them force their passage into the other world , to escape it , when such a violent and unnatural escape will cost them their souls : men may be in such evil circumstances as make death desirable ; but no considering man will exchange the sufferings of this life , for the endless miseries of the next : if we cannot destroy our lives , and put an end to our present sufferings , without destroying our souls too , we must be contented to live on , and bear our lot patiently in this world , which , whatever it is , is much more easie and tolerable than to be eternally miserable . and yet god forbid , that i should pronounce a final and peremptory sentence upon all those unfortunate persons who have died by their own hands : we know not what allowances god may make for some mens opinion of the lawfulness of it ; and for the distraction of other mens thoughts and passions thro' a setled melancholy , or some violent temptation : my business is not to limit the soveraign and prerogative grace of god , but to declare the nature of the thing according to the terms of the gospel : to murder ourselves , is the most unnatural murder ; it is a damning sin , and such a sin as no man can repent of in this world , and therefore unless god forgive it without repentance , it can never be forgiven ; and the gospel of christ gives us no commission to preach forgiveness of sin , without repentance ; the gospel-grace , which only forgives penitents , cannot save such men ; and he is a very bold man , and ventures very far upon unpromised and uncovenanted mercy , who will commit a sin , which the grace of the gospel cannot pardon . all that i have to add under this head , is the case of those who die in despair of god's mercy : this is commonly thought a very hopeless state ; for to despair of the mercy of god , is a great sin , and therefore such men die in the actual commission of sin unrepented of ; and by-standers are apt to suspect their despair to be little better than their final doom and sentence ; and yet many times we see men labouring under despair in their last agonies , who have to all outward appearance lived very innocent and vertuous lives ; and it is hard to judge so severely of them , as to think they were secret hypocrites , and that god has finally rejected them , because they pass such a severe judgment upon themselves . now i confess , despair is as uncomfortable a state as any man can die in ; but i cannot think it so fatal and dangerous as some imagine ; for let us consider , what the nature of despair is , and wherein the sinfulness of it consists . to disbelieve the promises of grace and mercy , made to true penitent sinners by jesus christ , is infidelity , not despair : and this indeed is a great and unpardonable sin , for it is to renounce the faith of christ , and the grace of the gospel ; but this is not what we commonly call despair : such men believe the gospel of christ , and all the promises of it , as firmly as others do ; they do not doubt but god will forgive all true penitents , through the merits and mediation of jesus christ ; and therefore are as true and sincere believers , as those who do not despair ; but their despair is in the application of these promises to themselves ; that is , they fear that they are not within the terms and conditions of gospel-grace ; that they are not true penitents ; that their day of grace is expired , and now they shall not receive the blessing , though , as esau did , they seek it earnestly with tears ; or it may be , that they are reprobates who have no right to the promises of the gospel . now if these men may upon all other accounts be very good christians , but are either oppressed with melancholy , or disturbed with false and mistaken notions of religion , can we think that their melancholy or mistakes , which make them pass so false a judgment upon themselves , shall make god condemn them too , who knows them better than they know themselves ? should a man , who has a delirous fancy , accuse himself of theft , or murder , or treason , which he was never guilty of ; would a just and righteous judge , who certainly knows , that he is not gulty of these crimes , condemn him , only because he condemns himself ? suppose a man , who is in the right way to heaven , should be perswaded by some travellers he meets , that he has mistaken his way ; and upon this he should fall into great horrors and agonies , and give himself for lost ; is this man ever the further off of heaven , because he is perswaded that he has mistaken the way ? the false judgments dying men make of themselves , either through enthusiasm , presumption , or despair , shall not determine their final state : men may go to hell with all the triumphs of a deluded fancy , which promises nothing less than eternal glories ; and those who go trembling out of this world , may find themselves happily mistaken in the next . it is a wrong notion of justifying faith , which makes men conclude despair to be so damning and unpardonable a sin : if justifying faith were nothing else but a strong belief and perswasion , that we are justified , there were good reason to conclude despair to be a mortal sin , because it is a direct contradiction to justifying faith : nay , if the justifying act of faith were an actual reliance and recumbency on christ for salvation , despair must be very mortal , because while men are under these agonies , they do not , they cannot rely on christ for salvation ; for they believe , that christ has cast them off , and will not save them : but if to believe in christ , that he is the saviour of the world , that he has made expiation for our sins , and intercedes for us at the right hand of god , and is able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto god by him ; that he will save all true penitent sinners , and will save us , if we be true penitents ; i say , if such a faith as this , when it brings forth the genuine fruits of repentance , and a holy life , be a true justifing faith , this is consistent with the blackest despair ; and then men may be in a justified state , though they are never so strongly perswaded , that they are reprobates : a very good man may have his fancy disturbed , and may pass a false judgment upon himself ; but this is no reason for god to condemn him , no more than god will justifie a presuming and enthusiastick hypocrite , because he justifies himself . 4. if death put a final end to our work and labour , and shuts up our accounts , then it concerns us to do all the good that we can , while we live : what ever our hand findeth to do , we should do it with all our might , seeing there is no wisdom , nor knowledge , nor working in the grave , whither we are hasting . not that the next world is an idle and unactive state , where we shall know nothing , and have nothing to do ; but death puts an end to our working for the other world : nothing can be brought to our account at the day of judgment , but the good we do while we live here ; for this onely we shall receive our reward , proportionable to the encrease and wise improvement of our talents . and is not this a good reason why we should begin to serve god betimes , and to take all opportunities of doing good , since we have only a short life to work in for eternity . there are great and glorious rewards prepared for good men , but those shall have the brightest crown , who do the most good in the world ; who are rich in good works , and lay up for themselves treasures in heaven . indeed the meanest place in heaven is a happiness too great for us to conceive , i 'm sure much greater than our greatest deserts ; but since our bountiful lord will reward all the good service we do , why should we neglect doing any good , when such neglects will lessen our reward ? why should we be contented to lose any degrees of glory ? this is a holy ambition , to be as good , and to be as happy as god can make us . this is never thought of by those men who have no greater designs than to escape hell ; but as for the glories of heaven , they can be contented with the least share of them . no man will ever get to heaven , who so despises the glories of it : and if a late repentance should open our eyes , not only to see our sins , but to alter our opinions of this world and of the next , yet we can never recal our past time , and that little time that remains , which is the very dregs and sediment of our lives , the dead and unactive scene , will minister very few opportunities of doing good , and if it did , we are capable of doing very little , and if we get to heaven , that will be all ; but the bright and triumphant crowns shall be bestowed upon those who have improved their time and their talents better . it is the good we do , while we live , that shall be rewarded ; and therefore we must take care to do good while we live : it is well when men who do no good while they live , will remember to do some good when they die . but if god should accept such presents as these , yet it will make great abatements in the account , that they kept their riches themselves as long as they could , and would part with nothing to god , till they could keep it no longer : it is not the gift , but the mind of the giver that is accepted . under the gospel god is pleased with a living sacrifice ; but the offerings of the dead ( and such these testimentary charities are , which are intended to have no effect as long as we live , ) are no better than dead sacrifices ; and it may be questioned , whether they will be brought into the account of our lives , if we did no good while we lived : the case is different as to those who did all the good they could , while they lived , and when they saw they could live no longer , took care to do good after death ; such surviving charities as these prolong our lives , and add daily to our account ; when such men are removed into the other world , they are doing good in this would still ; they have a stock a going below , the increase and improvements of which will follow them into the other world : men who have been charitable all their lives , may prolong their charity after death , and this will be brought to the account of their lives ; but i cannot see , how a charity , which commences after death , can be called doing good while we live ; and then it cannot belong to the account of our lives : all that can be said for it is this : that they make their wills , whereby they bequeath these charities , while they live , and therefore their bequeathing these charities is an act of their lives ; but they never intend they shall take place while they live , but after their death : and when they never intend their charity to be an act of their lives , i know not why god should account it so . these death-bed charities are too like a death-bed repentance ; men seem to give their estates to god and the poor , just as they part with their sins , when they can keep them no longer : this is much such a charity , as it is devotion to bequeath our dead bodies to the church or chancel , which we would never visit while we lived . but yet , as i have already intimated , this is the only way to prolong our lives , and to have an increasing account after death , to lay the foundations of some great good to the world , which shall out live us ; which like seed sown in the earth , shall spring up , and yeild a plentiful harvest , while we sleep sweetly in the dust ; such as , the religious education of our children and families , which may propagate itself in the world , and last many ▪ ages after we are dead ; the endowment of publick schools and hospitals ; in a word , whatever is for the relief of the necessities , or for the instruction and good government of mankind , when we are gone : to do good while we live , and to lay designs of great good to future generations , will both come into our account ; and this may extend the account of our lives , much beyond the short period of them in this world. 5. if death puts an end to our account , methinks a dying-bed is a little of the latest to begin it ; for this is to begin just where we must end . the account of our lives , is the account of the good or evil we have done while we lived : and what account can a dying man give of this , who has spent his whole life in sin and wickedness ? if he must be judged according to what he hath done in the body , how sad is his account , and how impossible is it for him to mend it now ? for when he is just a dying , it is too late for him to begin to live : if without holiness no man shall see god , how hopeless is his condition , who has lived a wicked and profligate life all his days , and is now past living , and therefore past living a holy life ? a man who is confined to a sick and dying bed , is uncapable of exercising the vertues of life ; his time of work is over , almost as perfectly over as if he were dead ; and therefore his account is finished , and he must expect his reward according to what he has already done . no , you 'll say , he may still repent of his sins , and a true penitent shall find mercy even at his last gasp . now i readily grant , that all true penitents shall be saved , whensoever they truly repent ; but it is hard to think , that any dying sorrows , or the dying vows and resolutions of sinners , shall be accepted by god for true repentance : the mistakes of this matter are very fatal , and therefore i shall briefly explain it . in expounding the promises of the gospel , we must take care to reconcile the gospel to itself , and not make one part of it contradict or overthrow another : now as the gospel promises pardon of sin to true repentance , so it makes holiness of life as necessary a condition of salvation , as true repentance : without holiness no man shall see god. god will render to every man according to his deeds : to them who by patient continuance in well doing , seek for glory , and honour , and immortality , eternal life : but unto them that are contentious , and do not obey the truth , but obey unrighteousness , indignation and wrath , tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man , that doth evil ; — but glory , honour , and peace , to every man that worketh good . be not deceived , god is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth , that shall he also reap : for he that soweth to his flesh , shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the spirit , shall of the spirit reap life everlasting . the promises of forgiveness to repentance , are not more express than these texts are , which declare , that we shall be rewarded according to our works ; and we have as much reason to believe the one as the other ; and if we believe the gospel , we must believe them both ; and then repentance and a holy life are both necessary to salvation : and then the dying sorrows of sinners , who have lived very wicked lives , and are past mending them now , cannot be true saving repentance . if sorrow for sin , without a holy life , can carry men to heaven , then i 'm sure holiness is not necessary , then men may see god without holiness ; and then the promises of pardon to repentance ( if this dying sorrow be true repentance ) overthrows the necessity of a holy life ; the necessity of a holy life , contradicts the promises of pardon to such penitents , and then either one or both of them must be false . to state this matter plainly , and in a few words , we must distinguish between two kinds of repentance : 1. the baptismal repentance . 2. repentance upon a relapse , or falling into any known and wilful sin. i. by baptismal repentance i mean , that repentance which is necessary in adult persons , in order to their receiving christian baptism : this is the repentance which is most frequently mentioned in the new testament , and to which the promise of remission and forgiveness is annexed ; this our saviour preached , repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand , 4 matth. 17. this he gave authority to his apostles to preach , that repentance and remission of sins , should be preached in his name among all nations , 24 luke 47. now this repentance , both as to iews and heathens , who embraced the faith of christ , was a renouncing all their former sins , and false , superstitious , or idolatrous worship ; and this qualified them for baptism , in which they obtain'd the remission of all their sins in the name of christ ; and for this reason remission of sins is promised to repentance , because all such penitents are received to baptism , which is the washing of regeneration , which washes away all their sins , and puts them into a state of grace and favour with god ; as st. peter tells the iews , repent , and be baptized every one of you in the name of iesus christ , for the remission of sins , 2 acts 38. and much to the same purpose ananias told st. paul , arise , and be baptized , and wash away thy sins , calling on the name of the lord , 22 acts 16. and i know not any one . text in the new testament , wherein the remission of sins is absolutely promised to repentance , but what must be understood of this baptismal repentance ; and then repentance and remission of sin are inseparably annexed , because such penitents wash away all their sins in baptism ; and come pure and undefiled out of that mystical fountain , which is set open for sin and for uncleanness to wash in , and to be clean . now i grant , should any person who comes to baptism rightly qualified and disposed , with a sincere repentance and stedfast faith in christ , die soon after he is baptized , before he has time and opportunity to exercise any of the graces of the christian life , such a man shall go to heaven without actual holiness ; the remission of his sins in baptism , upon his repentance , will save him , though he have not time to bring forth the fruits of repentance in a holy life ; and this is the only case i know of , wherein a penitent can be saved without actual holiness , viz. by baptismal grace and regeneration . only the primitive church , and i think with very good reason , allowed the same to martyrdom , when it prevented the baptism of young converts , as we know under the pagan persecutions , young converts who made bold confessions of their faith in christ , were hurried away to martyrdom , before they had opportunity of being baptized ; but such men were baptized in their own bloud , and that supplied the want of water-baptism , which they could not have : now in this case also , if martyrdom be instead of baptism , as the primitive church thought it , then had any heathen been converted from a lewd and profligate life , to the faith of christ , and been immediately apprehended , and halled to martyrdom , before he could either be baptized , or give any other testimony of the reformation of his life and manners , but by dying a martyr , this man also would go to heaven without actual holiness of life , as a baptized penitent , who dies immediately after his baptism , shall . and this seems to me , to give the best account of the case of the penitent thief upon the cross , which one example has encouraged so many sinners to delay their repentance to the last minute , and has destroyed so many souls by such delays . his case seems to be this : it is probable , he had heard of christ , and the fame of his great miracles before , and that opinion some had of him , that he was that messias whom god had promised to send into the world ; for we can hardly think , that any man , who lived in those days , should never have heard of christ , whose fame went through the whole nation : but yet the course of life this thief lead , gave him no great curiosity to inquire into such matters , till he was apprehended for robbery , and condemned to die at the same time with christ ; this extraordinary accident made him more curiously inquire after him , and learn all the circumstances of his apprehension , and trial , and usage , and behaviour , and answers , especially when he saw him , and was to die with him ; and in short , he observed so much as convinced him , that he was the true messias , though he saw him nailed in so shameful a manner to the cross. now if this was his case , ( and we must suppose this , or something like it , unless we will say , that he was miraculously inspired upon the cross , with the faith of christ , without knowing any thing of him before , which has no foundation in the story , and is without any president or example ; i say , if this was his case , ) according to the principles laid down , we must grant , that if this thief had renounced his wicked course of life , and professed his faith in christ , and been baptized in his name , though he had immediately suffered upon the cross , he must have gone directly to heaven or paradise , as christ promised him he should , by vertue of the remission of all his sins in baptism : nay , we must grant farther , that if instead of baptism , he had at that time died a martyr for the profession of his faith in christ ; this would have supplied the place of baptism , and translated him to paradise : all then that we have to enquire is , whether his confession of christ upon the cross , might not as well supply the want of water-baptism , as martyrdom ; nay , whether it were not equivalent to martyrdom it self , and might not reasonably be accepted by our saviour as such . water-baptism he could not have , a martyr he could not die , for he died a malefactor , but he confessed his faith in christ , when he saw him hanging upon the cross , which was a more glorious act of faith , than to have died upon the cross for him : he confessed christ when his own disciples fled from him , and when peter himself denied him , and discovered his glory through the meanest disguise , that ever it was concealed under even in this world ; and why should not this pass for the faith and confession of martyrdom ? and then the thief upon the cross was saved as by baptism ; which is , no tthe putting away of the filth of the flesh , but the answer of a good conscience towards god , 1 pet. 3. 21. which description of baptism , gives us a plain reason , why martyrdom should supply the place of baptism ; and is as good a reason , why the thief 's confession of christ upon the cross , should do so . this example then of the thief upon the cross , is no reasonable encouragement to any baptized christian , to live a wicked life , and delay his repentance till the hour of death , in hopes of being saved at last , as he was ; for he was saved , as new repenting converts are , by baptism , not as baptized sinners hope to be , by a death-bed sorrow , and remorse of concience . and yet this is the only example , which with any shew of reason is alledged to prove the sufficiency of a death-bed repentance ; for the parable of the labourers , who were called to work in the vineyard at different hours , some early in the morning , others at the third , the sixth , the eleventh hour of the day , is nothing at all to this purpose : the several hours of the day in that parable , do not signifie the several hours of mens lives , but the different ages of the world ; and therefore those labourers , who are called into the vineyard about the eleventh hour of the world , that is , towards the end , or in the last age of the world , might be called at the beginning of their lives , and work on to the end of them : for the design of that parable is to shew , that the gentiles , who were called into the vine-yard , or received into the church of christ towards the conclusion of the world , should be admitted to equal priviledges and rewards with the iews , who were god's ancient people , and had been called into the vine-yard early in the morning , which occasioned their murmuring against the good man of the house ; as we know the iews murmured upon this account ; and nothing more prejudiced them against the gospel of our saviour , than that the gentiles were received into the church without circumcision . the same thing our saviour represents in the parable of the prodigal : the return of the prodigal to his father's house , is the conversion of the gentiles , who were the younger brother , and had been a great prodigal for many ages : the elder brother , who always lived at home with his father , was the iewish church ; but when this young prodigal was received by his father with feasting , and musick , and all the expressions of joy ; the elder brother grew jealous of it , and thought himself much injured by his father's fondness for the returning prodigal , and refused to come in , and bear his part in the solemnity ; as the iews rejected the gospel , because the gentiles were received into the church . and that this must be the true meaning of the parable of the labourers , appears from this , that those who were called into the vine-yard at the eleventh hour , received a reward equal to those who had born the heat and burden of the day ; which is agreeable enough , if we expound it of different ages of the church , for there is great reason , why the gentiles , though they came later into the vine-yard , should be made at least equal with the iews , who were god's ancient people : but if we expound this of entring into the vine-yard at different ages of our life , it seems very unequal , that those who begin a life of vertue just at the conclusion of their lives , should be equally rewarded with those who have spent their whole lives in the service of god ; that is , that these who do very little good , shall receive as great a reward as those who do a hundred times as much ; which is a direct contradiction to the scope and design of our saviour's parables about the pounds and talents , 25 matt. 14 , &c. 19 luke 12 ▪ &c. but suppose it were to be understood , not of the iewish and christian church , but of particular christians , yet their being called to work in the vine-yard , at what hour soever it was , though the eleventh hour , was their first admission into the christian church , their first conversion to the faith of christ , and from this time they laboured in the vine-yard , lived a holy and religious life ; and i readily grant , should a iew , a turk , or a pagan , be converted to christianity in the eleventh hour , in his declining age , and from that time live in obedience to the gospel of christ , there is no doubt but he shall be greatly rewarded : but what is this to any of us , who were born of christian parents , baptized in our very infancy , instructed in the christian religion from the very beginning , and have always professed the faith of christ , but lived like pagans and infidels ! we were not called into the vineyard at the eleventh hour , but early in the morning ; and though men who were called at the last hour , shall be rewarded for that hours work ; this does not prove , that men , who enter into the vineyard in the morning , and play or riot away their time till the eleventh hour , shall receive a day's wages for an hour's work . but suppose this too , yet it will not answer the case of a death-bed repentance ; such men delay not till the eleventh hour , but till night comes , when they can do no work at all ; whereas those who came last into the vineyard , wrought an hour ; now that god in infinite grace and goodness will reward men for one hour's work , does not prove , that he will reward those who do no work , but spend their whole day idlely or wickedly , and only ask his pardon for not working at night . ii. but what a fatal cheat these men put upon themselves , will better appear , if we consider the second kind of repentance , which is repentance after baptism , when men have relapsed into the commission of new sins , after they have washed away all their old sins in the laver of regeneration ; which is the only notion of repentance concerned in this question ; for such sinners , when they come to die , are to repent of a whole life spent in wickedness , after baptism ; and this extreamly alters the case , for though faith and repentance , ( as that repentance signifies a sorrow for past sins , and the purposes and resolutions of a new life ) be the only conditions of baptismal remission and justification ; yet when we are baptized , we then covenant with god for an actual obedience and holiness of life ; to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts , and to live soberly , righteously , and godly in this present world : and therefore meer repentance , or a sorrow for sin , with the most solemn resolutions and vows of a new life ( which is all the repentance dying men can have ) cannot according to the terms of the gospel be accepted instead of the obedience and holiness of our lives . had the gospel said , you shall either abstain from all sin , and do good while you live , or repent of all your sins , when you die ; this had been a sufficient encouragement for a death-bed repentance ; but when holiness of life is made the necessary condition of seeing god , and the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men ; when we are so expresly forewarned , that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god : be not deceived , neither fornicators , nor idolaters , nor aduliers , nor effeminate , nor abusers of themselves with mankind , nor thieves , nor covetuous , nor drunkards , nor extortioners , shall inherit the kingdom of god : when our saviour expresly tells us , that it is only the doers of the word are blessed ; that not every one that saith lord , lord , shall enter into the kingdom of heaven , but he that doth the will of my father , which is in heaven ; that as for all others , what pretences soever they make , he will profess to them , i never knew you , depart from me ye that work iniquity : i say , whoever after such express declarations as these , can perswade himself , that sorrow for sin , and some good resolutions and fair promises upon a death-bed , shall carry him to heaven , though he has done no good in his life , and has been guilty of all , or many of those sins which the gospel has threatned with damnation , makes void the whole gospel of our saviour . but you 'll say , is there no place then for repentance under the gospel ? no remission of sins committed after baptism ? god forbid ! for who then could be saved ? our saviour has taught us to pray every day , forgive us our trespasses , as we forgive them , that trespass against us ; and has taught us to forgive our brother , though he offend against us seventy times seven , in imitation of god's goodness in forgiving us ; and if we must forgive so often , surely god will forgive more than once . but then repentance after baptism requires not only a sorrow for sin , and some good purposes and resolutions of a new life for the future , but the actual forsaking of sin , and amendment of our lives : in baptism god justifies the ungodly , 4 rom. 5 ; that is , how wicked soever men have been , whenever they repent of their sins , renounce their former wicked practices , and believe in christ , and enter into covenant with him by baptism ; all their former sins are immediately forgiven and washed away , without expecting the actual reformation of their lives : this was plainly the case both of iewish and heathen converts , wh●●●pon the profession of faith in christ , and renouncing their former wicked lives , whatever they had been , were immediately received to baptism ; as st. peter exhorted the iews , repent , and be baptized every one of you in the name of iesus christ , for the remission of sins , and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost . and the same day there were three thousand baptized : this is gospel-grace , which is the purchase of christ's blood , that the greatest sinners , upon their repentance and faith in christ , are received to mercy , and wash away all their sins in baptism ; but when they are in covenant , they shall then be judged according to the terms and conditions of that covenant , which requires the practice of an universal righteousness ; such persons must not expect , as st paul reasons , that if they continue still in sin , grace will abound ; the very covenant of grace , which we enter into at baptism , confutes all such ungodly hopes ; for how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein : know ye not , that so many of us as were baptized into iesus christ , were baptized into his death ; therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death , that like as christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father , so we also should walk in newness of life , 6 rom. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. this is the difference st. paul makes between the grace of the gospel in receiving the greatest sinners to baptism , and justifying them by the blood of christ ; and what the gospel requires of baptized christians to continue in this justified state : in the first case nothing is required but faith and repentance , upon which account we are so frequently said to be justified by faith , not by the deeds of the law ; to be justified freely by his grace , through the redemption that is in christ iesus : to be saved by grace thro' faith ; not of works least any man should boast . and i believe upon inquiry it will be found , that justification by faith always relates to this baptismal justification , when by baptism we are received into covenant with god , and into a justified state , only for the sake of christ , and through faith in his blood ; which one thing well considered , would put an end to most of the disputes about justification , and about faith and works , which i cannot explain now ; but shall only observe , that the constant opposition between justification by the faith of christ , and justification by circumcision , and the works of the law , to the observation of which they were obliged by circumcision , is a manifest proof , that justification by faith , is our justification by the faith of christ in baptism , which is our admission into the christian church , makes us the members of christ , and the children of god , which is a state of grace and justification ; as circumcision formerly made them god's peculiar people in covenant with him , which is the justification of circumcision : and justification by faith , and justification by circumcision , would not be duly opposed , if they did not relate to the same kind of justification , that is , that justification which is the immediate effect of our being in covenant with god. but now , when we are justified by a general repentance and faith in christ at baptism , we also vow a conformity to the death of christ , by dying to sin , and walking in newness of life ; that is , we vow an universal obedience to all the laws of righteousness , which the gospel requires of us , as circumcision made them debtors to the whole law ; which is the reason why the works of the law , and that evangelical righteousness , which the faith of christ requires of us , are so often opposed in this dispute , the one the righteousness of the law , or of works , the other the righteousness of faith ; and therefore as circumcision could not justifie those who transgressed the law , no more will faith justifie those who disobey the gospel ; but the righteousness of the law must be fulfilled in us , who walk not after the flesh , but after the spirit . now the necessary consequence of this is , that meer sorrow for sin , and the meer vows and resolutions of obedience , without actual holiness and obedience of life , according to the terms and conditions of the gospel , will not save a baptized christian ; for meer sorrow for sin , and vows of obedience , will be accepted only in baptism ; but when we are baptized we must put our vows in execution , or we fall from our baptismal grace and justification : and therefore when we relapse into sin after baptism , no repentance will be accepted but that which actually reforms our lives ; for baptismal grace is not ordinarily repeated , no more than we can repeat our baptism . this i take to be the true meaning of that very difficult place , 6 heb. 4 , 5 , 6. for it is impossible for those who were once enlightned , and have tasted of the heavenly gift , and were made partakers of the holy ghost , and have tasted the good word of god , and the powers of the world to come ; if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance , seeing they crucify to themselves the son of god afresh , and put him to open shame . this severe passage occasioned some dispute about the canonical authority of this epistle ; for it was thought , that the apostle here excluded all men from the benefit of repentance , who fell into sin again after baptism : but it is certain this is not the apostle's meaning , nor do the words import any such doctrine ; but his meaning is , either that men who have been baptized , and thoroughly instructed in the christian religion , may sin themselves into an impossibility of repentance , ( which is the most ordinary interpretation of the words , and which sence i gave before of them , and is in part the true sence , though i think not the whole ) or that men after baptism may fall into such a state , as nothing can deliver them out of , but baptismal grace and regeneration ; and since baptism cannot be repeated , the state of such men is hopeless and desperate , according to the terms of the gospel , however god may deal with them by a soveraign and prerogative grace ; for tho' we can expect and rely on no other grace , but what god has promised in his gospel , yet god does not absolutely confine himself , nor must we confine his grace : and this he tells us is the case of all apostates from the christian faith : the understanding of this is necessary to my present purpose , and therefore i shall briefly explain it : 1. that the apostle here speaks of persons who were baptized , is plain from the words , those who were once enlightned , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those who have been once baptized ; for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient writers signifies baptism ; as iustin martyr himself tells us in his second apology , that baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or illumination , because their minds are enlightned by it ; and being once enlightned , plainly refers it to baptism , which can be administred but once ; and what follows proves this to be the meaning of it , and have tasted of the heavenly gift ; that is , saith st. chrysostom , received remission of sins in baptism ; and were made partakers of the holy ghost , the holy spirit being given at baptism ; and have tasted of the good word of god , been instructed in the doctrines of the gospel , which in the apostolick age immediately followed baptism ; for men were then admitted to baptism immediately upon their profession of repentance and faith in christ , and were afterwards instructed in the christian religion ; and the powers of the world to come ; that is , those miraculous gifts and powers which were bestowed on the apostles for a confirmation of the faith of christ , and which most christians did in some degree or other partake of in baptism . this is a plain description of baptism , with the effects and consequents of it . 2. that he speaks of such as after baptism totally apostatize from the faith of christ , is as plain ; for they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , those who fall away ; from what ? from their christian profession , which they made at their baptism ; that is , who renounce the faith of christ , and turn iews or heathens again ; for these men crucify to themselves the son of god afresh , and put him to open shame : that is , they declare him to be an impostor , as the iews did when they crucified him , which is as much crucifying him again , and exposing him to publick shame and infamy , as they can possibly do : but now this description can relate only to total apostates ; for whatever sins professed christians are guilty of , though thereby they reproach their lord and saviour , yet they do not declare him to be an impostor , who justly suffered on the cross , and whom they would condemn to the same ignominious death again , if they could ; nay , those who are conquered by some powerful and surprizing fears to deny christ , as peter did , or to offer sacrifice to idols , as many christians did under the heathen persecutions , and recover themselves again by repentance , are not included in this severe sentence ; for such men do really believe in christ still , do not heartily renounce their baptismal faith , and therefore do not lose their baptism , though in word and deed at present they deny christ ; the case of such men is very dangerous , for our saviour tells us , whosoever shall deny me before men , him will i also deny before my father which is in heaven , 10 mat. 33. those who through fear of men persist in such a denial , shall not be saved by a secret and dissembled faith ; for we must not only believe in christ , but we must openly profess our faith in him : but such men may be recovered by repentance , and by a bold confession of christ in new dangers and temptations ; these are lapsed christians , but not apostates , as iulian was , who hated the name and religion of christ ; and therefore they were admitted to repentance in the christian church , as not having lost their baptismal faith , though through fear they denied it . 3. of these total apostates , the apostle tells us , that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as st. chrysostom renders it , to make them new creatures again by baptismal repentance ; for so he tells us , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that to be renewed is to be made new , which can be done only by baptism , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; baptism only can make us new creatures . the danger then of these mens case , as the apostle represents it , is this : that they having totally apostatized from the faith of christ , together with their faith have lost their baptism , and are become iews and pagans again ; now iews and pagans can never be made christians without baptism , wherein they are regenerated and new made ; and by the same reason these apostatized christians , who are become iews and pagans , can never become christians again , unless they be rebaptized ; and that they cannot be , because there is but one baptism in the christian church : and therefore , though we could suppose , that they should believe again , and repent of their sins , they could never recover a legal right and title to mercy and the promises of the gospel-covenant ; faith and repentance will not justifie a heathen without baptism , for he that believes and is baptized shall be saved , are the express terms of the covenant ; and therefore the condition of apostates is very hopeless , who are relapsed into such a state , that nothing but baptismal grace and regeneration , nothing but being new made , and new born , can save them ; and that they cannot have , for they must not be baptized again . a christian must be but once born , no more than a man is ; which possibly is the reason why st. peter tells us of such apostates , that their later end is worse with them than their beginning , 2 pet. 2. 20. for iews and heathens , how wicked soever they were , might wash away all their sins in baptism ; but such apostates are like a sow that was washed , that returns again to her wallowing in the mire : when they had washed away their sins and infidelity in baptism , they return to their forsaken paganism again , and lose the effect of their first washing , and there is no second baptismal washing to be had . the apostle does not say , that it is impossible these men should be saved , but it is impossible they should be regenerated again by baptism , which is the only gospel-state of salvation : if any such men be saved , they must be saved , as i observed before , by uncovenanted grace and mercy ; they are in the state of unbaptized iews and heathens , not of christians , who have a covenant-right to god's promises : and i would desire the baptized atheists and infidels of our age to consider of this , whose case is so very like this , if it be not the same , that it should make them afraid of setting up for wits , at such infinite peril of their souls . to apply this then to our present purpose : what i have now discoursed plainly shews , that a baptized christian must not always expect to be saved by such grace , as saves and justifies in baptism ; baptismal grace is inseparably annexed to baptism , and can be no more repeated than baptism . this makes the case of apostates so desparate , that infidelity can be washed away only in baptism , and those who apostatize after baptism can never be rebaptized again ; and therefore can never have any covenant-title to pardon and forgiveness . and this proportionably holds good in our present case ; the grace of baptism washes away all the sins of our past lives , how many , how great soever they have been , only upon our profession of our faith in christ , and repentance of all our sins , and vows of obedience to the laws of christ for the future ; but whoever after baptism lives a wicked and profligate life , and hopes to be saved at last only by faith in christ , and sorrow for his sins , and vows of living better , when he is just a dying , will be miserably mistaken ; for this is onely the grace of baptism , which can never be repeated , not the rule and measure whereby god will judge baptized christians , who have had time and opportunity of exercising those christian graces which they vowed at their baptism . a man who retains the faith of christ , though he lives wickedly , does not forfeit his baptism , but shall be forgiven whenever he repents , and forsakes his sins , and lives a holy life ; but if he delays this so long , that he has no time to amend his life , that he can do nothing , but be sorry for his sins , and vow a new life , i cannot promise him , that this shall be accepted at the hour of death , because the gospel requires a holy life , not meerly a death-bed sorrow and remorse for sin : sorrow for sin , and vows of a new life , will be accepted at baptism , as the beginnings of a new life , but that is no reason why they should be accepted at our death , when they are only the forrowful conclusion of a wicked life : god will receive us to grace and mercy at baptism upon our solemn vows of living to him ; but he has no where promised to accept of our dying vows , instead of holiness and obedience , as a recompence for a whole life spent in wickedness and folly . it is very seldom that such dying sorrows , or dying vows are sincere and hearty , but were they never so sincere , ( as sometimes though very rarely we see that men who recover from a dangerous sickness keep the vows and promises they then made , and that is a good proof , that they were very sincere in making them ) yet i do not know any one promise in scripture to a dying repentance ; the gospel requires actual holiness of life ; and when god cuts off such men in their sins , without allowing them any time to reform their lives , it is very suspicious , that he rejects their sorrows and their vows ; as wisdom threatens , 1 prov. 24 , &c. because i have called and ye refused , i have stretched out my hand , and no man regarded — i also will laugh at your calamity , and mock when your fear cometh : — then shall they call upon me , but i will not answer ; they shall seek me early , but they shall not find me . i will not pre-judge the final state of these men , but if god accept of such a death-bed repentance , which cannot produce the actual fruits , of righteousness , it is more than he has promised , and more than he has given us authority to preach : and we should consider , what infinite hazard we run by such delays of repentance , that we cannot be saved by the express terms of the gospel , but if we be saved , we must be saved by an unpromised and uncovenanted grace and mercy ; which , how good soever god be , we have no reason to rely on . this , i know , will be thought very severe , but i cannot help it : it may terrify dying sinners , but there is less danger in that , than in nursing men up in the deluding hopes of a death-bed repentance , which renders all the arguments and motives to a holy life ineffectual , and i fear , eternally destroys as many as trust in it . if you ask , why faith and repentance , without the actual obedience of our lives , should not as well be accepted by god on our death-bed , as it is at our baptism ? i shall ask another very plain question , why a husbandman who hires labourers into his vineyard in the morning , receives them into his service , protection , and pay , only upon their promise to be faithful and diligent in his work , before they have done any thing ; i say , when these men have loitered away the day without working , why should not he reward them at night , because they then also profess themselves very sorry , that they did not work , and make a great many promises and vows , that if they were to begin the day again , they would ? a promise of faithfulness and diligence was reason enough why he should take them into his service , but their sorrow for not working , and their resolutions of working , when the time of working is past , is no reason why they should be rewarded , or escape the punishment of loiterers . this is the very case here ; we are saved by the mercies of god , and the merits of christ , which we partake of by our union to him ; this union is made in baptism , which incorporates us into the body of christ , and from the very first moment of our union , we are in a state of grace and justification ; our sins are washed away in his blood , as water purges all bodily defilements , and the spirit of christ dwells in us to renew and sanctify us : now all that is required by god , or that seems in the nature of the thing necessary to this union , is a general repentance of all our sins , renouncing our former wicked course of life , professing our faith in christ , as the son of god , and saviour of the world , and vowing obedience to his laws , for this qualifies us to be his disciples , and to be received into his service , and into the communion of his body and church ; and therefore this faith and repentance justifies in baptism , because those who thus repent of their sins , and believe in christ , are received to baptism , and in baptism have all their sins forgiven , and are put into a state of grace and favour with god. but now though faith and repentance , and the vows of obedience , are sufficient to make us the disciples of christ , and to put us into a state of justification , yet they are not sufficient to save those who are the disciples of christ , without actual holiness and obedience of life ; for to be a disciple of christ , does not signifie meerly to believe in him , and to vow obedience to him , but to obey him : it is reasonable ●nough , that upon our vows of obedience , we should be received into his service , but it is not reasonable that we should be rewarded without performing our vows ; for it is as ridiculous a thing to think , that our repeated sorows for not obeying , and our repeated and fruitless resolutions of obeying our saviour , should pass for obedience , as that that son should be thought to do his father's will , who said , i go sir , but went not ; especially when after our vow of baptism we live a very ungodly life , and never think it time to repent , and to renew our vows again till we come to die : if we consider the difference between what is necessary to make us the disciples of christ , and what is required of us when we are disciples , we shall see a plain reason why faith and repentance , as that signifies sorrow for sin , and vows of obedience , will justifie us in baptism , but will not be accepted upon a death-bed , after a life spent in wickedness ; for when a baptized christian comes to die , he is not then to be made a disciple of christ , and to be baptized again , but to give an account of his life , since he has been christ's disciple , and meer faith in christ , sorrow for sin , and vows of obedience , without actual holiness of life , though with the sacrament of baptism it will make a disciple , yet it will not pass in a disciple's account , especially when the sum total of his life , is nothing but sin , and sorrow , and fruitless vows , for this is not that holiness of life , which christ requires of his disciples . the ancient discipline of the church was a plain proof of this , that they thought a great deal more necessary for a baptized christian , than was required to qualifie men for baptism : in the apostles days , they baptized both iews and heathens immediately upon their profession of faith in christ , and renouncing their former wicked lives ; but in case they fell into any gross and scandalous sin after baptism , they were cast out of the communion of the church , and the profession of sorrow and repentance for their sins , and the most solemn vows of a new life , was not thought sufficient to restore them to the peace of the church , but they were kept under the severities of repentance , till they had made satisfaction for the scandal they had given to the church , and given sufficient testimonies of the actual reformation of their lives ; and in the ages succeeding the apostles , this state of penitence in some cases was continued many years , in other cases such sinners were never reconciled till the hour of death : now if they had thought , as many among us now do , that sorrow for sin , and the vows of obedience do immediately obtain our pardon from god , for sins committed after baptism , it is not imaginable , why they should have imposed such a long and severe discipline on penitents : if they believed god had forgiven them , why should not the church forgive them , and receive them them to her communion again , upon their promises of amendment , without such a long trial of their reformation ? but it is evident , they thought sins after baptism not forgiven without actual reformation , and therefore would not receive them to communion again without a tried and visible reformation of their lives . we know what disputes there were about this matter in the primitive church ; the ancient discipline allowed but of one repentance after baptism ; and some would not allow of that in the case of adultery , murder , and idolatry , but denied the authority of the church to receive such sinners to communion again : this was the pretence of novatus's schism ; and tertullian , after he turn'd montanist , said many bitter things against the catholicks upon this argument , which seemed to question the validity of repentance it self after baptism , though it did reform mens lives : but though this was a great deal too much , and did both lessen the grace of the gospel , and the authority which christ had given to his church , yet it is evident that all this time , they were very far from thinking , that some dying sorrows , or dying vows after a wicked life , would carry men to heaven : and the judgment of those first and purest ages of the church , ought at least to make men afraid of relying on such a death-bed repentance , as they thought very ineffectual to save sinners . chap. iv. concerning the fear of death , and the remedies against it . death is commonly and very truly called the king of terrors , as being the most formidable thing to humane nature ; the love of life , and the natural principle of self-preservation , begets in all men a natural aversion against death , and this is the natural fear of dying ; this is very much encreased by a great fondness and passion for this world , which makes such men , especially while they are happy and prosperous , very unwilling to leave it ; and this is still encreased by a sence of guilt , and the fear of punishment in the next world : all these are of a distinct nature , and require sutable remedies , and therefore i shall distinctly consider them : i. the natural fear of death results from self-preservation , and the love of our own being ; for light is sweet , and a pleasant thing it is , for the eyes to behold the sun , 11 eccles. 7. all men love life , and the necessary consequence of that is to fear death ; though this is rather a natural instinct , than the effect of reason and discourse . there are great and wise reasons why god should imprint this aversion to death on humane nature , because it obliges us to take care of ourselves , and to avoid every thing which will destroy or shorten our lives ; this in many cases is a great principle of vertue , as it preserves us from all fatal and destructive vices ; it is a great instrument of government , and makes men afraid of committing such villanies , as the laws of their country have made capital ; and therefore since the natural fear of death is of such great advantage to us , we must be contented with it , though it makes the thoughts of dying a little uneasie ; especially if we consider , that when this natural fear of death is not encreased by other causes , ( of which more presently ) it may be conquered or allayed by reason and wise consideration : for this is not so strong an aversion , but it may be conquered ; the miseries and calamities of this life very often reconcile men to death , and make them passionately desire it : wherefore is light given to him that is in misery , and life to the bitter in soul ? which long for death , but it cometh not , and digg for it more then for hid treasures : which rejoyce exceedingly , and are glad when they can find the grave , 3 job 20 , 21 , 22. my soul chuseth strangling , and death rather than life : i loath it , i would not live alway ; let me alone , for my days are vanity , 7 job 15 , 16. and if the sence of present sufferings can conquer the fears of death , there is no doubt but the hope of immortal life may do it also : for the fear of death is not an original and primitive passion , but results from the love of ourselves , from the love of life , and our own being ; and therefore when we can separate the fear of death from self-love , it is easily conquered : when men are sensible , that life is no kindness to them , but only serves to prolong their misery , they are so far from being afraid of death , that they court it ; and were they as thoroughly convinc'd , that when they die , death will translate them to a more happy life , it would be as easie a thing to put off these bodies , as to change their cloaths , or to leave an old and ruinous house for a more beautiful and convenient habitation . if we set aside the natural aversion , and inquire into the reasons of this natural fear of death , we can think of but these two ; either men are afraid , that when they die they shall cease to be , or at least they know not what they shall be , and are unwilling to exchange this present life , which they like very well , for they know not what . but now both these reasons of fear are taken away by the revelation of the gospel , which has brought life and immortality to light ; and when the reasons of our fear are gone , such an unaccountable aversion and reluctancy to death , signifies little more than to make us patient of living , rather than unwilling to die ; for a man who has such a new glorious world , such a happy immortal life in his view , could not very contentedly delay his removal thither , were not death in the way , which he naturally startles at , and draws back from , though his reason sees nothing frightful or terrible in it . the plain and short account then of this matter is this : we must not expect wholly to conquer our natural aversion to death ; st. paul himself did not desire to be uncloathed , but cloathed upon , that mortality might be swallowed up of life , 2 cor. 3 , 4. were there not some remaining aversions to death mixed with our hopes and desires of immortality , martyrdom itself , excepting the patient enduring the shame and the torments of it , would be no vertue ; but though this natural aversion to death cannot be wholly conquered , it may be extreamly lessened , and brought next to nothing , by the certain belief and expectation of a glorious immortality ; and therefore the only way to arm ourselves against these natural fears of dying , is to confirm our selves in this belief , that death does not put an end to us , that our souls shall survive in a state of bliss and happiness , when our bodies shall rot in their graves , and that these mortal bodies themselves shall at the sound of the last trump rise again out of the dust immortal and glorious . a man who believes and expects this , can have no reason to be afraid of death ; nay he has great reason not to fear death , and that will reconcile him to the thoughts of it , though he trembles a little under the weaknesses and aversions of nature . ii. besides the natural aversions to death , most men have contracted a great fondness and passion for this world , and that makes them so unwilling to leave it , whatever glorious things they hear of another world , they see what is to be had in this , and they like it so well , that they do not expect to mend themselves , but if they were at their choice , would stay where they are : and this is a double death to them to be snatched away from their admired enjoyments , and to leave whatever they love and delight in behind them : and there is no remedy , that i know of , for these men to cure their fears of death , but only to rectifie their mistaken opinions of things , to open their eyes to see the vanity of this world , and the brighter and more dazling glories of the next . there are different degrees of this , and therefore this remedy must be differently applied : some men are wholly sunk into flesh and sence , and have no tast at all of rational and manly pleasures , much less of those which are purely intellectual and divine : they are slaves to their lusts , lay no restraints on their bruitish appetites , the world is their god , and they dote on the riches , and pleasures , and honours of it , as the only real and substantial goods : now these men have great reason to be afraid of death ; for when they go out of this world , they will find nothing that belongs to this world in the next ; and thus their happiness and their lives must end together : it is fitting they should fear death , for if the fear of death will not cure their fondness for this world , nothing else can ; you must not expect to perswade them , that the next world is a happier place than this ; but the best way is to set before them the terrors of the next world ; those lakes of fire and brimstone prepared for the devil and his angels ; to ask them our saviour's question , what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world , and to lose his own soul : or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? these men ought to fear on , till the fear of death cures their vicious passion and fondness for this world , and then the fear of death will by degrees cure itself . others there are , who have a true reverence for god , and govern their inclinations and passions to the things of this world with regard to his laws ; they will not raise an estate by injustice , oppression , or perjury ; they will not transgress the rules of sobriety and modesty in the use of sensual pleasures ; they will not purchase the honours and preferments of this world at the price of their souls ; but yet they love this world very well , and are extreamly delighted in the enjoyments of it ; they have a plentiful fortune , or a thriving trade , or the favour of their prince ; they live at ease , and think this world a very pleasant place , and are ready to cry , it is good for us to be here : now it cannot be avoided , but that in proportion to mens love of this world , though it be not an immoral and irregular passion , they will be more afraid , and more unwilling to leave it : when we are in the full enjoyment of an earthly felicity , it is difficult for very good men to have such a strong and vigorous sence of the next world , as to make them willing and contented to leave this : they desire to go to heaven , but they are not over-hasty in their desires ; they can be better pleased , if god sees fit , to stay here a little longer , and when they find themselves a going , are apt to cast back their eyes upon this world , as those who are loth to part . this makes it so necessary for god to exercise even good men with afflictions and sufferings , to wean them from this world , which is a scene of misery , and to raise their hearts to heaven , where true and unmixt happiness dwells . the only way then to cure this fear of death , is to mortifie all remains of love and affection for this world ; to withdraw ourselves as much as may be from the conversation of it , to use it very sparingly , and with great indifferency , to supply the wants of nature , rather than to enjoy the pleasures of it ; to have our conversation in heaven , to meditate on the glories of that blessed place , to live in this world upon the hopes of unseen things ; to accustom our selves to the work and to the pleasures of heaven , to praise and adore the great maker and redeemer of the world , to mingle ourselves with the heavenly quire , and possess our very fancies and imaginations with the glory and happiness of seeing god and the blessed jesus , of dwelling in his immediate presence , of conversing with saints and angels ; this is to live like strangers in this world , and like citizens of heaven ; and then it will be as easie to us to leave this world for heaven , as it is for a traveller to leave a foreign country to return home . this is the height and perfection of christian vertue ; it is our mortifying the flesh with its affections and lusts , it is our dying to this world , and living to god ; and when we are dead to this world , the fear of dying and leaving this world is over ; for what should a man do in this world , who is dead to it ? when we are alive to god , nothing can be so desirable as to go to him ; for here we live to god only by faith and hope , but that is the proper place for this divine life , where god dwells : so that in short , a life of faith , as it is our victory over this world , so it is our victory over death too ; it disarms it of all its fears and terrors , it raises our hearts so much above this world , that we are very well pleased to get rid of these bodies , which keep us here , and to leave them in the grave in hopes of a blessed resurrection . iii. the most tormenting fears of death are owing to a sence of guilt , which indeed are rather a fear of judgement than of death , or a fear of death as it sends us to judgment ; and here we must distinguish between three sorts of men , whose case is very different : 1. those who are very good men , who have made it the care of their lives to please god , and to save their souls . 2. those who have lived very ungodly lives , and are now awakened by the approaches of death , to see an angry and provoked judge , an injured saviour , a righteous tribunal , and think they hear that fatal doom and sentence pronounced on them by their own consciences , go ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels . 3. those who are doubtful of their own condition , and are apt to fear the worst . 1. as for the first sort of these men , who have sincerely endeavour'd to please god , and have the testimony of their consciences , that in simplicity and godly sincerity they have had their conversation in this world , christ has delivered them from all their fears by his death upon the cross , and his intercession for them at the right hand of god : the best men dare not stand the trial of strict and impartial justice ; they are conscious to themselves of so many sins , or such great imperfections and defects , that their onely hope is in the mercy of god , thro' the merits and mediation of christ ; and in this hope they can triumph over death , as st. paul does ; o death ! where is thy sting ? o grave ! where is thy victory ? the sting of death is sin , and the strength of sin is the law ; but thanks be to god , who hath given us the victory by our lord iesus christ ; who destroyed sin , and plucked out the sting of death by his death upon the cross , who triumphed over death by his resurrection from the dead , and is invested with power to raise all his true disciples from the dead ; is able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto god by him , seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them . this is the happy state of good men , when they come to die , they can look into the other world without terrour , where they see , not a court of justice , but , a throne of grace ; where they see a father , not a judge ; a saviour who died for them , and has redeemed them with his own blood : what a blessed calm and serenity possesses their souls ! nay , what joy and triumph transports them ! how do their souls magnifie the lord , and their spirits rejoyce in god their saviour ! when they see him ready to pronounce them blessed , and to set the crown upon their heads ? who would not die the death of the righteous , and desire that his latter end may be like his ! what wise man would not live the life of the righteous , that his latter end may be like his ; that in the agonies of death , and in the very jaws of the grave , no disturbed thoughts may discompose him ; no guilty fears distract him , but he may go out of the world with all the joyful presages of eternal rest and peace . 2. as for wicked men , who never concerned themselves with the thoughts of god and another world , while they were in health , many times a dangerous sickness , which gives them a nearer view of death and judgment , awakens their consciences , and overwhelms them with the unsupportable terrors of future vengeance ; then they begin to lament their ill-spent lives , to tremble before that just and righteous judge , whom they have provoked by repeated villanies ; whose being they formerly denied , or whose power and justice they desied ; now they cry passionately to christ for mercy , and will needs have him to be their saviour , though they would not own him for their lord , nor submit to his laws and government ; now these men are mighty earnest for comfort , the minister , who was the subject of their drollery before , is sent for in great hast , and it is expected from him , that he should lull their consciences asleep , and send them quietly into another world , to receive their doom there . now it is very fitting to let these men know , while they are well , that there is no comfort to be had , when they come to die : for there is no peace saith my god to the wicked ; and no man who knows them , can speak peace to them , without making a new gospel , or corrupting the old one . what i have already discourst concerning a death-bed repentance , is a plain proof of this ; but though we set aside all that , and proceed upon the common principle , that a true penitent , whenever he sincerely repents , thô it be upon his death-bed , after a long life of wickedness , shall be pardoned and rewarded by god ; yet upon these principles it is impossible that a wicked man , when he comes to die , should have any comfort without a vain and enthusiastick presumption , and the reason is very plain , because it is impossible , either for himself or others to judge , whether his repentance be true and sincere ; such a repentance as , if he were to live longer , would reform his life , and bring forth the fruits of an universal righteousness ; and it is agreed on all hands , that no other repentance but this can be accepted by god. now it is absolutely impossible , without a revelation , for any man to know this , who begins his repentance upon a death-bed : he may feel indeed the bitter pangs and agonies of sorrow , and may be sincerely and heartily sorry that he has sinned : and this every dying sinner is , who is sorrowful , he is sincerely sorrowful , that is , he does not counterfeit a sorrow , but really feels it : and i know nothing else to make sorrow sincere , but that it is real and not counterfeited ; and therefore to be sorrowful , and to be sincerely sorrowful , is the same thing ; and will any man say , that whoever is sorry for his sins when he comes to die , shall be saved ? then no sinner can be damned , who does not die an atheist , or stupid and distracted , or suddenly , without any warning ; for it is impossible for a sinner , who is in his wits , and believes that wicked men shall be eternally punished in the next world , not to feel an amazing remorse and sorrow of mind , when he sees himself just a falling into hell. a dying sorrow then , though it may be sharp and severe , almost to the degree of amazement and distraction ( and it is hard , if such a sorrow be not real and sincere ) is not saving repentance ; and therefore though sinners may feel themselves very heartily sorrowful , this does not prove them to be true penitents ; and yet this is the only evidence they can have of their repentance , and the only thing they rely on , that they are sure their sorrow is very sincere ; and i doubt not but it is , for all true sorrow is sincere ; but sinners who are very sorry for their sins may be damned . since then sorrow for sin is the onely evidence such men can have of the sincerity of their repentance , let us consider , whether the meer dying sorrows of sinners be any evidence at all of this , or what kind of evidence it is : true repentance does at least include a change of mind , a turning from our sins to god , a deep sence of the evil of sin , and an abhorrance of ourselves for it , a great reverence for god and for his laws , as well as a dread of his judgements , and deliberate and serious resolutions of changing our course of life , and for the time to come , of living to god , and to the purposes of his glory , never to return to our old sins again , but diligently to exercise ourselves in all the duties and offices of a christian life . now suppose a man , who has lived wickedly all his life , should be thus changed in a moment , and prove such a true penitent , as i have now described , and that god , who knows the hearts of men , sees that his promises and vows are sincere , and that if he were to live any longer , he would be a good man , and therefore will pardon and reward him , not according to what he has done , but according to what he foresees he would have done , had he lived any longer , ( which is to judge men not according to their works , but according to his own fore-knowledge , which the scripture never makes the rule of future judgment ; ) i say , suppose such men may be true penitents , and pardoned by god , who knows that they are so ? yet they can never have the comfort of it before they die , because it is impossible for them to know it . when men see themselves a dying , they are very sorrowful for their sins so they say , but the most likely account of it is , that they are very sorry they are a going to hell , as a malefactor is very sorrowful , when he is going to the gibbet : this may be the whole of his sorrow , and it is impossible to prove that there should be any thing more in it , and extreamly improbable that there is ; for what likelihood is there , that men who yesterday were very much in love with their sins , and as little thought of falling out with them , as they did of their dying day , should to day , as soon as ever they are arrested with a threatning sickness , be penitents in good earnest , and abhor their sins in a minute , and be quite other men upon the view of the other world : this is the case of all sinners , when they come to die , which makes it very suspicious , that there is nothing extraordinary in it , no miraculous power of the divine spirit to change their hearts in a moment , and make them new men , but only the common effect of a great fear , which makes men sorry for their sins , when they come to suffer for them . now if such dying sinners can never be sure that their sorrow for sin is any thing more than a great fright , they can be sure of nothing else ; for such a sorrow as this , will counterfeit all the other acts of repentance : men who are terribly afraid of punishment , are not only sorry for their sins , but this very sorrow makes them ashamed of them , gives them a great indignation against themselves for them , makes them flatter their judge , and vow and promise reformation , if they could escape this one time ; and this is so very common and familiar , that in all other cases no man regards it ; a judge , a father , or a master , will not spare upon such promises as these ; and why should this be thought any thing more in a dying sinner , than in other malefactors ? why should that be thought a sufficient reason for god to pardon , which we ourselves think no reason , in all other cases ? all this may be no more than the fear of hell ; and i doubt the meer fear of hell , when men are a dying , tho' it may imitate all the scenes of repentance , will not keep them out of hell. it is so very probable , that this is the whole of a death-bed repentance , that no such dying sinner can have any reasonable hope , that he does truly repent ; and therefore , unless he flatters himself , when he dies with a false and counterfeit repentance , as he did , while he lived , with the hopes of repenting before he died , he must expire in all the terrors and agonies of guilty fears . this is so miserable a condition , that tho' we should suppose such a sinner may be a true penitent , and go to heaven at last , yet no wise man would endure these dying agonies for all the false and deceitful pleasures of sin : and yet there is no possible way of avoiding this , but by such a timely repentance , while we are well , and death at a distance , as may bring forth the actual fruits of holiness , that when we come to die , we may have some better evidence of the sincerity of our repentance , than meer dying sorrows . 3. let us now consider the case of those who are doubtful , what their condition is ; who are neither so good , as to be out of all danger and fear , nor so bad , as to be out of hope ; and i need not tell any man , that this is a state between hope and fear , which is a very uneasie state , when eternal happiness or misery is the matter of the doubt : this is the case of those men , who after all their good resolution , are ever and anon conquered by temptations ; who as soon as their tears are dried up for their last fall , fall again , and then lament their sins , and resolve again ; and while they are thus interchangeably sinning , repenting , and resolving , before they have got a lasting victory , or are arrived to a steady vertue , are summon'd by death to judgement ; or those who have a reverence for god , but are not so constant and frequent in their devotions , or if they abstain from gross and scandalous vices , yet they have not a due government of their passions , or do very little good in the world , &c. here is such a mixture of good and evil , that it is hard to know which is predominant ; while such men are in health , they are very uneasie , and know not what to judge of themselves ; but they fall into much greater perplexities when they are alarm'd with the near aproaches of death and judgment : and what a deplorable state is this , when we are a dying , to be uncertain and anxious , what will become of us to eternity ! now there is no possible way to prevent these fears , when we come to die , but by giving all diligence to make our calling and election sure ; by living such holy and innocent lives , that our consciences may not condemn us ; and then we shall have confidence towards god. but this is such a remedy , as few of these men like : they would be glad to be sure of heaven , but yet would go as near hell as they can without danger of falling into it ; they will serve god , but must reserve a little favour and indulgence to their lusts ; though they dare not take full draughts of sensual pleasures , yet they must be sipping now and then , as often as they can pacifie their consciences , and get rid of the fear of god , and of another world ; and therefore they are very inquisitive after other cures for an accusing and condemning conscience : are mighty fond of such marks and signs of grace as will secure them of heaven without the severities of mortification , or the constant and uniform practice of an universal righteousness : and a great many such signs have been invented , which like strong opiates asswage their pain and smart , till their consciences awake , when it is too late , in the next world. for all this is cheat and delusion , as st. iohn assures us : little children , let no man deceive you : he that doth righteousness is righteous , even as he is righteous . he that committeth sin , is of the devil , for the devil sinneth from the beginning : for this purpose the son of god was manifested , that he might destroy the works of the devil . whosoever is born of god , doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him , and he cannot sin , because he is born of god. in this the children of god are manifest , and the children of the devil : whosoever doth not righteousness , is not of god , neither he that loveth not his brother . this is the only sure evidence for heaven ; and therefore every sin men commit , makes their state doubtful , and this must fill them with perplexities and fears : men may cheat themselves with vain hopes and imaginations , when they come to die ; but nothing can be a solid foundation for peace and security , but an universal righteousness . the conclusion . for the conclusion of this discourse , i shall only observe in a few words , that it must be the business of our whole lives to prepare for death : our accounts must be always ready , because we know not how soon we may be called to give an account of our stewardship ; we must be always upon our watch , as not knowing at what hour our lord will come . a good man , who has taken care all his life to please god , has little more to do , when he sees death approaching , than to take leave of his friends , to bless his children ; to support and comfort himself with the hopes of immortal life , and a glorious resurrection , and to resign up his spirit into the hands of god , and of his saviour : his lamp is full of oyl , and always burning , tho' it may need a little trimming , when the bridegroom comes ; some new acts of faith and hope , and such devout passions as are proper to be exercised at our leaving the world , and going to god : but when the bridegroom is at the door , it is too late with the foolish virgins to buy oyl for our lamps : unless we be ready , when the bridegroom comes , to enter in with him to the marriage , the door will be shut against us : watch therefore for ye know neither the day , nor the hour , wherein the son of man cometh . some men talk of preparing for death , as if it were a thing that could be done in two or three days , and that the proper time of doing it , were a little before they die : but i know no other preparation for death , but living well ; and thus we must every day prepare for death , and then we shall be well prepared , when death comes ; that is , we shall be able to give a good account of our lives , and of the improvement of our talents ; and he who can do this , is well prepared to die , and to go to judgment : but he who has spent all his days wickedly , whatever care he may take when he comes to die , to prepare himself for it , it is certain he can never prepare a good account of his past life ; and all his other preparations are little worth . the end . advertisement . a preservative against popery , in two parts : with a vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran a jesuit . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . printed for w. rogers . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59840-e2450 2. heb. 14 , 15. notes for div a59840-e3610 see 5 prov. 22 , 23. 7. 22 , 23 , 26 , 27. 3 heb. 12. 12 heb. 15. 2 pet. 2. 20 , 21 , 22. 12 heb. 14. 2 rom. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. 6 gal. 7 , 8. 20 mat. 1 , &c. 15 luk. 11 , &c. 1 rom. 18. 1 cor. 6 , 9 , 10. 7 mat. 21. 18 mat. 21 , 22. 2 acts 38 , 41. 3 rom. 20 , 21 , 22 , 24. 5 rom. 1. 2 eph. 8 , 9. 5 gal. 2 , 3. ibid. 2 rom. 13 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29. 8 rom. 4. notes for div a59840-e10030 1 cor. 15. 55 , 56 , 57. 7 heb. 25. 1 john 3. 20 , 21. 1 john 3. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. notes for div a59840-e10610 25 mat. 1 , &c. a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity and the incarnation of the son of god occasioned by the brief notes on the creed of st. athanasius and the brief history of the unitarians or socinians and containing an answer to both / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1691 approx. 492 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 143 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59905 wing s3377 estc r25751 09102155 ocm 09102155 42449 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59905) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 42449) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1295:1) a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity and the incarnation of the son of god occasioned by the brief notes on the creed of st. athanasius and the brief history of the unitarians or socinians and containing an answer to both / by william sherlock. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. the second edition. [6], 272 p. printed for w. rogers, london : 1691. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng nye, stephen, 1648?-1719. -brief history of the unitarians. brief notes on the creed of st. athanasius. trinity. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-01 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god. occasioned by the brief notes on the creed of st. athanasius , and the brief history of the vnitarians , or socinians , and containing an answer to both . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . the second edition . imprimatur , z. isham , r. p. d. henrico episc. lond. à sacris . ian. 9. 1690. london : printed for w. rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstans church in fleet-street . 1691. to the reader . i will make no apology for publishing this vindication of the great and fundamental mysteries of our religion , for if ever it were necessary , it is now , when atheists and hereticks , some openly , some under a disguise , conspire together to ridicule the trinity , and the incarnation . i confess , the book is too big , could i have made it less , as at first i intended ; but when i was once engaged , i saw a necessity of going farther ; and i hope no man will have reason to complain , that i have said too much , but those , who will find a great deal too much said , for them to answer . my original design was to vindicate the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation , from those pretended absurdities and contradictions , which were so confidently charged on them : and this i 'm sure i have done ; for i have given a very easie and intelligible notion of a trinity in vnity , and if it be possible to explain this doctrine intelligibly , the charge of contradictions vanishes ; and whether men will believe this account or not , they can't deny , but that it is very possible and intelligible , and if we could go no farther , that is enough in matters of revelation . but i hope , i have done a great deal more than this , and proved , that it is the true scripture account of it , and agreeable to the doctrine of the ancient fathers ; and have vindicated the scripture proofs of a trinity and incarnation from the pitiful sophistries of the late socinian historian . i have not indeed answered particularly the whole book in order and method , as it lies , which was too tedious a work , and not necessary ; but i have considered whatever was most material in it , and have avoided nothing , because it was hard to answer , but because it needed no answer , as i am ready to satisfie the world , whenever a just occasion calls for it : for having dipt my pen in the vindication of so glorious a cause , by the grace of god , i will never desert it , while i can hold a pen in my hand . i must thankfully own , that the writing of this book has given me clearer and more distinct notions of this great mystery , then i had before , which is the reason , why the reader will find some things explained towards the end , which i spoke doubtfully of at first , as particularly the difference between the eternal generation of the son , and the procession of the holy ghost ; and i hope this is a pardonable fault . the writing this book has cost me many thoughts , and those who have a mind throughly to understand it , must not think much if it cost them some ; and if they cannot be contented to bestow some serious thoughts on it , it will be lost labour to read it . i pray god give success to it , and open the eyes of those men , before it be too late , who are so industrious to write or disperse such brief notes and brief histories , as are valuable for nothing but blasphemy and nonsense ; for i will be bold to say , that socinianism ( after all its pretences to reason ) is one of the most stupid sensless heresies , that ever infested the christian church . the contents . sect . i. concerning the nature of a contradiction , and how to know it . page 1. many contradictions pretended , where there are none , as in the notion of a spirit , and of god 3 how to discover when a pretended contradiction is not real , but in our imperfect conception of things . 4 it is absurd to dispute against the being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it . 5 what the natural boundaries of humane knowledge are . 9 sect . ii. the athanasian creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the trinity and incarnation . 10 the dispute between the greek and lat. church , about the filioque . 17 sect . iii. concerning the necessity of the catholick faith to salvation , and a brief history of athanasius . 21 that the catholick faith is necessary to salvation . 25 what is meant by keeping the catholick faith whole and undefiled . 28 the scriptures being a compleat rule of faith , do not make athanasius's creed an unnecessary rule . 29 the great usefulness of ancient creeds . 31 pope leo iii. would not deny salvation to those who disowned the filioque . 33 what is meant by the catholick faith. 35 the history of athanasius . 37 sect . iv. the catholick doctrine of a trinity in unity , and unity and trinity , explained , and vindicated from all pretended absurdities and contradictions . 45 what it is that makes any substance numerically one. 48 the unity of a spirit nothing else but self-consciousness . ibid. and therefore mutual consciousness makes three persons essentially and numerically one. 49 the unity of a mind or spirit reaches as far as its self-consciousness does . 50 that this is the true scripture notion of the unity of the father , son , and holy ghost . ibid. the unity between father and son explained . 51 the union of created spirits , an union in knowledge , will and love. 52 the same union between father , son , and holy ghost . ibid. but this , which is only a moral union between creatures , is an essential union between father , son , and holy ghost , as it is the effect of mutual consciousness . 55 this proved from scripture , as to the unity between father and son. 56 this makes all three divine persons coessential and coequal . 58 that the holy spirit is one with father and son by a mutual consciousness , proved from scripture . 64 this notion contains the true orthodox faith of a trinity in unity . 66 for it does not confound the persons , but makes them distinct . ibid. nor divide the substance , but makes them numerically one. 68 this makes the doctrine of the trinity as intelligible as the notion of one god. ibid. the material images of substance confound our notions , both of one god , and of a trinity in unity . 69 god must be considered as eternal truth and wisdom . 70 wisdom and truth a pure and simple act , and contains all divine perfections . 71 three infinite minds must necessarily be mutually conscious to each other . 74 no positive notion of infinity , but only in a mind . 75 no infinite extension . 76 what the true notion of infinite is , that it is absolute perfection . 78 that there are no absolute perfections , but those of a mind . 79 extension is no perfection , nor to be omnipresent by extension . 80 the same absolute perfections of a mind , by a mutual consciousness , may be entire and equal in three infinite minds . 81 this reconciles the perfect equality and subordination of the divine persons . ibid. and shows , how each person is god , and all but one god. 82 this gives an account of the different modi subsistendi , of which the schools speak . 83 and how the operations of the trinity ad extra are common to all three persons . 85 an answer to the absurdities and contradictions charged on the doctrine of the trinity by the brief notes . 87 sect . v. the doctrine of the fathers and schools about a trinity in unity , reconciled to the foregoing explication of it . page 100 that the fathers made the three divine persons three distinct infinite minds 101 that father , son , and holy ghost are as distinct persons , as peter , james , and john , how to be understood . 104 how the fathers explain the unity of the godhead . 105 1. by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coessentiality of the divine persons . 106 what they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. how they proved the unity of essence from the sameness of nature . gregory nyssen's reasoning in this matter , and vindicated from the mesrepresentation of petavius and dr. cudworth . 109. &c. 2. to this the fathers added a numerical unity of the divine essence . 121 concerning the unity of energy and power . 123 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or circumincession is self-consciousness . 125 st. austin explains the unity of the divine persons by examples of self-consciousness . 126 the unity of the godhead consists in the unity of principle . 128 how the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost are essential to the notion of one god , explained at large . 129 , &c. sect . vi. concerning expounding scripture by reason . 140 the arguments against a trinity in the history of the unitarians , letter 1. particularly answered . 153 , &c. his first argument . 154 his second argument . 155 1 coloss. 17. the first-born of every creature explained . 156 the mediatory kingdom of christ explained at large . 159 his third , fourth , and fifth arguments answered . 176 his sixth argument . 178 his seventh argument . 184 his eighth argument from those texts , which declare that the father only is god. ibid. his ninth argument , that if christ were god , there was no need of giving the holy spirit to his human nature . 187 his tenth and eleventh arguments . 188 his arguments against the godhead of the holy ghost . ibid. concerning the personality of the holy ghost . 189 that the spirit is obtained of god by our prayers , therefore it self is not god , answered . 193 father , son , and holy ghost , the entire object of worship . page 193 those who do not worship the trinity , do not worship the true god , if father , son , and holy ghost be god. 194 no need of any new cammand to worship the holy ghost , when it is revealed , that he is one god with the father and son. ibid. that the scripture speaks of god as one person , answered . 196 whether the socinian faith be a reasonable and accountable faith. 198 the socinian faith ridicules the scriptures . 199 this is particularly shown in the expositions of scripture , contained in the history of the unitarians . ibid. the form of baptism in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost , explained . 209 1 john 1 , 2. in the beginning was the word , &c. explained and vindicated . 215 how this historian has represented grotius . 220 socinianism makes the iewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable . 231 socinianism ridicules the christian religion . 238 sect . vii . an answer to what remains in the brief notes . 256 concerning the generation of the son. ibid. the equality and coeternity of the persons in the trinity . 259 concerning the incarnation . 262 how an infinite and finite being may be united into one person . 263 what makes a personal union . 266 a vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and of the incarnation of the son of god , in answer to the brief notes on the greed of st. athanasius . sect . i. concerning the nature of a contradiction , and how to know it . before i particularly examine the brief notes on athanasius 's creed , which under a pretence of exposing that creed , charge the christian faith itself of three persons and one god , with the most monstrous absurdities and contradictions : i shall , 1. shew what a contradiction is , and in what cases we can judge of a contradiction . 2. i shall take a brief view of the athanasian creed , and shew that it signifies no more than that there are three persons and one god , or a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity ; and that if we own this , we must own the particular explications of the athanasian creed . first , as for the first : a contradiction is to deny and affirm the same thing in the same sense ; as to say , that a thing is , and is not at the same time ; that there is but one god , and that there is three gods ; that is , that there is , and that there is not , but one god ; for if there be three gods , then it is not true that there is only one god : things which are so contrary as to contradict each other , can never be both true , for all contradictions finally resolve into this : it is , and it is not ; which is absolutely impossible . but when we come to apply this to the nature of things , we may easily fancy contradictions where there are none : for a contradiction in the nature of things , is such a notion or idea of any thing as implies a contradiction ; and then it is impossible any such thing can be , as it is impossible , that such a proposition whose terms contradict each other should be true : but then before we can pronounce , that such a notion or idea is contradictions , we must be sure , that we perfectly understand and comprehend the nature of that being , otherwise the contradiction may not be in the thing , but in our manner of conceiving it : it is not enough in this case to say , we cannot understand it , and know not how to reconcile it ; but we must say , that we do perfectly understand it , and know that it cannot be reconciled . as for instance : some new philosophers will tell you , that the notion of a spirit , or an immaterial substance is a contradiction , for by substance they understand nothing but matter , and then an immaterial substance is immaterial matter , that is , matter and no matter , which is a contradiction : but yet this does not prove an immaterial substance to be a contradiction , unless they could first prove , that there is no substance , but matter ; and that they cannot conceive any other substance but matter , does not prove , that there is no other . thus the atheist discovers a great many contradictions or absurdities in the very notion and idea of a god , or of an eternal , omnipresent , omnipotent , omniscient being . for to be without a cause , and without a beginning , without time , and without succession ; to be present every-where , and to fill all places , and yet to have no parts , no extension ; to be able to create a world , and to annihilate it again , to make all things of nothing , and to reduce all things to nothing again ; to know all things , past , present , and to come , especially the most contingent futurities , the freest thoughts and counsels of men , before they think them , or some ages before they themselves are in being , without imposing a fatal necessity on humane actions ; i say , the notion of such a being is very much above our conception , and to an atheist , who is for believing nothing , but what he can fully comprehend , seems very absurd and contradictious . this shews , that men may easily mistake in charging the nature and notions of things with contradictions , and therefore we must enquire , how we may discover , when such an appearing contradiction is not real , but is wholly owing to our imperfect conception of things . i. now in the first place we have great reason to suspect this , when it relates to such things as all mankind agree , we do not , and cannot fully understand or comprehend ; for it is a vain and arrogant presumption to say what is , or what is not a contradiction , when we confess , we do not understand or comprehend the thing we speak of : a contradiction in the nature of things , is what is contrary to the nature of that being of which we speak : now so far as we understand the nature of any being , we can certainly tell what is contrary and contradictions to its nature : as that accidents should subsist without their subject , that a body should be without extension , or an organized body without any distinction of parts ; that the same individual body should be in heaven and on earth , and in a thousand distant places at the same time ; that flesh and blood should lie invisible under the species of bread and wine ; that a body , suppose of five or six foot long , should be concealed under the least crum of bread ; these and such like are the manifest absurdities and contradictions of transubstantiation ; and we know that they are so , because we know the nature of a body , and know that such things are a contradiction to the essential properties of a body : but now all men must confess , that they have not a clear and comprehensive notion of the nature and essential properties of a spirit , especially of an infinite spirit , as god is ; and it is impossible to know , what is contrary to the nature of a spirit , if we know not , what the nature of a spirit is ; and that man , who shall pretend to comprehend all that is possible in an infinite nature , is as contemptibly ridiculous , as if he should challenge to himself infinite knowledge , for without that , no man can comprehend what is infinite . ii. it is a sufficient proof , that such seeming contradictions are not in the nature of things , but in our imperfect manner of conceiving them , when we have other evident proofs , that the thing is , though we cannot comprehend it : for nothing can be , which involves a contradiction in its nature , and therefore if it is , the contradiction is not real , but imaginary . as for instance : as unconceivable as the notion of eternity is , yet all mankind , even atheists themselves , must confess , that something was from eternity ; for if ever there was nothing , it is impossible there ever should have been any thing ; for that which once was not , can never be without a cause , and therefore whatever difficulties there may be in the notion of an eternal being , we must acknowledge something eternal , and that is proof enough , that there is nothing absurd or contradictious in the notion , though we cannot comprehend it ; and i am sure the notion of a first eternal cause , is much more easie and natural , than to make either matter , or the world and all the creatures in it eternal . whatever we can certainly prove to be , either by sense , reason , or revelation , if there be any difficulty in conceiving it , we must attribute that to the imperfection of our own knowledge , not to any absurdity or contradiction in the thing itself . this shews how unreasonable that method is , which is taken by atheists , infidels , and hereticks , to dispute against the being of any thing from the difficulty of conceiving it , and some pretended absurdities and contradictions in it , when there are very plain proofs that the thing is , and such as it is impossible for them fairly to answer ; this is the fundamental miscarriage , which is not owing to a prudent caution , as is pretended , but to wilfulness and obstinacy , and pride of understanding , or to a fixed prejudice and aversion to the belief of such matters , and therefore i shall not only observe , but particularly prove the unreasonableness of it . the proof of this comes to this one point , that we may have sufficient evidence of the being of a thing , whose nature we cannot conceive and comprehend ; he who will not own this , contradicts the sense and experience of mankind ; and he who confesses this , and yet rejects the belief of that , which he has good evidence for , meerly because he cannot conceive it , is a very absurd and senseless infidel . and the reason of this is very plain , because all the ways whereby the being of any thing can be proved , are obvious and intelligible to all mankind , but the nature of most things are very dark and obscure , and such as the wisest men know little or nothing of : and therefore we may certainly know , that a great many things are , whose nature and essential properties we cannot conceive : as to shew this particularly . 1. the proofs that any thing is , are either from sense , from reason , or from revelation . what is evident to sense , is evident to all men , who have their senses ; what is plainly proved by reason ( and it is not a sufficient proof , if it be not plain ) is plain to all men , who can use their reason ; and what is plainly revealed every man may know , who can read and understand the scriptures ; the being and nature of things are known very different ways , and the being of things not only may , but most commonly is known without knowing their natures : any man may know the first , but few men in any measure can know the second : whoever has his senses about him , knows that there are such things , as he sees , hears , or feels , but the philosophy of nature is not learnt by sense : reason will convince us by some visible and sensible effects , that there are some invisible causes , without informing us distinctly , what the nature and powers of such causes are ; and god may and does reveal many things to us , which we either are not capable of fully comprehending , or the nature of which he does not think fit particularly to explain to us ; and in all these cases we may certainly know , that things are , without understanding the nature and philosophy of them . 2. it is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing , whose nature we do not perfectly understand , that i know nothing in the world , which we do perfectly understand : it is agreed by all men , whoever considered this matter , that the essences of things cannot be known , but only their properties and qualities : the world is divided into matter , and spirit , and we know no more , what the substance of matter , than what the substance of a spirit is , though we think we know one , much better than the other : we know thus much of matter , that it is an extended substance , which fills a space , and has distinct parts , which may be separated from each other , that it is susceptible of very different qualities , that it is hot or cold , hard or soft , &c. but what the substance of matter is , we know not : and thus we know the essential properties of a spirit ; that it is a thinking substance , with the faculties of understanding and will , and is capable of different vertues or vices , as matter is of sensible qualities , but what the substance of a spirit is , we know no more than what the substance of matter is : thus as for the essential properties , operations , and powers , of matter , sense , experience , and observation will tell us what they are , and what causes constantly produce such effects , and this is all we do , or can know of it ; and he who will not believe that matter is extended , that the fire burns , that water may be condensed by frost into a firm and solid pavement , that seed sown in the earth will produce its own kind again , that a body can move from one place to another ; that a stone falls to the ground , and vapours ascend and thicken into clouds , and fall down again to the earth in gentle showers , &c. i say , he who will not believe these things till he can give a philosophical account of them , must deny his senses in complement to his understanding ; and he who thinks , that he does understand these matters , would make a man question , whether he has any sense . thus it is also with reference to a spirit : we feel within ourselves , that we can think and reason , that we can choose and refuse , that we can love and hate , and desire and fear , but what these natural powers and passions are , we know not ; how thoughts rise in our minds , and how one thought begets another ; how a thought can move our bodies , or fix them in their seat ; how the body can raise thoughts and passions in the soul , or the thoughts and passions of the soul can affect the body : the properties and operations both of bodies and spirits are great secrets and mysteries in nature , which we understand nothing of , nor are concerned to understand them , no more than it is our business to understand , how to make either a body or a spirit ; which we have no power to do , if we did understand it , and therefore it would be an useless piece of knowledge , which would serve no end but curiosity ; and that is reason enough why our wise maker should not communicate this knowledge to us , were we capable of it , because it does not belong to our natures ; as no knowledge does which we can make no use of : the perfect notions and idea's of things are proper only to that almighty mind , which can give being to them . now this plainly shews , what the natural boundaries of humane knowledge are ; how far we may attain to a certain knowledge , and where we must give off our enquiries , unless we have a mind to impose upon our understandings with some uncertain and fanciful conjectures , or to perplex our selves with inexplicable difficulties . 1. as first , we have certain ways of discovering the being of things , which fall within the compass of our knowledge ; this our senses , reason , or revelation , will acquaint us with , and therefore we may know what things there are in the world , as far as they fall under the notice of sense , or are discovered by reason or revelation . 2. we may know what things are , or what their essential properties , qualities , operations , and powers are , whereby we can distinguish one sort of beings from another ; as suppose , a body from a spirit , bread from flesh , and wine from blood ; and can reason from effects to causes , and from causes to effects , with as great certainty as we understand , what the causes or effects are . 3. but the essences of things , and the philosophy of their natures , the reasons of their essential properties and powers , which immediately result from their natures , the manner of their production , and the manner of their operations , are mysteries to us , and will be so , do what we can ; and therefore here our enquiries must cease , if we enquire wisely ; for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such questions , which we can no more answer , than we can make a world. the sum is this , when we charge any doctrine with absurdities and contradictions , we must be sure , that we understand the thing ; for if it be such a thing , as we do not , and cannot understand the nature of , we may imagine a thousand absurdities and contradictions , which are owing wholly to our ignorance of things . sect . ii. the athanasian creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the trinity and incarnation . ii. let us now take a view of the athanasian creed , which this prophane author makes the subject of his drollery and ridicule ; and examine , whether there be any thing in it , which a good catholick christian can reject , without rejecting the catholick doctrines of the holy and ever blessed trinity , and the mysterious incarnation of the son of god ; for if this creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief , and what every christian who believes these doctrines must profess , then all these scoffs , which are cast upon the athanasian creed , do indeed belong to the christian faith itself , if the trinity and incarnation be christian doctrines . as to begin with the doctrine of the holy trinity . the athanasian creed tells us : the catholick faith is this , that we worship one god in trinity , and trinity in vnity : that is , that we worship one god , and three persons , father , son , and holy ghost ; and this all christians grant to be the catholick faith , except arians , macedonians , and socinians , and such like hereticks : and how we must worship one god in trinity , and trinity in unity , is explained in the next paragraph . neither confounding the persons , nor dividing the substance . which must be acknowledged , if there be three persons and one god : for if we confound the persons , by saying , that they are all but one person under three different names and titles , or denominations , then we destroy the distinction of persons ; if we divide the substance , by saying , that every person has a separate divine nature of his own , as every man has a separate humane nature , then we make three gods , as peter , iames , and iohn , are three men , which is to overthrow the doctrine of one god ; and therefore the creed adds , for there is one person of the father , another of the son , and another of the holy ghost . but the god-head of the father , of the son , and of the holy ghost is all one ; the glory equal , the majesty co-eternal . this is so far from being a nicity , that it is no less than a demonstration , if we confess three persons and one god ; for if there be three persons , then the person of the father , the person of the son , the person of the holy ghost , must be distinct persons , or they cannot be three ; if there be but one god , then the godhead of all the three persons is but one , for if the godhead were more than one , there must be more than one god ; for the godhead makes the god , and there must be as many gods , as there are godheads , as there must be as many men as there are particular humane natures : and if the godhead be but one , then with respect to the same one godhead , all three persons must have the same glory and majesty ; for there cannot be three different glories and majesties of the same one godhead ; and therefore as it follows : such as the father is , such is the son , and such is the holy ghost . the father vncreate , the son vncreate , and the holy ghost vncreate . the father incomprehensible , the son incomprehensible , the holy ghost incomprehensible . the father eternal , the son eternal , and the holy ghost eternal . and yet they are not three eternals , but one eternal . as also there are not three incomprehensibles , nor three vncreated ; but one vncreated , and one incomprehensible . so likewise the father is almighty , the son almighty , and the holy ghost almighty . and yet there are not three almighties , but one almighty . so the father is god , the son is god , and the holy ghost is god. and yet there are not three gods , but one god. so likewise the father is lord , the son lord , and the holy ghost lord. and yet not three lords , but one lord. for like as we are compelled by the christian verity , to acknowledge every person by himself to be god and lord. so are we forbidden by the catholick religion , to say , there are three gods , or three lords . this is the sum of all , that as the catholick religion , both natural , mosaical , and christian , requires us to believe , that there is but one god , so especially the christian religion teaches us , that there are three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , who are this one god. now if each person with respect to the same divine nature be god , then all the essential attributes and perfections of a god must be allowed to each person ; that he is uncreated , infinite , or incomprehensible , eternal , almighty god and lord ; unless we will say , that there may be a created , finite , temporal , impotent god ; that is , a god , who is not in truth either god or lord : and yet though we must acknowledge each person to be god and lord , we must not assert three distinct uncreated , incomprehensible , eternal , almighty gods ( which is the true sence of the article , of which more anon ) for that is to make not one , but three gods and lords , which overthrows the unity of the godhead . now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this ( which i do not now dispute ) if that be any fault , it is no fault of the athanasian creed , but of the doctrine of the trinity itself ; the athanasian creed only tells us what we must believe , if we believe a trinity in unity , three persons and one god : and i challenge any man , who sincerely proffesses this faith , to tell me , what he can leave out o● this exposition , without destroying either the divinity of some of the three persons , or the unity of the godhead . if each person must be god and lord , must not each person be uncreated , incomprehensible , eternal , almighty ? if there be but one god , and one lord , can there be three separated uncreated , incomprehensible , eternal , almighty gods ! which must of necessity be three gods , and three lords : this creed does not pretend to explain , how there are three persons , each of which is god , and yet but one god , ( of which more hereafter ) but only asserts the thing , that thus it is , and thus it must be , if we believe a trinity in unity ; which should make all men , who would be thought neither arians , nor socinians , more cautious how they express the least dislike of the athanasian creed , which must either argue , that they condemn it , before they understand it , or that they have some secret dislike to the doctrine of the trinity . nor is this to make any additions to the christian faith , as some object , no more than to explain what we mean by god is an addition to the faith : this was all the christian fathers aimed at in their disputes against arius , and other enemies of the catholick faith , and in those creeds they framed in opposition to these heresies , to assert the true divinity of the son and holy spirit in such express terms , as would admit of no evasion : for this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term homo-ousios , which signifies , that the son was of the same nature with the father , as he must be , if he be true and real god ; whereas had he been only like the father , as the arians asserted , he could not be one god with him ; for that which is only like something else , is not the same : now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is not in scripture , yet this is no unscriptural addition to the faith , because all that is signified by it is there ; that is , that christ is the eternal and only begotten son of god , a true and real , not a made , or created , or nominal god : and the athanasian creed , as far as it relates to this matter , is only a more particular explication of the homo-ousios , or in what sense the son is of the same nature with the father , and one god with him . in the next place , the athanasian creed having very explicitely declared the unity of the godhead in three persons , it proceeds to the distinct characters of each person , and their unity among themselves ; and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the distinction and unity of the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost . the father is made of none , neither created nor begotten . the son is of the father alone , not made , nor created , but begotten . the holy ghost is of the father , and of the son , neither made , nor created , nor begotten , but proceeding . so there is one father , not three fathers , one son , not three sons , one holy ghost , not three holy ghosts . the distinction then between these three divine persons , ( if i may so speak ) is in the manner of their subsistence : that the father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , god of himself , the original fountain of the deity , not made , nor created , for then he would be a creature , not a god ; nor begotten , for then he would be a son , not the first father and origine of all . the son is of the father alone , which is essential to his being a son ; not made , nor created , for there was no time , when he was not , as all things made or created must have a beginning , but begotten ; which is the proper term , whereby we express generation , and whereby the eternal generation of the son is expressed in scripture : what it signifies we know not any further than this , that it is the eternal communication of the nature and image of the father to him ; as an earthly parent communicates his own nature and likeness to his son. the holy ghost is of the father and of the son , not made , nor created , for no creature , not begotten , for no son ; but proceeding , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the manner of which we understand no more , than the manner of the eternal generation ; but there is this plain difference between being begotten and proceeding , that though the holy spirit have the same nature with the father and the son , yet he represents the person of neither , as the son does the person of the father , as being the brightness of his father's glory , and the express image of his person : and therefore is said not to be begotten , but to proceed . but the difficulty of this is with reference to the dispute between the greek and latin church about the filioque , or the spirits proceeding from the father and from the son : the reason why the latin church insists on this , is to preserve the unity and subordination of the divine persons to each other : the son is united and subordinate to the father , as begotten by him : the holy ghost is united and subordinate to father and son , as proceeding both from the father and from the son ; but if the holy spirit proceeded only from the father , not from the son , there would be no union and subordination between the son and the spirit , and yet the spirit is the spirit of the son , as well as of the father , and that these three persons be one god , it is necessary , there should be an union of persons , as well as one nature : but then the greek church confesses , that the spirit proceedeth from the father by the son , though not from the son ; and by and from are such niceties , when we confess , we understand not the manner of this procession of the holy spirit , as ought to have made no dispute , much less a schism between the two churches : the greek church acknowledges the distinction of persons , and their unity and subordination ; that there is one father , not three fathers , one son , not three sons , one holy ghost , not three holy ghosts ; that the vnity in trinity , and the trinity in vnity is to be worshipped : which is all this creed requires as necessary to salvation : he therefore , that will be saved , must thus think of the trinity : that is , must acknowledge and worship a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity ; which the greek church does , and therefore are not excluded from salvation in this creed upon the nice dispute of the spirit 's proceeding from or by the son. that which seems to sound harshest in this creed is what follows : and in this trinity , none is afore or after other , none is greater or less than another . but the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal . and yet this we must acknowledge to be true , if we acknowledge all three persons to be eternal , for in eternity there can be no afore , or after other ; and that we cannot conceive an eternal generation or procession , is no great wonder , when we cannot conceive an eternal being , without any beginning or any cause : as for greater or less , and the equality of three persons , this we must confess also , if we believe all three persons to be one supream and soveraign god ; for in one supream deity , there cannot be greater or less ; but then we must distinguish between subordination and equality : persons who are equal may be subordinate to each other ; and though there be not a greater or less , yet there is order in the trinity : equality is owing to nature , subordination to relation and order , which is indeed a greater and less in relation and order without an inequality of nature , and it is the equality of persons with respect to their nature , not to their order and subordination , of which the creed speaks ; for in this sense the father is greater than the son , and the father and the son than the holy spirit , as being first in order , but their nature is the same , and their persons with respect to this same nature co-equal . and now i see no reason to make such exclamations , as some men do , against that damnatory sentence , that except every one do keep this faith whole and undefiled , without doubt he shall perish everlastingly , and that he that will be saved must thus think of the trinity ; which refers to no more than the belief of three persons and one god , or a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity , which i take to be the true christian faith , and as necessary to salvation as any part of the christian faith is ; but of this more anon . thus much for the doctrine of the trinity ; as for the doctrine of the incarnation , no man can reasonably except against that explication , which is given of it in the athanasian creed , without rejecting the doctrine it self , and then we may as well part with the doctrine of the incarnation , as with the athanasian creed . as to shew this particularly : for the right faith is , that we believe and confess , that our lord iesus christ the son of god , is god and man : for otherwise the son of god is not incarnate , has not taken humane nature upon him . god of the substance of the father , begotten before the worlds : as he must be , if he be god : man of the substance of his mother , born in the world ; for he could not be true man , if he did not partake of humane flesh and blood. perfect god and perfect man ; for otherwise he were neither god , nor man : of a reasonable soul , and humane flesh subsisting : for a perfect man consists of soul and body , and unless he have both , he is not a man ; in opposition to those hereticks , who thought that the divine nature animated a humane body , instead of a soul , but that christ had no humane reasonable soul , though he had a humane body , and therefore was no more a man , than a humane body without a soul is a man , but a god cloathed with flesh and blood. equal to the father as touching his godhead ; for he is perfect god , of the same substance with the father ; and inferiour to his father as touching his manhood : for a man is inferiour to god and therefore inferiour to the father , though united in one person to the son. who although he be god and man , yet he is not two , but one christ. one , not by the conversion of the godhead into flesh , but by taking the manhood into god. one altogether , not by confusion of substance , but by vnity of person . for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man ; so god and man is one christ. all this is necessary to the belief of the incarnation , that the same jesus christ is both god and man ; for if he be but one christ , he must be god and man in one person ; for two persons make two christs ; and if the same one christ be both god and man , then the divine and humane nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion , he is perfect god and perfect man , in opposition to the heresies of nestorius and eutyches , the first of whom divided the persons , the second confounded the natures ; the first made god and man two distinct persons , and two christs , the second swallowed up the humanity in god. this may serve for a brief vindication of the athanasian creed , that it teaches nothing , but what is necessary to the true belief of a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity , and the incarnation of the son of god ; and i thought fit to premise this , to let the world see , that all the spight against athanasius's creed , is not so much intended against that creed , as against the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation , which are so fenced and guarded from all heretical senses and expositions in that creed , that there is no place left for tricks and evasions : and now i come to consider the brief notes , and to expose the venome and blasphemy of them , which deserves a sharper confutation than this : and that this author may not complain of unfair usage , i shall examine them paragraph by paragraph . sect . iii. concerning the necessity of the catholick faith to salvation , and a brief history of athanasius . whosoever will be saved , before all things , 't is necessary , that he hold the catholick faith. a good life is of absolute necessity to salvation ; but a right belief in these points , that have been always controverted in the churches of god , is in no degree necessary , much less necessary before all things . he that leads a profane and vicious life , sins against a plain acknowledged rule , and the plain and unquestioned word and letter of the divine law , and the dictates of natural conscience , he wilfully refuses to advert to these monitors , and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness : but he that errs in a matter of faith , after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed , is in no fault at all : his error is pure ignorance ; not a culpable ignorance ; for how can it be culpable not to know that , of which a man is ignorant , after a diligent and impartial enquiry . this , i must confess , is as artificial an introduction to these notes , as could have been invented ; for it makes faith a very useless , and heresie a very innocent and harmless thing ; and then men need not be much concerned what they believe , if they take care to live well : the creed affirms , that the catholick faith is before all things necessary to salvation ; if this be true , then how vertuously soever men live , they may be damned for heresie ; and this is a dangerous point , and will make men too much afraid of heresie to trade in such notes as these ; and therefore this must be confuted in the first place , to take off the dread and fear of heresie : now can we hope , that any thing should escape the censures of such a critick , who will not allow the catholick faith to be necessary to salvation ? for if the catholick faith is not necessary , no faith is , and then we may be saved without faith ; and yet the scripture tells us , that we are justified and saved by faith ; and if any faith saves us , i suppose , it must be the catholick faith , and then whoever does not hold this saving catholick faith must be damned . so that at best , he has placed this note wrong ; he should only have opposed the necessity of athanasius's catholick faith to salvation , not of the catholick faith in general ; and yet this seems not to be a mistake , but design , for his arguments equally hold against all faith , as well as against athanasius's creed , and will serve a turk , a iew , or a pagan , as well as a heretick . for if what he says is true ; he that errs in a question of faith , after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed , is in no fault at all : how comes an atheist , or an infidel , a turk , or a jew to be in any fault ? and if they be good moral men [ and many of them are , or may be so ] why should they be damned for their atheism or infidelity , for their not believing a god , or not believing in christ at all ? for are not these questions of faith , whether there be a god and a providence , and whether christ be that messias , who came from god ? or does our author think , that no atheist or infidel , no unbelieving jew , or heathen , ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed ? whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence , i doubt , will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of socinians , and other hereticks . if you say , he confines this to such points as have always been controverted in the churches of god , i desire to know a reason , why he thus confines it ? for does not his reason equally extend to the christian faith it self , as to those points , which have been controverted in christian churches ? and why then should not infidels as well have the benefit of this principle , as hereticks ? but i desire to know , what articles of our faith have not been controverted by some hereticks or other ? and whether then this does not give sufficient scope to infidelity , to renounce all the articles of our creed , which have been denied or corrupted by some professed christians ? but what he would insinuate in this , that these points of the athanasian creed have always been matter of controversie in the christian church , is manifestly false , as appears from all the records of the church : the anti nicene fathers were of the same faith , before the definition of the council of nice , as the learned dr. ball has abundantly proved ; this was always the faith of the christian church ; and those hereticks , who taught otherwise , either separated themselves from the church , or were flung out of it ; and i hope the disputes of hereticks against the catholick faith , shall not be called controversies in the churches of god. and yet i desire to know , why that may not be the catholick faith , and necessary to salvation , which has always been matter of controversie ? has the catholick faith any such priviledge as not to be controverted ? or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the catholick faith , which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all ages of the church ? and if men of perverse minds may dispute the most necessary articles of faith , then if any faith be necessary , it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and fundamental points , as are and have been disputed . but before i dismiss this point , it may be convenient to instruct this author ( if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand ) how necessary it is to salvation , and that before all other things , to hold the true catholick faith , and that the faith of the athanasian creed is that catholick faith which is necessary to salvation . 1. as for the first of these , i would desire him to consider , that though without holiness no man shall see god , yet no man is saved by his good works but by faith in christ : to say , that we shall be saved by holiness and good works without faith in christ , is to assert the merit of good works ten thousand times more than ever papists themselves did : the meritorious works of popery serve only instead of penance , to keep them out of purgatory , or to shorten their time there ; they serve instead of that temporal punishment , which absolved and penitent sinners must undergo for those sins , the eternal punishment of which is remitted , not for their own meritorious works , but for the merits and expiation of christ ; but he who expects to be saved for his good works without faith in christ , attributes such a merit to good works , as redeems him from the wrath of god , and the eternal punishments due to sin , and purchases eternal rewards for him , which is somewhat more than the church of rome pretends to ; especially since whatever merit they attribute to good works , they ascribe wholly to the merits of christ , whose merits alone have made our good works meritorious , which is very honourable to our saviour , and very orthodox divinity , in comparison with those , who think good works such meritorious things , whatever their faith be ; and if he considers this twice , i suppose , he will confess , that faith in christ , the true catholick faith , is necessary to salvation . 2. nay , it is necessary before all other things to our salvation , because it is necessary to baptism , which alone puts us into a state of salvation : for he that believes and is baptized , shall be saved , but he that believes not shall be damned : all christians must confess , that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved , but onely the name of christ ; that faith in christ in adult persons is necessary to baptism , that baptism alone incorporates us into the body of christ , and puts us into a state of salvation ; and therefore that neither jews , nor turks , nor heathens , none but believing and baptized christians are in a state of salvation , how morally vertuous soever their lives may be : whoever does not confess this , makes nothing of the covenant of grace in jesus christ , nothing of his sacrifice , priesthood and intercession ; makes the christian religion nothing but a new and more perfect sect of philosophy , than either jews or heathens taught before ; whose condition yet is as safe as the condition of christians , if they live according to the knowledge they have : our author then must either renounce the christian religion , or confess the true catholick faith , or a true faith in christ , is before all other things necessary to salvation , because this is that which puts us into a state of salvation by christ , without which no man can be saved according to the terms of the gospel . 3. if faith in christ be necessary to salvation , i suppose , all men will grant , it must be the true faith in christ , not a false and heretical faith ; for that is equivalent to infidelity ; there seems to be little difference between not believing in christ at all , and not believing what we ought to believe of him , and the belief of which is necessary to salvation ; for if we do not believe that of christ , which is necessary to salvation , we may as well believe nothing : and then to be sure it concerns us to hold the catholick faith , whatever that be . 4. that the faith of the holy trinity is that true christian faith , which is necessary to salvation , appears from the form of baptism itself ; for we are baptised in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost : that is , into the faith and worship of the trinity in unity , and unity in trinity , which is the substance of the athanasian creed : this is the baptismal faith , and that certainly is necessary to salvation , if any faith be : now when we consider , that baptism is our solemn dedication to god , and admission into covenant with him , to be dedicated to the son , and holy ghost , in the same manner , in the very same act , and same form of words , whereby we are dedicated to the father , were they not one supream and soveraign god with the father , would make any considering man abhor the christian religion , as the most open and bare-faced idolatry , as joyning creatures with god in the most solemn act of religion , that of dedicating men to his worship and service : but not to insist on that now , our author may hence learn , that to believe in father , son , and holy ghost , is necessary to salvation , because it is the faith of baptism , and if that exposition which the athanasian creed has given of this faith , be the true catholick doctrine , then that is necessary to salvation ; and therefore the creed begins very properly with asserting the necessity of holding the catholick faith , if we will be saved ; which must be as necessary to salvation , as it is to be christians . which faith except a man keep whole and undefiled , without doubt he shall perish everlastingly . by keeping this faith whole and undefiled must be meant , ( if any thing be meant ) that a man should believe and profess it , without adding to it , or taking from it : if we take from it , we do not keep it whole , if we add ought to it , we do not keep it undefiled , and either way we shall perish everlastingly . a man of ordinary sense and candor would have said , that to keep this faith whole and undefiled , signified not to corrupt the faith either by adding to it , or taking from it : for whatever we add , or whatever we take away , which does not alter the essentials of our faith , the faith remains whole and undefiled still : but this would have spoiled his notable remarks both as to adding and taking away . first for adding : what if an honest plain man , because he is a christian and a protestant , should think it necessary to add this article to the athanasian creed : i believe the holy scriptures of the old and new testament , to be a divine , infallible , and compleat rule , both for faith and manners ? i hope no protestant would think a man damned for such addition : and if so , then this creed of athanasius is at least an unnecessary rule of faith. that is to say , it is an addition to the catholick faith , to own the scriptures to be the rule of faith : as if it were an addition to the laws of england to own the original records of them in the tower : for the catholick faith is what we are to believe , the rule of faith is that book or writing wherein this catholick faith is to be found , and upon the authority of which we must believe it ; and therefore what the catholick faith is , and what is the rule of faith , are two very distinct questions ; and to apply what is said of the catholick faith , to the rule of faith , becomes the wit and understanding of an heretick : this is the very argument , which the papists use against our authors compleat and infallible rule of faith , the scriptures , that they do not contain all things necessary to salvation , because they do not prove the great fundamental of the protestant faith , that the canon of scripture , which we receive , is the word of god ; now what answer he would give to papists , with reference to the sufficiency of scripture , let him suppose , i give him the same answer in vindication of the catholick faith of the athanasian creed , and we are right again . but his parting blow is worth some little observation , that if the scriptures be a compleat rule of faith , then this creed of athanasius is at least an unnecessary rule of faith : but why did he not say the same thing of the apostles creed , or nicene creed , or any other creeds , as well as of the athanasian creed ? for it seems a creed , as a creed ( for there is no other sense to be made of it ) is a very unnecessary thing , if the scripture be a compleat rule of faith : and thus both catholicks and hereticks , even his dear arians and socinians , have troubled themselves and the world to no purpose , in drawing up creeds and confessions of faith. but this author ought to be sent to school to learn the difference between a creed , and a rule of faith : a rule of faith is a divinely inspired writing , which contains all matters to be believed , and upon the authority of which we do believe ; a creed is a summary of faith , or a collection of such articles , as we ought to believe , the truth of which we must examine by some other rule : the sum then of our author's argument is this : that because the scripture is the rule of faith , and contains all things necessary to be believed , therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the scripture such propositions , as are necessary for all christians explicitely to believe : he might as well have proved from the scriptures being a compleat rule of faith , that therefore there is no necessity of commentators , or sermons , or catechisms , as that there is no necessity of creeds . but as senseless as this is , there is a very deep fetch in it ; for he would have no other creed , but that the scripture is the divine , infallible , compleat rule of faith , which makes all other creeds unnecessary ; and then he can make what he pleases of scripture , as all other hereticks have done before him : but let me ask this author , whether to believe in general , that the scripture is the compleat rule of faith , without an explicite belief of what is contained in scripture , will carry a man to heaven ? there seems to me no great difference between this general faith in the scriptures , without particularly knowing and believing what they teach , and believing as the church believes . we suppose then , he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the scripture necessary to salvation ; and ought not the church then to instruct people , what these necessary articles of faith are , and what is the true sense of scripture about them ? especially when there are a great many damnable heresies taught in the church by men of perverse minds , who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction ; and does not this shew the necessity of orthodox creeds and formularies of faith ? and this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient creeds , though the holy scripture be the only divine and infallible rule of faith , viz. that they are a kind of secondary rule , as containing the traditionary faith of the church : it is no hard matter for witty men to put very perverse senses on scripture to favour their heretical doctrines , and to defend them with such sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking men ; and the best way in this case is , to have recourse to the ancient faith of the christian church , to learn from thence , how these articles were understood and professed by them : for we cannot but think , that those who conversed with the apostles , and did not only receive the scriptures , but the sense and interpretation of them from the apostles , or apostolical men , understood the true christian faith much better than those at a farther remove ; and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this tradition to be preserved in the church , their authority is very venerable ; and this gives so great and venerable authority to some of the first general councils ; and therefore we find tertullian himself confuting the hereticks of his days , by this argument from prescription , or the constant tradition of all apostolick churches , which was certain and unquestionable at that time ; and as much as papists pretend to tradition , we appeal to tradition for the first three or four centuries ? and if the doctrine of the athanasian creed have as good a tradition as this , as certainly it has , it is no unnecessary rule , though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable rule , as the holy scripture is : where there are two different senses put on scripture , it is certainly the safest , to embrace that sense ( if the words will bear it ) which is most agreeable to the received doctrine of the primitive church , contained in the writings of her doctors , or ancient creeds , or such creeds , as are conformed to the doctrine of the primitive church . then for taking ought from this creed , the whole greek church ( diffused through so many provinces ) rejects as heretical that period of it , the holy ghost is of the father and of the son : contending that the holy spirit is from the father only ; which also they clearly and demonstratively prove , as we shall see in its proper place . and for the menace here of athanasius , that they shall perish everlastingly ; they laugh at it , and say , he was drunk , when he made that creed . gennad . schol. arch bishop of constantin . this addition of the filioque , or the holy ghost proceeding from the father and from the son , which was disputed between the greek and latin church , is no corruption of the essentials of the christian faith about the doctrine of the holy trinity , as i observed before ; nor does athanasius deny salvation to those , who do not believe it : for he that will be saved , must thus think of the trinity , does not relate to every particular word and phrase , but to that doctrine , which immediately proceeds ; that the trinity in vnity , and vnity in trinity , is to be worshipped , which the greeks acknowledged as well as the latins , and therefore agreed in the substantials of faith , necessary to salvation . and that i havereason for what i say , appears from this ; that after the latins were perswaded , that the holy ghost did proceed from the son they were far enough from denying salvation to those , who believed otherwise : pope leo iii ▪ assented to the definition of the council of aquisgrane , an. 809. concerning the procession of the holy ghost from the son and yet would by no means allow , that it should be added to the creed ; nor would he deny salvation to those who believed otherwise , but when that question was asked him , returned this answer ; that whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the knowledge of this , or knowing it , will not believe it , cannot be saved ; but there are many , and this among the rest , deep misteries of the holy faith , which all cannot reach to , some by reason of age , others for want of understanding , and therefore as we said before , he that can , and won't , cannot be saved : and therefore at the same time he commanded the constantinopolitan creed to be hung up at rome in a silver table without the addition of the filioque : nor can any man tell when this was added to the creed ; however we never read the greeks were anathematized upon this account , till pope vrban ii. 1097. and in the council of florence under eugenius iv. 1438 — 9. ioseph the patriarch of constantinople thought this controversie between the two churches might be reconciled , and the filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the greek church . as for what he adds , that the greek church condemned this addition as heretical , i desire to know , what greek council did this ; vossius a very diligent observer , gives no account of it ; the quarrel of the greeks with the latins was , that they undertook without the authority of a general council , to add to the creed of a general council , when the council of ephesus and chalcedon had anathematized those , who did so ; and therefore for this reason the greeks anathematized the latin church , without declaring the filioque to be heretical , and as that learned man observes , this was the true cause of the schism , that the greeks thought , the pope of rome , and a western synod , took too much upon themselves , to add to the creed of a general council , by their own authority , without consulting the eastern church , which was equally concerned in matters of faith. but the comical part is still behind ; for he says , the greeks laugh at athanasius 's menace , and say he was drunk , when he made the creed ; and for this he refers us to georgius scholarius , or gennadius , who was made patriarch of constantinople by mahomet , when he had taken that city . i confess , i have not read all that gennadius has writ , and know not where to find this place , and he has not thought fit to direct us : but this i know , that whether gennadius says this himself , or only reports it as the saying of some foolish greeks ( for i cannot guess by our author , which it is ) whoever said it , said more then is true , for athanasius neither made the creed , drunk nor sober , for as most learned men agree , he never made it at all , though it bears his name ; but i wish i could see this place in gennadius , for i greatly suspect our author ; gennadius being a very unlikely man to say any ill thing of athanasius upon account of the filioque , who himself took the side of the latin church in this dispute , and as vossius relates , gives athanasius a very different , and more honourable character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the great athanasius the preacher and confessor of truth . but there is nothing smites me more than to hear this arian , or socinian , or whatever he is , affirm , that the greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved , that the holy spirit is from the father only ; for that which is proved clearly and demonstratively , i hope is true , and then this alone is a confutation of his brief notes , for the greeks taught , and proved demonstratively , as he says , that the holy spirit so proceeds from the father only as to be of the same substance , and one god with the father . and the catholick faith is this : catholick faith is as much as to say in plain english , the faith of the whole church ; now in what age was this , which here follows , the faith of the whole church ? the catholick faith , i grant , is so called with relation to the catholick church , whose faith it is , and the catholick church is the universal church , or all the true churches in the world , which are all but one whole church , united in christ their head : the profession of the true faith and worship of christ makes a true church , and all true churches are the one catholick church , whether they be spread over all the world , or shut up in any one corner of it , as at the first preaching of the gospel the catholick church was no where but in iudaea . now as no church is the catholick church of christ ; how far soever it has spread it self over the world , unless it profess the true faith of christ ; no more is any faith the catholick faith , how universally soever it be professed , unless it be the true faith of christ ; nor does the true christian faith cease to be catholick , how few soever there be , who sincerely profess it . it is down-right popery to judge of the catholick church by its multitudes or large extent , or to judge of the catholick faith by the vast numbers of its professors : were there but one true church in the world , that were the catholick church , because it would be the whole church of christ on earth ; and were the true christian faith professed but in one such church , it would be the catholick faith still ; for it is the faith of the whole true church of christ , the sincere belief and profession of which makes a catholick church . not in the age of athanasius himself , who for this faith , and for seditious practices , was banished from alexandria in aegypt ( where he was bishop ) no less than four times ; whereof the first was by constantine the great . what shall be done unto thee , thou lying tongue ? what impudence is this , to think to sham the world at this time a day , with such stories as these ? when the case of athanasius is so well known , or may be , even to english readers , who will take the pains to read his life , written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned dr. cave . but when he thinks a second time of it , will he say , that the church of god in athanasius's age , was not of the same faith with him ? what thinks he of the nicene fathers , who condemned arius ? in which council athanasius himself was present , and bore a considerable part , and so provoked the arian faction by his zeal for the catholick faith , and his great skill and dexterity in managing that cause , as laid the foundation of all his future troubles . will he say that constantine the great , who called the council at nice in the cause of arius , and was so zealous an asserter of the nicene faith , banished athanasius for this faith ? no , his greatest enemies durst not make his faith any part of their accusation , though it was the only reason of their malice against him ; but they charged him with a great many other crimes ; and that the reader may the better understand by what spirit these men were acted , which still appears in this author , i shall give a short account of the story . the arian faction headed by eusebius of nicomedia , perceiving how impossible it was to retrieve their lost cause , while athanasius was in credit , and so great authority in the church , having ripened their designs against him in their private cabals , prevail with constantine to call a council at caesarea in palestine , at which athanasius did not appear , suspecting , probably , the partiality of his judges , who were his declared enemies . this was represented at court as a contempt of the imperial orders , and another council was appointed at tyre , which met ann. 335. with a peremptory command for his appearance ; where he first excepted against the competency of his judges , but that being over-ruled , he was forced to plead . and first he was charged with oppression and cruelty , particularly towards ischyras , callinicus , and the miletian bishops , but this fell of it self , for want of proof . in the next place , he was accused for having ravished a woman , and one too who had vowed virginity : the woman was brought into the council , and there owned the fact ; but timotheus , one of athanasius's friends , personates athanasius , and asks the woman , whether he had ever offered such violence to her ; she supposing him to have been athanasius , roundly declared him to be the man ? who had done the fact ; and thus this cheat was discovered . his next accusation was , that he had murdered arsenius , a miletian bishop , whose hand he had cut off , and kept by him for some magical uses ; and the hand dried and salted was taken out of a box and shewn to the council : and to make this more credible , they had of a long time conveyed arsenius away , and kept him out of sight : but he having made his escape about this time , and being accidentally met by some friends of athanasius , was on a sudden brought into the council , where he shewed both his hands safe , to the shame and confusion of the malicious inventors of that lye. this failing , they accuse him of impiety , and profanation of holy things : that his ordination was tumultuary and irregular ; the contrary of which was evidently true : that macarius his presbyter , by his command , had broke into ischyras's chancel , while he was performing the holy offices , and overturned the communion-table , broke in pieces the sacramental chalice , and burnt the holy books ; all which ischyras was present to attest ; but the contrary in every branch of the accusation was made apparent , and the whole plot discovered by a writing under ischyras his own hand , sufficiently attested . after all these shameful baffles they would not give over , but sent commissioners from the synod to inquire into the matter of fact upon the place , and having raked together any thing , which they could make look like evidence , though gained by the most barbarous cruelties , and other vile arts , they return to the council , who without more ado condemn and depose athanasius from his bishoprick , and command him to go no more to alexandria ; upon this he withdrew himself and went to court , prays the emperor for a more fair and impartial tryal , who thereupon sent to the council , then adjourned to ierusalem , to come to constantinople , and make good their charge ; five commissioners appeared , who joyned with some others , whom they could get together , formed a small synod , but not daring to insist upon their former accusations , start up a new charge more like to take at court , viz. that he had threatned to stop the emperors fleet , that yearly transported corn from alexandria to constantinople ; which was as true and as probable a story as any of the rest : but they told this with such confidence , and urged the ill consequences of it so home upon the emperor , that they prevailed with him to banish athanasius to triers in germany . if this short story does not make our author blush , he is possessed with the true spirit of the tyrian fathers . but to proceed , he was also condemned in his own life time by six councils , as an heretick , and seditious person ; of these councils , that at milan consisted of three hundred bishops , and that of ariminum of five hundred and fifty , the greatest convention of bishops that ever was . this consent of the churches of god against him and his doctrine , occasioned that famous proverb , athanasius against all the world , and all the world against athanasius . this is all sham. i grant , athanasius was condemned by several arian conventicles ( which he prophanely calls the churches of god ) in his own life time , but i deny , that he was condemned as a heretick , or that he was condemned for his faith. we have seen the account of his condemnation by the council of tyre already , and for what pretended crimes he was condemned , without the least mention of his heresie ; for if this author understood any thing of the story of those times , he must know , that though the arian cause was vigorously and furiously promoted , yet it was done more covertly , since that fatal blow which was given it by the council of nice , whose authority was too sacred to be easily born down : and therefore they did not pretend to unsettle the nicene faith , nay pretended to own it , though they did not like the word homo-ousios , and therefore formed various creeds , as they pretended to the same sense without that litigious word : which shews that it was not time of day for them to accuse athanasius of heresie , but ▪ of such other crimes , as might condemn and depose him , and remove him out of the way , that he might not hinder their designs . thus in the council at antioch , in the reign of constantius , 341 , the old calumnies are revived against athanasius , and he deposed again , after he had been restored by constantine the younger , and george the cappadocian , a man of mean birth , base education , and worse temper ( for they could find no better man , that would accept it ) was advanced to the patriarchal chair ; but all this while , he was charged with no heresie in faith : but that his return to alexandria had occasioned great trouble and sorrow there , and the effusion of much blood : that being condemned by a synod , and not restored again by the authority of a synod , he re-assumed his chair again , contrary to the canons , &c. upon this athanasius fled to rome , where in a synod of western bishops , he was absolved , and restored to communion , contrary to the earnest solicitations of the council of antioch . anno 347 , a council of eastern and western bishops was called at sardica ; where the eastern bishops , ( who were most of them arians , or favourers of that party ) refused to joyn with them of the west , and acted in a seperate assembly , and had brought with them count musonianus , and hesychius an officer of the imperial palace , to countenance and promote their proceedings ; and having bespattered athanasius with all the ill things they had formerly charged him with , and tried in vain to delay the sentence of the western bishops , they proceeded synodically to condemn and depose him , together with several other principal bishops of the catholick party ; of all which they published an encyclical or decretal epistle wherein they gave a large account of their whole proceeding . the western bishops in the mean time , after a large and particular examination of athanasius's case , and all matters of fact relating to him , acquitted and restored him ; and having heard the complaints made to the synod from all parts concerning the grievances they lay under from the arian faction ; they particularly condemned and deposed the chief heads of that party , and banished them from the communion of the faithful , publishing an account of what they had done in several synodical letters : thus far it was pretty well with athanasius , for all the churches of god did not condemn him ; if he were condemned by the eastern bishops in a schismatical conventicle , he was absolved by the western council ; if he was condemned by the arians , he was absolved by the catholicks ; but still his faith was no matter of the dispute . but now the zeal of constantius reduced athanasius to greater extremity ; for he lying at arles in france anno 353 , a synod was held there , where all arts were used to procure the condemnation of athanasius ; at least by refusing to hold communion with him , to which most of the bishops yielded , and vincentius of capua himself , the pope's chief legate , subscribed the condemnation ; paulinus of triers for his honest courage and constancy in refusing it , being driven into banishment . not contented with this , as if poor athanasius could never be often enough condemned , anno 355 , constantius going to milan , another synod was called there , and the catholick bishops were strictly required to subscribe the condemnation of athanasius ; and the emperor himself being present in the synod , drew his sword , and fiercely told them , that it must be so , that he himself accused athanasius , and that his testimony ought to be believed : and for refusing to comply , eusebius vercellensis , lucifer caralitanus , and several others were sent into banishment . this is the council , which as our author tells us , consisted of three hundred bishops , but the emperor was more than all the rest , and it was he , that extorted the condemnation of athanasius ; and let him make his best of this . the like violence was used in other synods , as in that of syrmium , anno 357 , where a confession of faith was drawn up , which hosius of corduba was forced to subscribe , and as some say , to condemn athanasius . anno 359 ; was his other great council at ariminum , of five hundred and fifty bishops , where they were so managed by the subtilty and importunity of some few arian bishops , and so wearied out by taurus the prefect , and that by the command of the emperor , that they generally yielded , several of them being even starved into compliance : and this is the time of which st. ierom speaks , that the whole world wondered to see itself arian : by such councils , and by such arts as these athanasius was condemned , though he was never accused nor condemned for his faith : and that veneration the whole christian world has had ever since for the name of athasius , is a sufficient vindication of his person and faith , notwithstanding the ill usage he met with under an arian emperor . as for his next paragraph , wherein he appeals to the late arian historian , chr. sandius , i shall only refer the reader to dr. bull 's answer , and i think i am more than even with him ; and whoever will read and consider what that learned man has irrefragably proved , that those fathers , who lived before the council of nice , were yet of the same faith with the nicene fathers , as to the doctrine of the holy trinity , will see , that a very modest man may call this the catholick faith , even in his sense of the word catholick , as it signifies the common faith of christians in all ages , since the preaching of the gospel in the world : and that it requires both forehead and forgery to deny it . and if in that age athanasius were the only man who durst openly and boldly defend the catholick faith , against a prevailing faction , supported by a court interest , and grown formidable by lies and calumnies , and the most barbarous cruelties , it is for his immortal honour , and will always be thought so by the churches of christ. and now i come to answer his terrible objections against the several articles of this creed , which he has endeavoured to ridicule ; and when i have done so , i hope he will think it time to consider , what it is to ridicule the christian faith : a modest man would not affront the general faith of christians , at least of that church in which he lives ; and a cautious man , whatever his private opinion were , would not ridicule so venerable a mystery , lest it should prove true ; which is the same argument we use to make atheists modest , not to laugh at the notion of a god , lest he should find the god , whom he has so impudently affronted , when he comes into the other world. sect . iv. the catholick doctrine of a trinity in vnity , and vnity in trinity explained , and vindicated from all pretended absurdities and contradictions . the catholick faith is this , that we worship one god in trinity , and trinity in vnity . he means here , that we must so worship the one true god , as to remember he is three persons ; and so worship the three persons , as to bear in mind , they are but one substance , or godhead , or god : so the author explains himself in the three next articles , which are these : neither confounding the persons , nor dividing the substance : for there is one person of the father , another of the son , another of the holy ghost : but the godhead of the father , of the son , and of the holy ghost , is all one. therefore all these articles make indeed but one article , which is this ? the one true god is three distinct persons , and three distinct persons ( father , son , and holy ghost ) are the one true god. thus far i agree with this author ; and indeed this is the whole of the creed , as far as relates to the doctrine of the trinity , that there are three persons and one god , all the rest being only a more particular explication of this ; and therefore i would desire the reader to observe , for the understanding this creed , what belongs to the persons , and what to the one eternal undivided substance or godhead , which will answer all the seeming contradictions which are charged on this doctrine . but he proceeds : plainly as if a man should say , peter , iames , and iohn , being three persons , are one man ; and one man is these three persons , peter , iames , and iohn . is it not now a ridiculous attempt , as well as a barbarous indignity , to go about thus to make asses of all mankind , under a pretence of teaching them a creed , and things divine , to despoil them of their reason , the image of god , and the character of our nature ? but let us in two words , examine the parts of this monstrous proposition , as 't is laid down in the creed itself . neither confounding the persons , nor dividing the substance . but how can we not but confound the persons , that have ( say they ) but one numerical substance ; and how can we but divide the substance , which we find in three distinct divided persons . our author should have kept to athanasius's creed , which he undertook to expose , and then we had not heard of this objection : for the creed does not say , that there are three persons in one numerical substance , but in one undivided substance ; nor does it say , that there are three divided persons in this one undivided substance , but three persons , which may be three , and yet not divided , but intimately united to each other in one undivided substance : now tho' we should grant it unconceivable , how three distinct persons should have one numerical essence , that the essence of the father , of the son , and of the holy ghost should be numerically the same , and yet their persons distinct ; [ for it is not easie to distinguish the essence or substance from the person , and therefore not easie to tell , how there should be but one substance and three persons , ] yet it is no absurdity or contradiction to say , that three real substantial persons should subsist in one undivided substance , and then there is no necessity either to confound the persons , or divide the substance . we must allow the divine persons to be real substantial beings , if we allow each person to be god ; unless we will call any thing a god , which has no real being , as that has not , which has not a real nature and essence ; whereas all men grant there are no accidents , or qualities , or modes in god , but a pure and simple essence or pure act ; and therefore the three divine persons are substantially distinct , though in one undivided substance : which shews , that to say , that the one true god is three distinct persons , and three distinct persons are the one true god , is not plainly , as if a man should say , that peter , james , and john , being three persons are one man , and one man is three distinct persons , peter , james , and john : because peter , iames , and iohn , are not only distinct , but divided and separate persons , which have three divided and separate substances , which therefore cannot be one man , as three distinct persons in one undivided substance are one god. this is sufficient to vindicate the athanasian creed , which only asserts three distinct persons in one undivided substance , which has nothing absurd or contradictious in it ; but because this author founds his objection upon one numerical substance , let us briefly consider that too ; for the divine essence or substance is certainly numerically one , as there is but one god ; and the difficulty is , how three distinct substantial persons can subsist in one numerical essence : i will not pretend to fathom such a mystery as this , but only shew , that there is nothing absurd in it , and take down the confidence of this vain pretender to reason and demonstration . let us then enquire , what it is , that makes any substance numerically one , that if there be any absurdity in this , we may find out where it lies . now in unorganiz'd matter , it is nothing else but the union of parts , which hang all together , that makes such a body one ; whether it be simple or compounded of different kinds of matter , that is one numerical body , whose parts hang all together . in organical bodies , the union of all parts , which constitute such an organized body , makes it one entire numerical body , though the parts have very different natures and offices ; but this is of no use to explain the numerical oneness of the divine essence , because the divine substance has no extension , and no parts , and therefore cannot be one by an union of parts . in finite created spirits , which have no parts and no extension neither , that we know of , no more than a thought , or an idea , or a passion , have extension or parts ; their numerical oneness can be nothing else , but every spirit 's unity with itself , and distinct and separate subsistence from all other created spirits . now this self unity of the spirit , which has no parts to be united , can be nothing else but self-consciousness : that it is conscious to its own thoughts , reasonings , passions , which no other finite spirit is conscious to but itself : this makes a finite spirit numerically one , and seperates it from all other spirits ; that every spirit feels only its own thoughts and passions , but is not conscious to the thoughts and passions of any other spirit : and therefore if there were three created spirits so united as to be conscious to each others thoughts and passions , as they are to their own , i cannot see any reason , why we might not say , that three such persons were numerically one , for they are as much one with each other , as every spirit is one with itself ; unless we can find some other unity for a spirit than self-consciousness ; and , i think , this does help us to understand in some measure this great and venerable mystery of a trinity in vnity . for god being present every-where without parts , and without extension , we must strip our minds of all material images and figures , when we contemplate the unity of the divine nature . though we should suppose but one person in the godhead , as well as one god , ( as this author does ) yet we must consider his unity , not as the unity of an infinite body , but an infinite mind , which has no distinct parts to be united ; and let any man , who can , give me any other notion of the numerical oneness of an infinite mind , but self-consciousness : that though present every-where , it is still intimate with itself : and in the very same way , and for the very same reason , three divine persons , who are as intimate to each other , and if i may so speak , as mutually conscious to each other , as any one person can be to itself , are truly and properly numerically one. this , i suppose , is what several ancient fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or circumincession , which i confess is an ill word , and apt to raise very material imaginations in us , as if the divine persons were united in one substance , as three bodies would be , could they touch in every point ; whereas we know not , what the substance of an infinite mind is , nor how such substances as have no parts or extension can touch each other , or be thus externally united ; but we know the unity of a mind or spirit , reaches as far as its self-consciousness does : for that is one spirit , which knows and feels itself , and its own thoughts and motions : and if we mean this by circumincession , three persons thus intimate to each other are numerically one : and therefore st. austin represents this much better by that self-consciousness which is between those distinct faculties in us , of memory , understanding and will , which know and feel whatever is in each other : we remember what we understand and will , we understand , what we remember and will , and what we will , we remember and understand ; and therefore these three faculties , which are thus intimate to each other , make one man , and if we can suppose three infinite minds and persons , thus conscious of whatever is in each other , as they are of themselves , they can be but one numerical god. but that this may not be thought a meer arbitrary and groundless conjecture , i shall shew you , that this is the true scripture notion of the unity of the godhead , or of three persons and one god. that the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , are three infinite minds , really distinct from each other ; that the father is not the son , nor the holy ghost either the father , or the son , is so very plain in scripture , that i shall not spend time to prove it , especially since it is supposed in this controversie ; for when we enquire , how these three infinite minds or persons are one god , it supposes , that they are distinct ; and if there were any dispute about it , what i shall say in explaining their unity , will prove their distinction , that they are three distinct infinite minds . 1. let us then consider , what the unity is between the father and the son , for so our saviour tells us , i and the father are one , 10 iohn 30. and how they are one , we learn from several places in this gospel , which as the ancients tell us , was wrote on purpose in opposition to the heresie of carinthus , to prove , that christ was not meer man , but the eternal son of god , and one with his father : now 1 iohn 1. the evangelists call him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the word of god , the eternal wisdom and reason of god , and therefore as intimate to god as his own eternal word and wisdom ; as intimate as a man 's own wisdom and reason is to him ; and therefore he adds , that this word which was in the beginning , was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with god , as we translate it , which cannot signifie a local presence , but an essential union , or a being in god , as christ tells us , the father is in me , and i in him , 10 iohn 38. for before place was made , or any thing to fill it , to be with god , could signifie nothing else but to subsist in him : and therefore , v. 18. the apostle expounds this being with god , by being in the bosome of the father ; which cannot signifie an external union , because god has no external bosom ; but bosom signifies the very essence of god , and if we could distinguish parts in god , the most inward and secret recesses of the divine nature : now this intimate union and in-being , when we speak of an essential union of pure and infinite minds , is a mutual consciousness , and if i may so speak , an inward sensation of each other , to know and feel each other , as they know and feel themselves . to represent this plainly and intelligibly , if it be possible , to the meanest understanding , i shall consider , wherein the most perfect union of created spirits consist , which are distinct and seperate beings from each other ; wherein the union of the divine persons in the ever blessed trinity answers this , and wherein it excels it . now created spirits , as angels and humane souls , are then most perfectly united to each other , when they most perfectly know one another , and know all , that each other knows , and perfectly agree in all they know , which is an union in knowledge : when they perfectly love one another , have the same will , the same affections , the same interests and designs ; when they are a kind of unisons which move and act a like , as if one soul animated them both : this is that perfect unity , which is so frequently and earnestly recommended to christians both by christ and his apostles ; as we may see every-where in scripture . and the very same union with this , there is between the persons of the ever blessed trinity ; an union in knowledge , in love , in will , in works . the son perfectly knows the father , and therefore knows all that the father knows ; this st. iohn means when he tells us , that he is in the bosom of the father : 1 iohn 18. no man hath seen god at any time : that is , no man ever had a perfect knowledge of god , which is here called seeing , because sight gives us the most distinct and perfect knowledge of things : the only begotten son , which is in the bosom of the father , he hath declared him : where it is plain , to be in the bosom of the father , is put to signifie the most perfect and intimate knowledge of him ; as in ordinary speech to take any man into our bosom , signifies to impart all our secrets to him : but our saviour tells us this in plain words ; that the father perfectly knows the son , and the son the father , 10 iohn 15. as the father knoweth me , so know i the father . thus the father loveth the son , 3 joh. 25.5 . joh. 20. and the son loveth the father , 14 iohn 31. thus the son has no will but his fathers , 5 iohn 20. i can of my own self do nothing , as i hear , i judge , and my judgment is just ; because i seek not mine own will , but the will of the father , which hath sent me , 6 john 38. for i came not to do my own will , but the will of him that sent me . 4 john 34. my meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work : thus whatever christ did or spake , it was in conformity to his father , what he saw , and heard , and learnt of him . 5 john 19. the son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the father do ; for whatsoever things he doth , these also doth the son likewise . 12 john 49. i have not spoken of my self , but the father that sent me , he gave me a commandment , what i should say , and what i should speak . this is as perfect an union , as union signifies agreement and concord , as can possibly be between two minds and spirits . the like may be said of the holy ghost : he perfectly knows the father , and his most secret councels : for the spirit searcheth all things , yea the deep things of god , 1 cor. 2.10 . he is the spirit of wisdom and revelation , who inspired the prophets and apostles , to declare god and his will to the world , and therefore is most intimately acquainted with it himself : thus our saviour comforts his apostles , when he was to leave them himself , with the promise of the spirit , who should guide them into all truth . 16 ioh. 13 , 14 , 15. howbeit when he the spirit of truth is come , he shall guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself , but whatsoever he shall hear , that shall he speak , and he will shew you things to come . he shall glorifie me , for he shall receive of mine , and shall shew it unto you : all things that the father hath are mine , therefore said i , that he shall take of mine , and shall shew it unto you . of which words more hereafter ; at present i only observe , how intimately the holy spirit is acquainted with all the secrets both of father and son , whatever things the father knows , that the son knows , and what the son knows , that the holy spirit knows ; that is , whatever the father knows , which is first said to be the father's , then the son 's , and then the holy spirit 's , according to the order of persons in the adorable trinity . thus the holy spirit is the spirit of love , which inspires us with the love of god , and gives us the reciprocal testimonies of god's love to us : for the love of god is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost , which is given unto us , 5 rom. 5. and as some of the ancients represent it , he is that love , wherewith the father and the son love each other ; and therefore there is no question , but that he who unites father and son , and unites god to us , and us to god , by love , is united to father and son by love himself . he is that holy spirit , who renews and sanctifies us , and subdues our wills into a conformity and subjection to the will of god ; and therefore no doubt , but he has the same will with father and son. thus father , son , and holy ghost , are most intimately united in knowledge , will , and affection , but after all , this is no more , than what we call a moral union ; such as may be between created spirits , which remain separate beings still , and though they are morally , are not essentially one ; and therefore such an union as this cannot make father , son , and holy ghost one god , but three agreeing and consenting gods , as peter , iames , and iohn , though they should in the most perfect manner be united , in the same faith , and mutual love and affection , &c. yet would be three men still : and therefore i must now shew , that what is merely a moral union between creatures , is an essential union between the persons of the ever blessed trinity . and this i have already shewn in part . the three divine persons of the ever blessed trinity , are united in knowledge , in will , in love : but are not united as creatures are by an external likeness , conformity , agreement , consent , in knowledge , will , and affection ; but are so united to each other , as every man is to himself , not as one man is to another . as for instance : every man by an inward sensation feeels his own knowledge , will , and affections , but he does not know any other man's thoughts , or will , or passions , by feeling them in himself as he does his own , but by an external communication of thoughts ; and therefore though they may be morally one by an exact agreement and harmony of thoughts and passions , as far as by external communication they can know , what each others thoughts and passions are , yet they are essentially distinct and separate : but father , son , and holy ghost , are one not by an external agreement or consent , but by an internal consciousness , as every man is one with himself : if i may so speak , because we want proper words to express it , they feel each other in themselves , know the same thing by feeling each others knowledge , and will , and love a-like , by feeling what each other wills and loves , just as every man feels his own thoughts , knowledge , will , and passions ; that is , are as intimate to each other , and as essentially one , by a mutual self-consciousness , as every man is one with himself . and the phrases and expressions of scripture , whereby the unity or oneness of father , son , and holy ghost are expressed , require this sense . thus i observed before , that the son is the eternal word and wisdom of the father , and therefore as intimate to him , as every man's reason is to himself , and knows the father , not by external revelation , but as every man knows himself . but the most frequent expression , whereby christ represents this close and intimate and essential union between his father and him , is , i am in the father , and the father in me ; which he repeats several times in st. iohn's gospel . now if we will allow this to be a proper , not a metaphorical expression , it can signifie no other union , than what i have now described : that it is a proper , and not a metaphorical expression , appears from this , that there is no such union in nature between any two other beings , as this , to be in one another , and a metaphor is translated from something , that is real and natural , upon account of some likeness and similitude : and therefore that which is like to nothing else , which has no pattern and example , can be no metaphor , because it alludes to nothing : now if we speak of a substantial union , or a union of substances , what two substances can there be in the world , which can mutually be in each other , or can mutually comprehend each other ; which is indeed a palpable contradiction , as signifying at the same time to be greater and to be less than each other ; for in substantial unions , that which comprehends is greater than that which is comprehended , that which is within any thing else is less than that which contains it : and therefore for two beings mutually to comprehend , and to be comprehended by each other , is to be greater and less than each other , greater as they comprehend each other , and less as they are comprehended . so that this oneness between the father and the son , is such an union as there is nothing in nature like it , and we cannot long doubt , what kind of union this is , if we consider , that there is but one possible way to be thus united , and that is by this mutual consciousness , which i have now described . if the son be conscious in himself of all that the father is , as conscious to the knowledge , to the will , to the love of the father , as he is to his own , by an internal sensation , then the whole father is in the son ; if the father be thus conscious to all that the son is , then the whole son is in the father ; if the holy ghost be thus conscious to all that is in the father and in the son , then the father and the son are in the holy ghost , and the holy ghost in the father and the son , by this mutual consciousness to each other . this is very plain and intelligible , and makes them as much one , as every man is one with himself , by self-consciousness . and this is a plain demonstration , that all three divine persons are coessential and coequal with each other : we know nothing of god , but that he is an infinite mind ; that is , infinite knowledge , wisdom , power , goodness : and if these three divine persons are all internally conscious of all these perfections , which are in each other , they must all have the same perfections , the same knowledge , wisdom , power , goodness , that is the same nature , unless that knowledge , wisdom , goodness , which we are internally conscious of , and feel within ourselves , be not the perfections of our nature ; whereas we may externally know those perfections , which are not ours , but what we feel in ourselves is our own : and therefore this mutual consciousness , makes all that is the father 's the son 's , and all that is the son 's the holy spirit 's ; as our saviour speaks : all things that the father hath are mine : therefore said i , that he ( the spirit ) shall take of mine , and shall shew it unto you , 16 iohn 15. and if these three persons be thus mutually in each other , as you have already heard , they must be all equal ; for if the father be in the son , how can the son be less than the father , if he comprehends the father , and all his infinite perfections ? if son and holy ghost are in the father , and father and holy ghost in the son , and father and son in the holy ghost , imagine what inequality you can between them ; if son and holy ghost are conscious to all the infinite perfections , which are in the father , and have all the perfections , they are conscious to , how can son and holy ghost be less perfect than the father , or then each other : i am sure our saviour attributes all his wisdom , and knowledge , and power to his intimate conscious knowledge of his father , which he calls seeing him , which is such a knowledge as creatures cannot have of god , 5 iohn 19.20 . verily , verily , i say unto you , the son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the father do ; for whatsoever things he doth , those also doth the son likewise . for the father loveth the son , and sheweth him all things , that himself doeth , and he will shew him greater works than these , that ye may marvel . by this perfect conscious knowledge , which the son has of the father , he has all those perfections in himself , which are in the father : he can do whatever he sees the father do , and he sees whatever the father does , but can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the father do ; he has all the perfections which are in the father , and therefore can do whatever he sees the father do ; but there is no knowledge , no perfection , no power in the son , which is not in the father , and which he does not receive from the father , and therefore he can do nothing of himself , but what he sees the father do ; which signifies the most perfect equality between the father and the son , founded on the son's seeing the father , and whatever he doth , or his intimate consciousness of all that the father is . and this is the true notion of the son 's being the image of his father : the brightness of his father's glory , and the express image of his person , 1 heb. 2. for as a dead image and picture represents the external lineaments and features of the person , whose picture or image it is , that we can see the person in his picture ; so a living essential image , is the living essential perfections of the father , and with a conscious knowledge sees the father in himself . for this reason the son is said to hear of his father , to see what his father doth , and to do the same , to receive commandement from his fatber , to do the will of his father , and the works of his father , to finish the works , which his father gave him to do , to glorifie his father , &c. which must not be expounded after the manner of men , ( as the socinians expound such expressions , and thence conclude the great inferiority , inequality , subjection of the son to the father , such as there is between a prince , and the ministers he employs , and that therefore the son cannot be the supream god , for the supream god cann't be commanded , taught , sent on messages to fulfil the will and pleasure of another , and do nothing but what he sees done , and receives commission to do ; i say , we must not put such a mean and servile sense on these expressions ) but we must expound them only to signifie that the son receives all from the father , life , knowledge , will , power , by eternal generation , and whatever he does , he does with a consciousness of his father's will , and wisdom , as it were , feeling the will and wisdom and power of his father in himself ; and this he calls hearing and seeing the works of the father , receiving commands , and doing the works of the father , because his nature is that to him , which external teachings ' and verbal commands are to men : he hears , he sees , he does the works , and will , and commands of his father , by being the perfect , living , self-conscious image of his father's will and knowledge and infinite perfections . but there is one place more i must take notice of , by which the socinians think to overthrow all that i have now said ; that the union between the father and son is not such an essential unity , as we speak of , but a meer moral union , or a perfect agreement and consent in knowledge , will , and affection , such as is , or ought to be among christians ; and that our saviour himself has thus expounded it : 17 iohn 20 , 21. neither pray i for these alone , but for them also which shall believe on me through their word : that they all may be one , as thou father art in me , and i in thee , that they also may be one in us : which is the very expression i have so much insisted on , to prove this essential union , and self-consciousness between the father and the son , as thou father art in me , and i in thee : which , it seems , signifies no other kind of union , than what our saviour prays for among christians , that they also may be one , as thou father art in me , and i in thee : now the union of christians is only an union in faith and love , and one communion , and therefore thus the father and the son are one also by a consent and agreement in knowledge , will , and love. now this i readily grant , as i observed before , that father and son are one by a most perfect agreement in knowledge , will , and love , which we call a moral union between men ; and it is this unity or oneness for which our-saviour prays , that his disciples may be one , as the father and he are one ; that they may perfectly agree in the same faith and love , that they may speak the same things , and mind the same things : but then this perfect harmony and consent between the father and the son results from an essential unity , from their being in one another ; which is such an union as it is impossible there should be between christians ; but this moral union in the same faith , and mutual love , is called being one , as the father and son are one , because it is the nearest resemblance of this essential unity , that can be between creatures : and that is the only meaning of as , that they may be one , as thou father art in me , and i in thee : not that they may be one in the very same manner , but with such a kind of unity , as does most nearly resemble the unity between the father and the son ; that is , which produces the like consent and harmony in will and affections . for we must observe , that as very often signifies only some likeness and resemblance , not a sameness for kind or degree ; and thus it must of necessity signifie in all comparisons between god and creatures ; for though there is something in creatures like to what is in god , some faint shadows and images of it , yet nothing in creatures is the same , that is in god : st. peter exhorts christians , as he which hath called you is holy , so be ye holy in all manner of conversation , 1 pet. 1.15 . and christ commands us to be perfect as our father , which is in heaven is perfect , 5 matth. 48. but can any creature be holy and perfect as god is ? will you hence conclude , that holiness is not the immutable nature of god , but the free choice of his will ; not his nature , which is one pure simple act , but an habit of virtue , because so it is in us ; and yet we must be holy and perfect as god is , which cannot be , ( according to this way of reasoning ) unless holiness in god be the same holiness , which is in creatures ; and indeed we may as well conclude this , as that the oneness between the father and the son is only a moral union in will and affection , because there can be no other union between christians , and yet christ prays , that they may be one , as he and his father are one : since this phrase , as thou father art in me , and i in thee , does evidently signifie a great deal more , than such a moral union of will and affections , why should they not as well conclude , that christ prays for such an essential oneness between christians , as there is between him and his father ; as that the father and the son are one in no higher and more perfect sense , than what is applicable to the unity of christians with each other ? there may be such a likeness and resemblance between natural and moral unions , between the acts and perfections of nature , and the vertues of the will and choice , as may be a just foundation for a comparison ; but he is a very absurd reasoner , who from such a comparison will conclude , they are the same : we are required to love our neighbour as our selves ; but will any man hence conclude , that the love of our selves , and the love of our neighbour , are of the same kind ? which is manifestly false : self-love being a natural and necessary passion ; the love of our neighbour a christian vertue ; the first the effect of nature , the second of grace ; but the effects so like each other , that they may well be compared , and the natural principle , which acts most equally and necessarily and perfectly , may be made the rule and measure of brotherly love : thus this essential unity between the father and the son , produces the most perfect harmony and union of will and affections , and therefore is the most perfect pattern of that moral union , which ought to be among christians . for we may observe , that this oneness between the father and the son , is not the only natural and essential unity , which is made the pattern of unity among christians ; the unity of the natural body , and the vital sympathy and fellow-feeling , which all the members of the same natural body have for each other , is proposed as a pattern also of that mutual love and affection between christians , 1 cor. 12.12 — 27. and yet no man will be so absurd as to say ; that either christians are as naturally and vitally united to each other , as the members of a natural body are ; or that the members of the natural body are united only by mutual love and affection , as christians are . this is sufficient to shew , how father and son are one , by a mutual consciousness , whereby they are as intimate to each other , as every man is to himself , who knows all that is in himself , and feels all the motions and workings of his own mind ; and we need not doubt , but the holy spirit is in the same manner one with father and son : but i must not expect , that the adversaries i have to deal with , will grant any thing , which is not proved , and therefore i shall not stand to their courtesie , but briefly prove this also . st. paul tells us , 1 cor. 2.10 . that the spirit searcheth all things , yea the deep things of god : so that the holy spirit knows all that is in god , even his most deep and secret counsels , which is an argument , that he is very intimate with him ; but this is not all , it is the manner of knowing , which must prove this consciousness , of which i speak ; and that the apostle adds in the next verse , that the spirit of god knows all that is in god , just as the spirit of a man knows all that is in man ; that is , not by external revelation or communication of this knowledge , but by self-consciousness , by an internal sensation , which is owing to an essential unity : v. 11. for what man knoweth the things of a man , save the spirit of a man which is in him ; even so the things of god knoweth no man , but the spirit of god. so that the spirit of god is as much within god , and as intimate to him , as the spirit of man is in man ; that is , by an essential oneness , and self-consciousness . and as the spirit knoweth the deep things of god , so god who searcheth the hearts , knoweth the mind of the spirit too , 8 rom. 27. so that the father and the holy ghost are mutually conscious to each other , as a man and his own spirit are ; and then we need not doubt , but the holy spirit , which is the spirit of the son , as well as of the father , is as intimate to the son also : and therefore christ tells us of the spirit ; he shall glorifie me , for he shall receive of mine , and shall shew it unto you , all things that the father hath are mine , therefore said i , he shall take of mine , and shall shew it unto you , 16 john 14 , 15. so that the holy spirit receives the things of christ ; but how does he receive them ? just as christ receives them of the father ; the same things , and the same way ; not by an external communication , but by an essential oneness and consciousness of all that is in the father , and in the son. this seems to me to be the true scripture-account of the numerical unity of the divine essence , and to make a trinity in unity as intelligible as the notion of one god is ; but because all that i have to say , turns upon this , i shall more particularly explain this notion : 1. by shewing that this contains the true orthodox faith of the holy trinity . 2. that it gives a plain and intelligible solution of all the difficulties and seeming contradictions in the doctine of the trinity . i. this contains the true orthodox faith of the holy trinity , or a trinity in unity ; for so the athanasian creed teaches us , to worship one god in trinity , and trinity in vnity , neither confounding the persons , nor dividing the substance , for there is one person of the father , another of the son , another of the holy ghost , but the godhead of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost is all one , the glory equal , the majesty co-eternal . there are two things then , which an orthodox christian must take care of , neither to confound the persons , nor to divide the substance ; that is , to acknowledge three distinct persons , and yet but one god ; and nothing can be more apparent than both these , in that account which i have given of the ever blessed trinity . 1. it is plain the persons are perfectly distinct , for they are three distinct and infinite minds , and therefore three distinct persons ; for a person is an intelligent being , and to say , they are three divine persons , and not three distinct infinite minds , is both heresie and nonsense : the scripture , i 'm sure , represents father , son , and holy ghost , as three intelligent beings , not as three powers or faculties of the same being , which is down-right sabellianism ; for faculties are not persons , no more than memory , will , and understanding , are three persons in one man : when we prove the holy ghost to be a person , against the socinians , who make him only a divine power , we prove , that all the properties of a person belong to him , such as understanding , will , affections , and actions ; which shews , what our notion of a person is : such a being as has understanding , and will , and power of action ; and it would be very strange , that we should own three persons , each of which persons is truly and properly god , and not own three infinite minds ; as if any thing could be a god , but an infinite mind . and the distinction between these three infinite minds is plain according to this notion ; for they are distinguished , just as three finite , and created minds are , by self-consciousness : they are united indeed into one ( as i have already discoursed ) by a mutual consciousness to each other , which no created spirits have , which are conscious only to the actings of their own minds , not to each others : and therefore these three divine persons are not separate minds , as created spirits are , but only distinct : each divine person has a self consciousness of its own , and knows and feels itself ( if i may so speak ) as distinct from the other divine persons ; the father has a self-consciousness of his own , whereby he knows and feels himself to be the father , and not the son , nor the holy ghost ; and the son in like manner feels himself to be the son , and not the father , nor the holy ghost ; and the holy ghost feels himself to be the holy ghost , and not the father , nor the son ; as iames feels himself to be iames , and not peter , nor iohn ? which proves them to be distinct persons : which is a very plain account , how these three divine persons are distinct , that there is one father , not three fathers , one son , not three sons , one holy ghost , not three holy ghosts . here is no confounding of persons . 2. nor do we divide the substance , but unite these three persons in one numerical essence : for we know nothing of the unity of the mind but self-consciousness , as i shewed before ; and therefore as the self-consciousness of every person to itself makes them distinct persons , so the mutual consciousness of all three divine persons to each other makes them all but one infinite god : as far as consciousness reaches , so far the unity of a spirit extends , for we know no other unity of a mind or spirit , but consciousness . in a created spirit this consciousness extends only to itself , and therefore self-consciousness makes it one with itself , and divides and separates it from all other spirits ; but could this consciousness extend to other spirits , as it does to itself , all these spirits , which were mutually conscious to each other , as they are to themselves , though they were distinct persons , would be essentially one : and this is that essential unity , which is between father , son , and holy ghost , who are essentially united by a mutual consciousness to whatever is in each other , and do by an internal sensation ( i want other words to express it ) feel each other , as they do themselves ; and therefore are as essentially one , as a mind and spirit is one with itself . 2. this is a very plain and intelligible account of this great and venerable mystery , as plain and intelligible as the notion of one god , or of one person in the godhead . the great difficulty of conceiving a trinity of persons in one infinite and undivided essence or substance , arises from those gross and material idea's we have of essence and substance , when we speak of the essence or substance of god , or created spirits : we can frame no idea of substance , but what we have from matter ; that it is something extended in a tripple dimension , in length , and breadth , and depth , which is the subject of those qualities , which inhere and subsist in it : and therefore as matter is the subject of all sensible qualities , so we conceive some such substance of a mind and spirit , which is the subject of will and understanding , of thoughts and passions : and then we find it impossible to conceive , how there should be three divine persons , which are all infinite , without three distinct infinite substances , each distinct infinite person having a distinct infinite substance of his own ; and if we grant this , it seems a plain contradiction to say , that these three distinct infinite substances , are but one numerical infinite substance ; which is to say , that three infinities are but one infinite , and that three persons are but one person ; for a person and an intelligent substance are reciprocal terms , and therefore three distinct persons are three distinct numerical substances , and one numerical intelligent substance is but one numerical person . but this is all carnal reason in a strict and proper sense , which conceives of an infinite mind after the manner of a body , and distinguishes between the matter or substance , and the powers and vertues of the divine essence , as it does between matter and qualities and accidents in bodies . we know nothing of the divine essence , but that god is an infinite mind , and if we seek for any other essence or substance in god , but an infinite minds ; that is , infinite wisdom , power , and goodness ; the essence of god , though considered but as one numerical person , is as perfectly unintelligible to us , as the one numerical essence or substance of three divine persons in the ever blessed trinity . it is this gross and material imagination about the essence and substance of the deity , which occasions all the difficulties about the notion of one god , as well as of a trinity in unity : for we cannot imagine , how any substance should be without a beginning ; how it should be present in all places without parts , and without extension ; how substance , essence , existence , and all divine attributes and powers , which are distinct things in created spirits , should be all the same , one simple act in god : and yet reason tells us we must allow of no composition , no qualities or accidents in the divine nature ; for a compounded being must have parts , and must be made ; for that which has parts must have some maker to join the parts together , and to endow it with such qualities and powers . but now if we consider god as wisdom and truth , which is his true nature and essence , without confounding our minds with some material conceptions of his substance , these things are plain and easie : for it is demonstrable , that truth is eternal , had no beginning , no maker ; for when we speak of original and essential truth and wisdom , what was not always truth and wisdom , could never begin to be so : and if truth be the only real thing , and necessarily eternal , there is an eternal mind , which is nothing else but eternal truth ; for he , who can imagine , truth and wisdom to be eternal , without an eternal mind , ought not to pretend to either , unless he can tell us , how truth can subsist without a mind . thus it is demonstrable , that truth and wisdom has no parts , no extension , no more than thought has ; truth and wisdom is confined to no place , fills no space , but is every-where the same without extension and parts , and therefore has a necessary and essential omnipresence : there is a faint resemblance of this in finite and created spirits ; even humane wisdom and reason , thoughts and passions , have no extension nor parts , which is a good argument that a created spirit has no extension nor parts neither ; for nothing which has extension and parts can be the subject of that which has none : all the qualities of bodies are extended as bodies are ; for the properties and qualities of all things must conform to the nature of the subject in which they are ; and therefore faculties , powers , and operations , which have no extension or parts , [ as the will , the understanding , the memory , the thoughts and passions have none , ] must be seated in a subject which has no parts nor extension neither . thus thought is confined to no place , but in a minute surrounds the earth , and ascends above the heavens , and visits all the empty capacities of infinite space ; which is an imperfect imitation of the omnipresence of an infinite mind . thus what can be a more pure and simple act than wisdom and truth ? now though we conceive the divine attributes and perfections under different notions and characters , such as wisdom , love , justice , goodness , power , they are indeed nothing else but infinite truth and wisdom , which receives several characters and denominations from its different effects ; as the same sea or river does different names from the countries by which it passes : for what is intellectual love , but the perfect idea's of truth , or the true knowledge and estimation of things ? what is justice and goodness , but an equal distribution of things , or a true and wise proportion of rewards and punishments ? what is perfect power , but perfect truth and wisdom , which can do , whatever it knows ? this last will not be so easily understood , because in men we find knowledge and power to be very different things , that men may know a great deal , which they cannot do : and yet if we consider this matter over again , we shall find it a mistake : for even among men it is only knowledge that is power . humane power , and humane knowledge , as that signifies a knowledge how to do any thing , are commensurate ; whatever humane skill extends to , humane power can effect ; nay , every man can do , what he knows how to do , if he have proper instruments and materials to do it with ; but what no humane power can do , no humane knowledge knows how to do : we know not what the substance or essence of any thing is , nor can we make any substance ; we cannot create any thing of nothing , nor do we know , how it is to be done ; which shews , that knowledge and power in creatures are equal , and that proves a very near relation between them ; especially when we add , that knowledge is not only the director of power , but is that very power which we call force : for it is nothing but thought which moves our bodies , and all the members of them , which are the immediate instruments of all humane force and power : excepting mechanical motions , which do not depend upon our wills , such as the motion of the heart , the circulation of the blood , the concoction of our meat , and the like ; all voluntary motions are not only directed , but caused by thought ; and so indeed it must be , or there could be no motion in the world , for matter cannot move it self , and therefore some mind must be the first mover : which makes it very plain , that infinite truth and wisdom is infinite and almighty power . so that if we set aside all material images of essence and substance , and contemplate god as eternal truth and wisdom , the notion of a god is very plain and easie , as far as we are concerned to know him in this state . the same cause has confounded and perplext the notion of a trinity in unity , and given occasion to some vain and arrogant pretenders to reason , profanely to deride and ridicule that most sacred and venerable mystery . they puzzle and confound themselves with some gross and corporeal idea's of essence and substance , and how three divine persons can subsist distinct in the same numerical substance : but would they but consider the three divine persons , as three infinite minds , distinguished from each other by a self-consciousness of their own , and essentially united by a mutual consciousness to each other , which is the only way of distinguishing and uniting minds and spirits , and then a trinity in unity is a very plain and intelligible notion . now certainly this is much the most reasonable way : for what the essence and substance of a spirit is , when we distinguish it from understanding and will , which we call the powers and faculties of a spirit , for my part , i know not , no more than i do , what the naked essence and substance of matter is , stript of all its qualities and accidents : as i observed before , the naked essences of things are not the objects of our knowledge , and therefore it is ridiculous to dispute about them , to say peremptorily what is , or what is not , in matters , which we know nothing of : and therefore as we frame the notion of bodies from their external and sensible qualities , so we must frame the notion of a spirit from its intellectual powers , of will , and understanding , &c. and when we dispute about the distinction or union of spirits , we must not dispute how their substances , which we know nothing of , can be distinguisht or united , but how two minds considered as intellectual beings , are distinguished and united , and then there will appear no difficulty or absurdity , in the essential union of three minds by a mutual consciousness to each other . that the essential unity of a spirit consists in self-consciousness , every man may feel in himself , for it is nothing else which makes a spirit one , and distinguishes it from all other spirits ; and therefore if two spirits were conscious to all that is in each other , as they are to what they feel in themselves , they would be united to each other by the same kind of unity , which makes every individual spirit one : and why then should not this be thought an essential unity between the divine persons of the ever blessed trinity . and is there any difficulty in conceiving this , that father , son , and holy ghost should be thus intimately conscious to each other : the scripture plainly asserts that it is so , as i have already proved , and there is no impossibility in the thing ; nay , if we will allow three infinite minds , it is impossible , it should be otherwise . a finite created spirit indeed is conscious only to itself , and not to any other created spirits ; but god , who is an infinite mind , is conscious to all created spirits , dwells within us , and sees all our thoughts and motions , and passions , as perfectly as we do our own ; how he does this we know not , that he does so , the scripture assures us , and that there is nothing impossible in it , our reason will tell us ; for certainly that infinite mind , which made all finite spirits , can see them too ; that is , see all the thoughts and passions of a spirit , which is the only way of seeing a spirit ; and that can be no infinite mind which does not ; for there is something , which it does not know , if it does not know our thoughts . if then it be essential to an infinite mind to be conscious to all spirits , if we allow , that there are three infinite minds , we must grant , that they are mutually conscious to each other : though an infinite mind is conscious to all that is in created spirits , yet there is not a mutual consciousness , and therefore no essential unity between them , for created spirits are not conscious to an infinite mind , as it is impossible they should , unless they were infinite themselves ; for a mind which is conscious to an infinite mind , that is , a mind which comprehends an infinite mind , must be infinite : but it is a contradiction to say , there are three infinite minds , unless they are mutually conscious to each other ; for if there be any thing in one , which is not in the other , they cannot both be infinite , unless one infinite can be greater than another . the truth is , we have no positive notion of infinity , but only in a mind , and it is impossible to conceive any three beings that are infinite , but only three infinite minds ; and three minds may be infinite , but then they must be mutually self-conscious , or they cannot all be infinite . when we think of an infinite being , we are presently confounded with the corporeal images of an infinite substance , or a substance infinitely extended ; and this we can make nothing of ; for indeed it is demonstrable , that there can be no such thing . we have an imagination of infinite space , which we can set no bounds to , but how far soever we extend our thoughts , we can still imagine something beyond that ; but then we have no notion , that space is any thing , but only a capacity to receive something ; nay , it seems to me , to be nothing else , but an imaginary idea of extension separated from body and matter ; as we conceive place to be distinct from the body , which fills the place , and therefore , that if the body were annihilated , place would remain still of the same dimensions , which the body had , that filled it ; and this is the conception of an imaginary space infinitely extended . but it is as plain as any demonstration , that no real being is infinitely extended ; for there is , and can be no actual extension infinite : the extension of a real being must really and actually be , and yet there is not a more self-evident proposition than this , that there is no extension so great but that it may be extended farther , and then there can be no such thing in being , as an infinite extension , for if there were , there would be such an extension , as could not be extended farther , unless we can extend that , which is actually infinite already . we may easily observe , what it is , that cheats us into the opinion of infinite extension , as if there were such a real thing : viz. that we cannot see to the end of all possible extension , we cannot extend our thoughts so far , but we can imagine something farther , and therefore we fancy , that there is something infinitely extended , though we cannot comprehend it , or see to the end of it , which would be a contradiction , to see to the end of that which has none : but we should observe , that it is not the defect of our imagination , that we cannot conceive an infinite extension , but reason tells us , that there neither is , nor can be , any such extension , but what may be extended farther : now what cannot be , cannot be a real thing , for whatever is real , is . it is exactly the same case in numbers : there neither is , nor can be an infinite number , because there is no number so great , nor can any number be so great , but it may be made greater by adding to it ; so that numbers , extension , and the same may be said of time and succession , are called infinite , not that they have any real and positive infinity , but because we can add to them without end , which is a demonstration , that they neither are , nor can be infinite , for what is infinite , is capable of no additions ; and there can be no number , extension , or successive duration , but what is capable of infinite additions , and therefore is at an infinite distance from being infinite . by this time , i suppose every one is convinc'd , that infinite extension does not belong to the idea of a god , because there is no such thing in nature ; and if infinite extension does not , no extension can ; for nothing is god , but what is infinite . though the truth is , this very word infinite confounds our notions of god , and makes the most perfect and excellent being , the most perfectly unknown to us : for infinite is only a negative term , and signifies that , which has no end , no bounds , no measure , and therefore no positive and determined nature , and therefore is nothing ; that an infinite being , had not use and custom reconciled us to that expression , would be thought nonsense and contradiction ; for every real being has a certain and determined nature ; and therefore is not infinite in this sense , which is so far from being a perfection , that it signifies nothing real . but since custom has made it necessary to use this word , it is necessary to explain what we mean by it : that an infinite being signifies a being absolutely perfect , or which has all possible perfections : which has no other end of its perfections , but perfection itself ; that is a finite imperfect being , that wants any perfections ; that is an infinite being , not which has no end of its perfections , but which actually has all perfections , and can be no more perfect than it is : for there is a measure of the most absolute , and in this sense infinite perfections , before which no being is absolutely perfect , and beyond which there are no new degrees of perfection ; for if we do not grant this , there can be no being absolutely perfect . as for instance : infinite wisdom , knowledge , goodness , justice , power , have fixt and set bounds to their perfections , beyond which they cannot go : infinite knowledge and wisdom knows all things , that are knowable , and that are wise ; infinite goodness can do all things which are good ; infinite justice is perfect justice , which observes the exact proportions of right and wrong ; infinite power can do all things which can be done ; to know , what is not to be known , to do what is not to be done , to be good or just beyond the perfect measures of goodness and justice , is a contradiction ; for it is neither wisdom , nor power , nor goodness , nor justice : the nature of wisdom , power , justice , and goodness , is fixt and determined , and the utmost bounds of them is absolute perfection : the divine nature is the original rule and standard , and utmost bounds of them , and therefore absolutely perfect . these perfections indeed may be called infinite in the negative sense , with respect to us , that we know not , what the utmost extent of them are : we know not how far infinite wisdom , and power , and goodness reaches , but then we certainly know , that they have their bounds , and that the divine nature is the utmost bounds of them ; for nothing can be a rule and measure of absolute perfections , but the divine nature itself : now this gives us a positive notion and idea of god , though we cannot comprehend his absolute perfections ; we as certainly know , what god is , as we know , what wisdom , knowledge , power , goodness , justice signifie ; but how wise , how good , how powerful god is , we know not , because we do not know the utmost extent of these perfections . i must now add , that there can be no absolute perfections , but those of a mind , such as i have so often mentioned , wisdom , power , goodness : as for matter , it is so imperfect a being itself , that it cannot be the subject of absolute perfections : nothing which belongs to matter is a perfection , considered in itself ; extension is no perfection , no more than the dimensions of a body are , to be long , or broad , or deep , to be little or great , which may be perfections or imperfections , as it happens , with relation to the just measures and proportions of different bodies ; for either greatness or littleness may make different things monstrous , and therefore neither of them are either beauties or perfections themselves ; for what is in itself a perfection , is always so . extension is of no use , but where there is a multitude or diversity of parts , and such a compound being can never be absolutely perfect , because it is made of parts , which are not absolutely perfect , as no part can be ; and ten thousand imperfect parts can never make up an absolute perfect being : and if what is infinitely perfect can have no parts , it needs no extension , and can have none ; for what is extended has assignable parts , whether they can be divided or not . omnipresence is a great and unquestionable perfection , but to be omnipresent by infinite extension , ( if such a thing could be ) would be no perfection at all ; for this would be to be present only by parts ▪ as a body might be , which is infinitely extended ; and a body is a capable of infinite extension , as any man can conceive a spirit to be ; and yet if a spirit be omnipresent only by infinite extension , the whole substance of that spirit is not present every where , but part of it in one place , and part in another , as many miles distant from each other as the places are , where such parts of the omnipresent spirit are . this all men will confess to be absurd ; and yet if the whole mind and spirit be present every where , it is certain , it is not present every where by way of extension ; for the whole extension of an infinitely extended spirit is not present every where : and if omnipresence itself cannot be owing to infinite extension , no man can tell me , why an infinite mind should be extended at all : for extension itself is no perfection . much less do any other vertues and qualities of bodies deserve the name of absolute perfections , and therefore we must seek for absolute perfection only in a mind ; perfect wisdom , knowledge , power , goodness , justice , make an absolute perfect mind ; there are no other absolute perfections but these , and therefore there can be no other absolutely perfect being , but an infinite mind . but besides this we may observe , that all these absolute perfections , by a mutual consciousness may be entire and equal in three distinct infinite minds : there is no contradiction , that three infinite minds should be absolutely perfect in wisdom , goodness , justice , and power ; for these are perfections , which may be in more than one , as three men may all know the same things , and be equally just and good : but three such minds cannot be absolutely perfect without being mutually conscious to each other , as they are to themselves ; for if they do not perfectly know each other , as they know themselves , their wisdom and knowledge is not absolutely perfect ; for they do not know all things , if they do not perfectly know one another ; and there can be no such perfect knowledge of each other , without a mutual consciousness . this shews not only the possibility of this notion , that three distinct infinite minds should be mutually conscious to each other , but the necessity of it , if there be three such infinitely perfect minds ; for they cannot be infinitely perfect , without being conscious to one another . thus to proceed : this notion plainly reconciles the perfect equality of all three persons , with the prerogative of the father , and the subordination of the son and holy spirit . that all three persons are perfectly equal in knowledge , wisdom , goodness , justice , power , is evident from their mutual consciousness , whereby they all know , love , and do the same things , which is a perfect equality : but this does not destroy the natural subordination of the son to the father , of a derivative to an original light , as christ is called in the nicene creed ; god of god , light of light : for though god has communicated his own nature to him , and received him into his bosom , to an intimate consciousness with himself , which makes him the perfect image of his father ; yet he receives all this from his father by eternal generation , he is a son still , though equal to his father in all divine perfections , and therefore subordinate to him as a son : and the like may be said of the holy spirit . this shews also , how these three distinct persons are each of them god , and yet are all but one god. each person is god , for each person has the whole and entire perfections of the godhead , having by this mutual consciousness , the other persons in himself , that each person is in some sense the whole trinity : the son is in the father , and the father in the son , and the holy spirit in father and son , and father and son in the holy spirit ; and therefore if the whole trinity be god , the father is god , the son is god , and the holy ghost god , they being all mutually in each other ; and yet this is a plain demonstration , that they are not three gods , but one god ; because neither of them are the one supreme god , but as thus intimately united to all the rest ; and then they can be all three , but one supreme god : this gives an intelligible account of one of the most difficult problems in all school-divinity , which the master of the sentences borrowed from st. austin as he has done most of his other distinctions ; that the whole trinity is not greater , than any one person in the trinity . this sounds very harshly at first hearing , and yet if we consider it , we must confess it to be true , unless we will say , that there is a greater and less in god , or that the three persons in the trinity make one god , as three parts make a whole , each of which parts must be less than the whole ; and yet i cannot see any possible way to understand this matter , but only this : that the whole trinity by a mutual consciousness is in each person , and therefore no person is less than the whole trinity . and this is the only possible way of understanding the different modi subsistendi , of which the schools speak : that the three divine persons have one numerical essence , and are one god , but are distinguished from each other by a distinct manner of subsistence proper to each person : it is plain , the schoolmen were no sabellians ; they did not think the three divine persons , to be only three names of the same infinite being ; but acknowledged each person to be really distinct from one another , and each of them to have the same numerical essence , and to be truly and properly god , and not to be three modes of the same infinite god , which is little better than three names of one god. and what are these modi subsistendi , by which the divine persons are distinguished from each other ? now they are no other , than the proper and distinguishing characters of each person ; that the father is of himself , or without any cause ; that the son is begotten of the father , that the holy ghost proceeds from father and son : which proves that by these modi subsistendi , they did not mean ( as some mistake them ) that the three divine persons are three modes of the deity , or only modally distinguished , for there are no modes , no more than there are qualities and accidents , in the deity , much less can a mode be a god : to be sure , all men must grant , that the father is not a mode of the deity , but essentially god , and yet he has his modus subsistendi , as well as the son , and the holy ghost ; and no man can think , that the father begat only a modus , and called it his son , whereas a son signifies a real person of the same nature , but distinct from his father . all then that can possibly be meant by these modes of subsistence is this , that the same numerical essence is whole and entire in each divine person , but in a different manner ; the son and holy ghost are in the father , as the one is begotten , the other proceeds from him , and yet both remain in him an intimate consciousness ; and thus you have often heard , all three persons are in each other , and therefore are numerically one ; the father has the son and holy ghost in himself as the fountain of the deity , the son begotten of the father , the holy ghost proceeding from father and son. that is , there are three infinite minds , which are distinguished from each other by the relations of father , son , and holy ghost , the father begets , the son is begotten , the holy ghost proceeds , which are there different modes of subsisting ; but each of these infinite minds has the other two in himself , by an intimate and mutual consciousness , and that makes all three persons numerically one divine essence , or one god ; for when the whole trinity is in each distinct person , each person is the same one numerical god , and all of them but one god ; if the father , for instance , have his own personal wisdom , and by an internal consciousness , all the wisdom of the son , and of the holy ghost ; and the son have his own personal wisdom , and by the same consciousness , all the wisdom of the father , and the holy ghost ; and in like manner , the holy ghost have his own personal wisdom , and all the wisdom of father , and son ; this infinite wisdom which is in father , son , and holy ghost , is identically the same : for from which person soever you begin to reckon this union , it is the same father , son , and holy ghost still , which are thus intimately united into one ; and therefore it is the same numerical and identical wisdom , which is in each of them , and the same in all . to add no more : this notion gives a plain account too of that maxim of the schools , that all the operations of the trinity , ad extra , are common to all three persons ; for it cannot possibly be otherwise , when they are thus intimately united by a mutual consciousness ; for they can no more act , than they can subsist separately ; when the wisdom , goodness , justice , power of the whole trinity is entire in each person , and the same in all , every person of the trinity must be equally concerned , saving the natural order , and subordination of persons , in all the external effects and operations of the divine wisdom , justice , goodness , and power . thus i have endeavoured to explain this great and venerable mystery of a trinity in unity ; and this i may say , that i have given not only a very possible and a very intelligible notion of it , but such also as is very agreeable to the phrase and expressions of scripture , such as preserves the majesty of the article , and solves all the difficulties of it ; there may be a great deal more in this mystery , than we can fathom , but thus much we can understand of it , and that is enough to reconcile us to this belief , and to shame and silence the profane scoffers at a trinity in unity ; as i have in part shewn already , and will do now more fully , by proceeding to answer those many absurdities and contradictions charged on it by the brief notes : to proceed then where i left off . there is one person of the father , another of the son , another of the holy ghost . then the son is not the father , nor is the father the son , nor the holy ghost either of them . i grant it : their persons are distinct , and therefore are not each other , but they are all essentially united by a mutual consciousness , whereby they are mutually in each other , and can be no more separated from each other , than every man 's own mind can be divided from itself . but if the father is not the son , and yet is ( by confession of all ) the one true god , then the son is not the one true god , because he is not the father : the reason is self-evident , for how can the son be the one true god , if he be not he , who is the one true god. after the same manner it may be proved , that ( on th●e athanasian principles ) neither the father , nor holy spirit , are , or can be god , or the one true god ; for neither of them is the son , who is the one true god , according to athanasius , and all trinitarians ; for they all say , the father is the one true god , the son is the one true god , and the holy ghost the one true god ; which is a threefold contradiction , because there is but one true god , and one of these persons is not the other . but if it be a contradiction it is certainly false , for every contradiction , being made up of inconsistencies , destroys itself , and is its own confutation . this is meer trick and fallacy , or misrepresentation . to have made his argument conclude , he should have said : the father is not the son , and yet the person of the father considered not only as distinguished , but as divided and separated from the person of the son , is the one true god , and then the son is not the one true god , because he is not the father : and then indeed his reason had been self-evident , that the person of the son , as separated from the person of the father , is not the one true god , because the person of the son is not the person of the father , who is the one true god : but neither athanasius , ' nor any of the trinitarians ever said this , that the person of the father , as separated from the persons for the son , and of the holy ghost , is the one true god ; or that the person of the son as separated from the persons of the father , and the holy ghost is the one true god ; or that the person of the holy ghost as separated from the persons of the father , and of the son , is the one true god ; for we constantly affirm , that father , son , and holy ghost , by an intimate and inseparable union to each other , are but one true god ; but as their persons can never be separated , so they must never be considered in a separate state , and if we will imagine such an impossible absurdity as this , neither of them are the one true god ; for whoever separates them , destroys the deity , and leaves neither father , son , nor holy ghost . and yet if we consider these three divine persons , as containing each other in themselves , and essentially one by a mutual consciousness , this pretended contradiction vanishes : for then the father is the one true god , because the father has the son , and the holy spirit in himself ; and the son may be called the one true god ( of which more presently ) because the son has the father , and the holy ghost in himself ; and the holy ghost the one true god , because he has the father and the son in himself , and yet all but one true god , because father , son , and holy ghost are united into one ; and then though one of these persons is not the other , yet each person by an essential unity contains both others in himself , and therefore if all three persons are the one true god , each person is god. and this is the true meaning of the athanasian creed , which this author has corrupted by adding , the one true god to every person ; that the father is the one true god , the son the one true god , the holy ghost the one true god , as if each person as distinguished and separated from the other , were the one true god ; and then it would indeed sound pretty like a contradiction to add , yet there is but one true god : but the athanasian creed only says , the father is god , the son god , the holy ghost god ; yet three are not three gods , but one god ; which plainly shews , that it does not speak of these three divine persons , as distinguished and separated from each other ; but as united into one god , not as three parts of the deity , but as three persons , who are essentially one god , as mutually containing each other , that is , by a mutual self-consciousness , as i have now explained it , which is the essential unity of a mind . as for this expression , the one true god , it is never attributed to son , or holy ghost , that i know of either in scripture , or any catholick writer ; tho' it is to the father , whom our saviour himself calls , the only true god ; for all three divine persons as in conjunction with each other , being the one only true god : this title cannot so properly be attributed to any one person , but only the father , who is the fountain of the deity : for though all three persons are in each other by a mutual consciousness , and therefore each person has all the perfections of the godhead ; yet the son is in the father , and the holy spirit in the father and the son , in such a manner as the father is not in the son , nor the father and son in the holy spirit , which the schools call the modi subsistendi ; that is , the son is in the father by eternal generation , and the holy spirit in father and son by eternal procession ; and this is the natural order of the trinity ; and therefore when this one god is to be signified by the name of any one person , it is proper to follow the order of nature , if i may so speak , and to signifie the whole sacred trinity by the name of the father , who is the eternal scource and fountain of it . the godhead of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost is all one , the glory equal , the majesty coeternal . the meaning of the last clause is , that the glory and majesty of the son and holy spirit is equal to the glory and majesty of the father , or the son and holy spirit are equally glorious and majestical with god the father . therefore i ask , whether the glory and majesty with which the son and spirit are glorious and majestical be the same in number ( that is , the very same ) with which the father is glorious and majestical , or only the same for kind or degree ? if it be not the same in number , then the godhead of the father , and of the son , is not ( as this creed teaches ) all one , and they are not one and the same god : for two infinite and distinct glories and majesties make two gods , and three make three gods ; as every one sees , and ( to say true ) the trinitarians themselves confess . it remains therefore that they say , that the glory and majesty of the son and spirit is the same in number and not for kind and degree only , with that of the father ; but then it follows , that the glory and majesty of these persons is neither equal , nor coeternal . not equal , for 't is the same , which equals never are . not coeternal , for this also plainly intimates , that they are distinct : for how coeternal , if not distinct ? do we say , a thing is coeternal and cotemperary with itself ? therefore also this article doth impugn and destroy itself : besides , if the glory and majesty of the three persons be numerically the same , then so are all their other attributes : from whence it follows , that there is not any real difference between the three persons , and they are only three several names of god , which is the heresie of the sabellians . what he says , that if the glory and majesty of the three persons be numerically the same , so are all their other attributes , is certainly true ; for their glory and majesty is nothing else , but the infinite perfections of their nature . and therefore to make short work with this , i affirm , that the glory and majesty , and all the other perfections of these three divine persons are as distinct as their persons are , and therefore may be coequal and coeternal , because they are distinct , and yet they are as numerically one and the same as the godhead is . they are three infinite minds , and therefore distinct as three minds are , but they are all mutually conscious to each other , and therefore as essentially one , as the same mind is one with itself by a self-consciousness ; this does not destroy the distinction of their persons , nor consequently of their majesty and glory : their glory and majesty is as distinct as their persons are , and united as their persons are , into one essential and numerical glory of one supreme god , a trinity in unity . but to expose the ridiculous sophistry of this , instead of their glory equal , their majesty coeternal , let us put in their persons equal and coeternal : for the equality of their glory , and coeternity of their majesty , is nothing else , but the equality and coeternity of their persons ; that the godhead of the father , of the son , and of the holy ghost is all one , their persons equal and coeternal . and then our note-makers argument runs thus : i ask , whether the persons of the son , and of the holy ghost , which are equal and coeternal with the person of the father , be the same in number ( that is , the very same ) with the person of the father , or only the same for kind and degree ? if they be not the same in number ( that is , if they be distinct persons , ( as the creed affirms ) then the godhead of the father , and of the son , is not all one , and they are not one and the same god , for two infinite and distinct persons make two gods , and three make three gods. is not this now , a self-evident proof , that there cannot be one godhead , if there be three persons , because three persons make three gods ! quod erat demonstrandum ; that is , it cannot be , because it cannot be : but to proceed with his argument . it remains therefore , that these trinitarians say , that the person of the son and spirit , is the same in number , and not in kind or degree only , with the person of the father . that is , because they affirm these divine persons to be distinct , therefore they must say , they are numerically the same ; and what then ? why then they are neither equal , nor coeternal , because they are the same without any real distinction , and the same thing is not equal , nor coeternal with itself : right ! very right sir ! a plain demonstration ! and thus the poor trinitarians are eternally confounded ! they teach , that there are three distinct persons , and one eternal and infinite god ; he plainly confutes this by saying , that if there be one godhead , there cannot be three distinct persons , for three distinct persons are three gods ; and if he had proved it , as well as said it , it had been a direct confutation . they affirm , that these three distinct persons are coequal and coeternal ; he proves , that they are not , because they must say , ( though they say the quite contrary ) that they are not three , but one numerical person , and then they cannot be coequal and coeternal : and thus they shamefully contradict themselves , and this article is felo de se : if this be the profound reason of hereticks , god deliver me from heresie , if it were for no other reason , but to keep my understanding : and yet as ridiculous as this looks , it is the whole of his reasoning ; for if there be three distinct coequal and coeternal persons , their majesty and glory must be as distinct , coequal , coeternal , as their persons are , and united into one numerical essential glory , as their persons are into one god ; and how three infinite minds , or the three divine persons , or , which is the same thing , three divine glories and majesties may be really distinct , and yet numerically one god , i have already explained at large . in the next place , this creed teaches , that , the father is incomprehensible , uncreate , eternal , almighty ; the holy ghost is incomprehensible , uncreate , eternal , almighty : also , that each of these persons is by himself god and lord ; so that the father is god , the son is god , and the holy ghost is god : yet there are not three gods , or lords , nor three incomprehensibles , nor three almighties , not three eternals , nor uncreated . now if in imitation of this , a man should have a mind to say : the father is a person , the son is a person , and the holy ghost is a person ; yet not three persons , but one person ; i would know , why this were not as good grammer and arithmetick , as when athanasius says , the father is god , the son is god , and the holy ghost is god , yet not three gods , but one god ; or when he says , the father vncreated , the son vncreated , the holy ghost vncreated , yet not three vncreated , but one vncreated . and so of the rest ? doth not a man contradict himself , when the term or terms in his negation , are the same with those in his affirmation ? if not , then it may be true , that the father is a person , the son is a person , the holy ghost is a person , yet there are not three persons , but one person : for all the fault here is only this , that in the last clause the term person is denied to belong to more than one , when in the first it had been affirmed of no fewer than three . for the same reason it must be a contradiction to say , the father is god , the son is god , the holy ghost is god , yet there are not three gods , but one god : for the term god is at last denied to belong to more than one , though in the first clause , it was affirmed of three : will they say , that in these words there are not three gods but one god , the term god is not denied to belong to more than one , or is not appropriated to one ? if so , then there are not three persons , but one person ; and again , there are not three men , but one man ; then i say , these propositions do not deny the terms person and men to belong to more than one , or appropriate them to one only , which yet every body confesses they do . this objection sounds very formidably too , but proves nothing but the shameful ignorance and impudence of this author , who undertakes to write notes upon creeds , and to ridicule the venerable mysteries of the christian faith , before he understands them . for let us begin with the adjectives first , such as vncreated , incomprehensible , eternal , almighty ; and we need take under consideration , but any one of these , and that will explain all the rest , for there is the same account to be given of them all . the father then is uncreated , the son uncreated , the holy ghost uncreated , and yet there are not three uncreated , but one uncreated : now to make this a contradiction , that there are three , father , son , and holy ghost , uncreated , and yet that there are not three uncreated , but one uncreated , this term vncreated must be applied to the same subject , and affirmed and denied in the same sense : now when father , son , and holy ghost , are said to be uncreated , this term vncreated is applied to the three divine persons , and if father , son , and holy ghost , are uncreated , it is certain , there are three divine persons vncreated ; and had it been said in the creed , that there are not three divine persons uncreated , it had been as plain a contradiction , as to say , that the father is a person , the son a person , and the holy ghost a person , and yet there are not three persons , but one person : thus far our author and i agree : but wherein then do we differ ? for is it not expresly said in the creed , that though the father is uncreated , the son uncreated , the holy ghost uncreated , which are plainly three uncreated , if father , son , and holy ghost , are three ; yet there are not three uncreated , but one uncreated ? i grant it ; but if our author had understood any greek or latin , he should have made a little use of it here , and then he would have found , that the creed of athanasius had not denied , that there were three uncreated persons , and therefore did not contradict , what it had before affirmed , that the three persons of the sacred trinity are all uncreated . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and tres increati , cannot signifie three uncreated persons , as it must do to make it a contradiction ; for though there is no substantive expressed , yet some must be understood , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and increati will not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or personae , and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and dii must be understood ; that is , though there are three uncreated persons , father , son , and holy ghost ; yet there are not three uncreated gods , but one uncreated god , which is no more a contradiction , than to say , that though there are three divine persons , there are not three , but one god. and that this is the true meaning of the article , appears from the whole scope and design of it . i shall instance only in the conclusion , which contains the reason of the whole , why though all three persons are uncreated , incomprehensible , eternal , almighty , god , and lord ; yet we must not say , that there are three , but one eternal , incomprehensible , uncreated , almighty , god , and lord : for like as we are compelled by the christian verity ; to acknowledge every person by himself to be god and lord , and there is the same reason for eternal , uncreate , &c. so are we forbidden by the catholick religion , to say , there are three gods , or three lords , three eternals , incomprehensibles , uncreated , almighties . which plainly proves , that when the creed denies , that there are three eternals , or three uncreated , it does not deny , that there are three eternal and uncreated persons , but that there are three eternal and uncreated gods , which is not like saying , there are not three persons , but one person ; but these three eternal persons are not three eternal gods , but one eternal god. this is a sufficient answer with relation to the adjectives of eternal , uncreate , incomprehensible , almighty , that if you joyn them with person , there are three eternal , uncreated persons , but if you joyn them with god , there are not three eternal , uncreated gods , but one eternal uncreated god ; and this is no more a contradiction , than to say , there are three persons and but one god ; but what shall we say to the term god , which is ascribed to all three persons ; and yet the creed affirms , that though there are three persons , each of which is god , yet there are not three gods , but one god ? that is , the term god is affirmed of three , and yet denied to belong to more than one ; and is not this a contradiction ? i answer , no , unless this term god be attributed to three divided and separated persons ; for if three such separated persons be each of them god , they must be three gods , and it would be a contradiction to say , that three persons which are divided and separated from each other , are each of them god , and yet that there are not three gods , but one god : but if these three distinct persons are not separated , but essentially united into one , each of them may be god , and all three but one god : for if these three persons , each of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the creed , singly by himself , not seperately from the other divine persons , is god and lord , are essentially united into one , there can be but one god and one lord , and how each of these persons is god , and all of them but one god , by their mutual consciousness , i have already explained . that salvo he has found out for the trinitarians , of this pretended contradiction of three gods , and one god ; that there are three personal gods , and but one essential god , is so senseless , and the paragraph so long , that i shall not give my self the trouble of transcribing it : for the answer lies in a few words . we grant there are three persons , each of whom is god ; but we deny , that there are three personal gods : because though their persons are distinct , they never were , and never can be divided and separated ; and therefore can be but one god , being essentially united into one : by three gods all mankind understand , three distinct and separate beings , independent on one another , each of which is a supreme and soveraign god , as three seperate humane persons are three men ; but where the persons are not separated , but essentially united into one , there we must acknowledge but one god. but you 'll say : though the union of their persons will not allow us to say , that there are three separate personal gods , yet if all three persons are distinct , though not separated from each other , and each of them is god considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as distinct , though not separate from the other divine persons , then at least the godhead of each person must be as distinct as their persons are , and we must acknowledge three distinct , though not separate gods. i answer , by no means . we must allow each person to be a god , but each distinct person is not a distinct god ; there is but one godhead , which can no more be distinguished , then it can be divided from it self . there is but one god , and each divine person is this one numerical god , has the whole entire godhead in himself , and the same one numerical godhead is in them all ; thus each divine person is god , and all of them but the same one god ; as i explained it before . this one supream god is father , son , and holy ghost , a trinity in unity , three persons , and one god : now father , son , and holy ghost , with all their divine attributes and perfections ( excepting their personal properties , which the schools call the modi subsistendi , that one is the father , the other the son , the other the holy ghost , which cannot be communicated to each other ) are whole and entire in each person by a mutual consciousness , each person feels the other persons in himself , all their essential wisdom , power , goodness , justice , as he feels himself , and this makes them essentially one , as i have proved at large . now if the whole trinity be in each divine person by such an intimate and essential union , we must confess each person to be god , if the whole trinity be god : and yet there being but one trinity , one father , son , and holy ghost , who are essentially one by a mutual consciousness , it is certain all these three divine persons can be but one god : for where-ever you begin to reckon , there are but three , and these three are one : if we consider the father and holy ghost in the son by this mutual consciousness ; we truly affirm the son to be god , as having all the divine perfections of the whole trinity in himself ; if we consider the father and the son in the holy ghost ; for the same reason we affirm the holy ghost to be god ; but the natural order of the trinity is to reckon from the father as the fountain of the deity : that father , son , and holy ghost are one god : for the son and holy spirit are in the father ; not only by a mutual consciousness , as the father and the son are in the holy ghost , but as in their cause , ( if i may so speak , and the ancient fathers were not afraid to speak so ) as in their root , their origine , their fountain , from whence they receive the communications of the divine essence , and godhead ; the son by eternal generation , being god of god , light of light ; the holy ghost by eternal procession from the father and the son. thus all these divine persons are naturally united in the father , who is the fountain of the deity , and all essentially in each other by a mutual consciousness , which makes each person god , and all one and the same god without any shew of contradiction . sect . v. the doctrine of the fathers , and of the schools , concerning the distinction of persons , and the vnity of essence in the ever blessed trinity , considered and reconciled to the foregoing explication of it . this notion of the union of the divine persons in one numerical essence , by a mutual consciousness to each other , is so very plain , and gives so easie and intelligible an account both of the phrases of scripture , and all other difficulties in the doctrine of the trinity , that this alone is sufficient to reconcile any man to it : but i am very sensible , how afraid men are ( and not without reason ) of any new explications of so venerable a mystery , and such a fundamental doctrine of christianity , as this is ; and therefore i must ward this blow , as well as i can , and remove the prejudice of novelty and innovation . now if it appear , that i have advanced no new proposition , but have confined myself to the received faith and doctrine of the catholick church ; if that explication i have given of it , contain nothing new , but what is universally acknowledged , though possibly not in express terms applied to that purpose i use it for ; if that explication i have given be very consistent with , nay , be the true interpretation of that account the ancients give of a trinity in unity , i hope it will not be thought an unpardonable novelty , if i have expressed the same thing in other words , which give us a more clear and distinct apprehension of it : and to satisfie all men , that it is so , i shall compare , what i have now said concerning the distinction of persons , and the unity of essence in the ever blessed trinity , with the doctrine of the fathers , and the schools . i. to begin then with the distinction of persons . i have not indeed troubled my readers with the different signification of essence , and hypostasis , substance , subsistence , person , existence , nature , &c. which are terms very differently used by greek and latin fathers in this dispute , and have very much obscured this doctrine instead of explaining it ; but i plainly assert , that as the father is an eternal and infinite mind , so the son is an eternal and infinite mind , distinct from the father , and the holy ghost is an eternal and infinite mind , distinct both from father and son ; which every body can understand without any skill in logick or metaphysicks : and this is no new notion , but the constant doctrine both of the fathers and schools . three persons signifie three , who are infinite in knowledge and wisdom , and all other perfections , which belong to a mind : now no man who acknowledges a trinity of persons , ever denied that the son and the holy spirit , were intelligent beings or minds . when they tell us , ( which is their common language ) that the son is the substantial word and wisdom of the father , what is this else but to say ▪ that he is an intelligent being , or infinite mind : greg. nyssen calls the son , or word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , mind , or intellect . athanasius observes from our saviour's words , i and my father are one ; that are signifies two , or the distinction of persons , as one signifies the unity of essence : for he does not say , i and my father am , but are one. and therefore if the father be an eternal mind and wisdom , the son also is an eternal , but begotten mind and wisdom ; as the nicene creed tells us , that he is god of god , light of light , very god of very god. st. austin in his sixth book of the trinity , takes notice of a common argument used by the orthodox fathers against the arians , to prove the coeternity of the son with the father ; that if the son be the wisdom and power of god , as st. paul teaches , 1 cor. 1. and god was never without his wisdom and power , the son must be coeternal with the father ; for it is distraction to say , that the father was ever without his wisdom , or power , was neither wise nor powerful . but this acute father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument , for it forces us to say , that the father is not wise , but by that wisdom which he begot , not being himself wisdom as the father : and then we must consider , whether the son himself , as he is god of god , and light of light , may be said to be wisdom of wisdom , if god the father be not wisdom , but only begets wisdom ; and by the same reason we may say , that he begets his own greatness , and goodness , and eternity , and omnipotency , and is not himself his own greatness , or goodness , or eternity , or omnipotency , but is great , and good , eternal and omnipotent , by the greatness , goodness , eternity , omnipotency , which is born of him ; as he is not his own wisdom , but is wise with that wisdom , which he begets . the master of the sentences follows st. austin exactly in this point , and urges this unanswerable argument for it , which he grounds upon st. austin's principle , that in god , to be and to be wise is the same thing ; and if it be , he cannot be wise with the wisdom he begets , for then he would receive his being from this begotten wisdom , not wisdom from him : for if the wisdom he begets be the cause of his being wise , it is the cause also , that he is ; which must be either by begetting or by making him ; but no man will say , that wisdom is any way the begetter or maker of the father ? which is the heighth of madness . and in the next chapter he teaches , that the father is unbegotten , the son begotten wisdom ; so that according to st. austin and the master of the sentences , who is the oracle of the schools , the father is eternal wisdom , or an eternal mind , and the son eternal wisdom and mind , though both are united into one eternal wisdom : and if we confess this of father and son , there can be no dispute about the holy ghost , who is eternal mind and wisdom , distinct , both from father and son. nothing is more familiar with the ancient fathers , than to represent father , son , and holy ghost , to be three as distinct persons , as peter , iames , and iohn are , as every one knows , who is at all versed in this controversie ; and this is charged on them by some men , as little better than polytheism , or a trinity of gods , as peter , iames , and iohn are a trinity of men ; but this must be true with reference to distinction of persons , if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them ; for if the distinction be real , and not meerly nominal ( which was the heresie of sabellius ) their persons must be as distinct , as three humane persons , or three men are : the father is no more the son , or the holy ghost , than peter is iames or iohn : but then they are not separated or divided from each other , as peter , iames and iohn are ; for that indeed would make them three gods , as peter , iames and iohn are three men . there is no example in nature of such a distinction and unity , as is between the three persons in the godhead , and therefore the ancient fathers made use of several comparisons to different purposes , which must carefully be confined to what they applied them , for if we extend them farther , we make nonsense or heresie of them . there are three things to be considered in the ever blessed trinity ; the distinction of persons , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or sameness of nature , and their essential unity ; and the fathers make use of different comparisons to represent each of these by , because no one can represent them all ; but inconsidering persons seek for all in one , and because they cannot find it , they reject them all , as impertinent , dangerous , or heretical , and reproach the fathers , sometimes as ignorant of this great mystery , sometimes as bordering upon heresie , which i am sure does little service to the doctrine it self , and gives great countenance to false and corrupt notions of it ; whence the fathers themselves , even those who were the most zealous opposers of arianism , are thought favourites of such opinions . i shall have occasion to take notice of several instances of this , as i go on , at present i shall confine my self to the distinction of persons , which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men ; for father , son , and holy ghost are as really distinct persons , as peter , iames and iohn ; but whoever shall hence conclude , that these fathers thought , that father , son , and holy ghost are no otherwise one also , than peter , iames , and iohn are , greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it , as will appear more presently ; but this comparison of theirs shows what their sense was , that these three divine persons are three eternal and infinite minds ▪ as really distinct from each other , as three men are ; though essentially united into one infinite and eternal mind , or one god. but i need not insist on this , for the real distinction of persons is so plainly taught by the ancient fathers , especially after the rise of the sabellian heresie , that there is more difficulty to understand , how they unite them into one god , then that they make them distinct persons , and what they say about the unity of the godhead , abundantly proves this distinction of persons . secondly , let us therefore in the second place consider , how they explain this great mystery of a trinity in unity : they all agree , that there are three distinct persons , and that these three persons are but one god ; and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it ; though some late writers are very free , and i think very unjust , in their censures of some of them as scarcely orthodox in this point : i shall only remind you , that this being so great a mystery , of which we have no example in nature ; it is no wonder , if it cannot be explained by any one kind of natural union : and therefore it was necessary to use several examples , and to allude to several kinds of union , to form an adequate notion of the unity of the godhead : and we must carefully apply what they say to those ends and purposes for which they said it ; and not extend it beyond their intension , as i observed before : and there are several steps they take towards the explication of this great mystery ; which i shall represent in short , and show , that taking them altogether , they give a plain and intelligible notion of this unity in trinity , and indeed no other than what i have already given of it . 1. the first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orco-essentiallity of the divine persons . that all three persons in the god-head have the same nature , which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : now whereas the same nature may signifie the same numerical , or the same specifick nature , petavius , and after him dr. cudworth , have abundantly proved , that the nicene fathers did not understand this word of a numerical but specifick sameness of nature : or the agreement of things , numerically differing from one another in the same common nature . as maximus very plainly tell us , that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which has the same notion or definition of its essence ; as a man differs nothing from a man , as he is a man , nor an angel from an angel , as he is an angel : and therefore this word did equally overthrow the sabellian and the arian heresie ; as it affirms both a distinction of persons , and the sameness of nature , as st. ambrose and others observe ; for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self , but to something else , distinct from it self , but of the same common nature : and therefore some , who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of sabellianism , and implying such a numerical unity of essence in the godhead , as destroyed all distinction of persons ; for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some , as abused by the sabellians ; till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the fathers at nice , as petavius observes . this is one thing wherein the fathers place the unity of the godhead ; that all three persons have the same nature ; and to be sure , this is absolutely necessary to make three persons one god : for it is impossible they should be one god , if they have not the same nature , unless three distinct and separate beings of divers natures can be one god ; that is , unless the divine nature be not one pure and simple act , but a compound being , and that of different natures too . but some of the fathers went farther than this , and placed the essential unity of the divine nature in the sameness of essence ; that there is but one god , because all the three divine persons have the same nature . and it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it , to vindicate these fathers from the mis-representations , and hard censures of petavius and dr. cudworth , who ( as i hope to make appear ) have greatly mistaken their sense . the charge is , that they make the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , to be one god only upon account of the same specifical divine nature common to them all ; just as three men are one , by having the same common nature , or the same humanity : and being asked , why they may not then be called three gods , as well as we say , peter , iames , and iohn , are three men ; they answer , that this is owing to an ill custom , for they ought not to be called three men neither , which , is like saying , there are three human natures ; and though in inferiour matters we may bear with the abuse of words , and improper forms of speech , yet this is of dangerous consequence , when we speak of god ; and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying , there are three men ; though there is but one humanity common to them all ; yet we must not say there are three gods , since there is but one divine nature and essence common to all three persons : this , petavius says , is to deny the true and real unity of the divine substance and essence , and to make god only collectively one ; as a multitude of men are said to be one people , and a multitude of believers one church ; which was the error of abbot ioachim , for which he was condemned in the council of lateran . dr. cudworth represents it thus : these theologers supposed the three persons of their trinity to have really no other than a specifick vnity and identity , and because it seems plainly to follow from hence , that therefore they must needs be as much three gods , as three men are three men , these learned fathers endeavoured with their logick to prove , that three men are but abusively and improperly so called three , they being really and truly but one , because there is but one and the same specifick essence or substance of human nature in them all . — he adds , it seems plain that this trinity is no other than a kind of tritheism , and that of gods independent and co-ordinate too . this is a very high charge , and yet these theologers are no less men than gregory nyssen , and cyril of alexandria , and maximus , and damascen , men of note in their generation , and never charged with heresie before . but whatever the meaning of these fathers was , it is plain , that petavius and dr. cudworth have mistaken their meaning . for they did not think , that father , son , and holy ghost were one god , only as peter , iames , and iohn , are one man ; or that peter , iames , and iohn are one man , as father , son , and holy ghost are one god ; they neither dreamt of a collective nor specifick unity of the godhead , but asserted a real subsisting numerical unity of essence , as is obvious to every impartial reader , and therefore if they had not understood , how they explained this , yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their words , as is directly contrary to what they affirm : i shall not need to transcribe much out of these fathers to justifie them in this point , but will only represent their argument as plainly as i can , and that will be their justification , whatever become of their argument . they affirm then , that father , son ; and holy ghost , are but one god , because there is , and can be , but one numerical divinity , or one divine nature and essence , though it subsist in three distinct persons : against this it was objected , that peter , iames , and iohn , though they have the same human nature , yet are called three men ; and there is no absurdity in it , when there are more than one , who have the same nature , to speak of them in the plural number , to call two two , and three three ; how then comes it to pass , that religion forbids this ; that when we acknowledge three persons , who have the same nature without any imaginable difference , we must in a manner contradict our selves , confessing the divinity of the father , son , and holy ghost to be one and the same , and denying that they are three gods. this gregory nyssen answers at large , and i shall chiefly confine my self to the answers he gives , which will abundantly show , how much these two learned men have mis-represented his sense . and first , he takes notice of the common form of speech , of calling three , who partake of the same human nature , three men ; which inclines us to call the three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , who have all the same divine nature three gods ; and that naturally betrays men into the opinion of a trinity of gods , as well as of a trinity of persons , who are as much three gods , as peter , iames , and iohn , are three men : and therefore he tells us , that this is an improper way of speaking , even when applied to men , to say , that there are three men . for man is the name of nature , not of the person : to say that there is but one man , is no more than to say , there is but one humanity ; and to say there are three men , is to say , there are three humanities , or three human natures ; and the name of nature cannot be a proper name of distinction , and therefore ought not to be multiplied : for that which is the same in all , cannot distinguish one person from another . this he observes all men are very sensible of ; for when they would call any particular person out of a crowd ; they do not call him by the name of nature ; that is , they do not say , you man come hither ; for this being a common name , as the nature is common , no man could tell , who was meant : but they call him by the name of his person , peter , or iames ; for though there are many , who partake of the same human nature , yet there is but one man , or one humanity in them all : persons are distinguished and divided and multiplied by peculiar personal properties , and therefore may be numbred ; but nature is one , united with it self , a perfect indivisible unity , which neither increases by addition , nor is diminished by substraction , but though it be in a multitude of individuals , is whole , entire , and undivided , in all . and therefore as a people , an army , a church , are named in the single number , though they consist of multitudes : so in exactness and propriety of speech , man may be said to be one , though there are a multitude who partake of the same human nature . so that , hitherto all that the father hath said , tends only to justifie this form of speech , as having nothing absurd or incongruous in it ; to acknowledge , that the father is god , the son god , and the holy ghost god , and yet that there is but one divinity or godhead , not three gods , for though this sounds as harsh , as to own , that peter is a man , and iames a man , and iohn a man , and yet there are not three men , but one man , which custom has made very absurd and contradictious to say , ( which is the objection he was to answer ) yet he observes , that according to strict propriety of speaking , this is no absurdity to say , there are not three men , but one man , nay , that it is an abuse of speech to say otherwise , because man is the name of nature , not of a person , and therefore there is but one man , as there is but one human nature in all those , who partake of it , for human nature is but one , whole , and indivisible in all ; and therefore cannot distinguish one person from another , and therefore not be a name of number . but what makes st. gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words , and oppose the common and ordinary forms of speech ? did he in good earnest believe , that there is but one man in the world ? no! no! he acknowledged as many men , as we do ; a great multitude who had the same human nature , and that every one who had a human nature , was an individual man ; distinguished and divided from all other individuals of the same nature : what makes him so zealous then against saying , that peter , iames , and iohn , are three men ? only this ; that lie says man is the name of nature , and therefore to say there are three men , is the same as to say , there are three human natures of a different kind ; for if there are three human natures , they must differ from each other , or they can't be three ; and so you deny peter , iames , and iohn , to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or of the same nature ; and for the same reason , we must say , that though the father be god , the son god , and the holy ghost god , yet there are not three gods , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one godhead and divinity , lest we destroy their homoousiotes , or the sameness of their nature , and introduce three gods of a different nature , like the pagan polytheism : which is the first reason he gives , why we do not say there are three gods to avoid the suspicion of polytheism , in numbring and multiplying gods , as the heathens did , which he says is a sufficient answer for ignorant and unskilful people . but to say this in gross , will not satisfie more inquisitive men ; and therefore he assigns the reason for it , that individuals in strict propriety of speech , ought not to be numbred by the name of their nature , because that argues a diversity in their natures ; to say , three men , is to say , there are three different humanities , whereas humanity is one and the same in all ; and as men are not distinguished , so they ought not to be numbred by the name of nature ; and that this is all his meaning , appears from the reason he gives , why this improper way of speaking may be tolerated without any inconvenience , when we speak of men , that we may say , there are three men ; but it is very dangerous to apply this to the divinity , and say there are three gods ; because there is no danger , by this form of speech , that that there are three or more men , that any one should be betrayed into that conceit , that we mean a multitude of humanities , or many different human natures ; but there is danger , lest our naming more gods , or saying , that there are three gods , men should imagine , that there are divers and different natures in the divinity , that is , that the three persons in the godhead are not all of the same nature . here st. gregory lays his foundation , that we must not say , there are three gods , because there is but one divinity ; father , son , and holy ghost , being all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the same nature , whereas god being the name of nature , to say there are three gods , is to say , there are three different divinities , or divine natures , which destroys the homoousiotes of the godhead ; which is the sum of his argument against using the name of nature plurally , to say , there are three men , or three gods. there is nothing more plain than this in the dialogues of maximus , who all along explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one divinity , and the one humanity , by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the sameness of nature , and therefore there can be but one nature , though it subsist in several persons , or individuals . now indeed had they gone no farther in explaining the unity of the godhead , than this specifick unity and identity of nature , there had been some reason to quarrel with them ; but they do not stop here , but proceed to show , how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sameness of nature in all three persons of the ever blessed trinity , proves a true numerical and essential unity of the godhead ; which it does not , and cannot do in created natures : without this it is evident , there can be no essential unity , unless we will allow of a composition of different natures in the godhead ; where the nature is the same it may be one , not only by a logical , but by a real and essential unity . gregory nyssen has two ways of doing this . 1. he observes , that the name god , and so those other names which are ascribed to the divinity , do not so properly signifie the divine nature , as declare something relating to it : for the divine nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that which has no name , and which no words can express and signifie , as the scripture teaches : but the names given to god only teach us , either what we ought not to attribute to the divine nature , or what we ought , but not what the divine nature it self is . this is a fair introduction , such as becomes a wise man , who considers , how unknown the essences of all things are to us , much more the substance and essence of god ; and how it confounds our minds , when we talk of the numerical unity of the godhead , to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of natures and essences ; and therefore he tells us , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the inspector and governour of the world ; that is , it is a name of energie , operation , and power ; and if this vertue , energie , operation be the very same in all the persons of the trinity , father , son , and holy ghost , then they are but one god , but one power and energie ; and thus he proves it is , and that not as it is among men , who have the same power and skill , do the very same things , profess the same art , are philosophers or orators alike ; and yet are not all one philosopher , or one orator ; because though they do the same thing , yet they act apart , every one by himself , and have no communion nor share in what each other do ; but their operations are proper to themselves alone ; but in the divine nature it is not so ; the father does nothing by himself , nor the son by himself , nor the holy ghost by himself ; but the whole energie and operation of the deity relating to creatures , begins with the father , passes to the son , and from father and son to the holy spirit : the holy trinity does not act any thing separately ; there are not three distinct operations , as there are three persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but one motion and disposition of the good will , which passes through the whole trinity from father to son , and to the holy ghost , and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without any distance of time , or propagating the motion from one to t'other , but by one thought , as it is in one numerical mind and spirit , and therefore though they are three persons , they are but one numerical power and energie . by this time i hope the reader is satisfied , that this father does not make the persons of the trinity three independent and coordinate gods , who are no otherwise one than three men are by a specifick unity and identity of nature ; but has found out such an unity for them , as he confesses cannot be between three men , even such an unity as there is in a spirit , which is numerically one with it self , and conscious to all its own motions ; for i leave any man to judge , whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this one single motion of will which is in the same instant in father , son , and holy ghost , can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness , which makes them numerically one , and as intimate to each other , as every man is to himself , as i have already explained it . petavius was aware of this , and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same argument , but to be a new and distinct argument by it self : now suppose this , yet methinks he should have suspected , he had mistaken the fathers sense , when he found him contradict , what he apprehended to be his sense , within the compass of two pages ; but indeed the mistake is his own ; for the father pursues his intended argument , to prove , that though the father is god , and the son god , and the holy ghost god , yet we ought not to say , that there are three gods , but one god. this he proves , first , because god is the name of nature , and the name of nature must not be expressed in the plural number , when the nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference ; for to say , there are three gods , is to say , that there are three different divine natures , which introduces polytheism ; as to say there are three men , is to say , there are three different human natures ; for if they be the same , they are not three ; and therefore the name of the nature must not be expressed plurally , how many persons soever there are , who have the same nature . this was to secure the homoousiotes of the divine nature , and if he had stopped here , petavius and dr. cudworth might have said , what they pleased of him ; but having secured the homoousiotes or sameness of nature , which was the great dispute of those days between the orthodox and the arians , he proceeds to show , how this same nature in three distinct persons is united into one numerical essence and godhead ; and this he does first by showing , that god signifies power and energie , and that all the three persons in the trinity have but one numerical energie and operation , and therefore are but one god ; which is only the improvement of his former argument ; for the sameness of nature is necessary to the sameness of operation ; for nature is the principle of action , especially in god , whose nature is a pure and simple act , and an unity and singularity of energie and operation is a demonstration of one numerical essence ; for the same single individual act cannot be done by two separate beings , who must act separately also . secondly , as for those , who are not contended to contemplate god as a pure and simple act or energie , which easily solves this difficulty , how three persons are one god , they having but one numerical energie and operation ; i say , as for those who not contented with this , inquire after the unity of the divine nature and essence , he asserts that this perfect homoousiotes or sameness of nature , without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically one ; and returns to what he had first said , that the name of nature should not be expressed plurally , it being one entire undivided unity , which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer persons . i confess , i do not understand his reasoning in this matter , he seems to destroy all principles of individuation , whereby one thing is distinguished from another , where there is no difference or diversity of nature ; for things , he says , must be distinguished by magnitude , place , figure , colour , or some other diversity in nature , before we can number them , and call them two or three : and therefore since the divine simple unalterable nature , admits of no essential diversity , that it may be one , it will not admit of any number in it self , but is but one god. whereas i confess , to my understanding , if the same pure unmixt nature , as suppose humanity , should subsist in twenty several persons , without the least variation , i should not doubt , notwithstanding the specifick unity of nature , to say , there are twenty subsisting human natures ; and three minds and spirits , which have no other difference , are yet distinguished by self-consciousness , and are three distinct spirits : and therefore to help this out , he sometimes adds , that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , no difference either of nature or energie in the deity ; and at other times , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the divine nature is invariable , and undivided ; which all the ancient fathers added to explain the unity of the trinity , that inseparate union of nature , which is between the divine persons , that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inseparable from each other . but however he might be mistaken in his philosophy , he was not in his divinity : for he asserts a numerical unity of the divine nature ; not a meer specifick unity , which is nothing but a logical notion ; nor a collective unity , which is nothing but a company , who are naturally many ; but a true subsisting numerical unity of nature : and if the difficulty of explaining this , and his zeal to defend it , forced him upon some unintelligible niceties , to prove that the same numerical human nature too is but one in all men , it is hard to charge him with teaching , that there are three independant and coordinate gods , because we think he has not proved , that peter , iames , and iohn , are but one man. this will make very foul work with the fathers , if we charge them with all those erronious conceits about the trinity , which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable mystery , especially when they compare that mysterious unity with any natural unions . i am sure st. gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be charged with tritheism upon this account , that he fences against another charge of mixing and confounding the hypostases or persons , by denying any difference or diversity of nature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which argues , that he thought he had so fully asserted the unity of the divine essence , that some might suspect , he had left but one person , as well as one nature , in god. but though the homoousiotes or coessentiality of the divine persons is not sufficient alone to prove this unity of the godhead , yet as i before observed , this is necessary to an essential unity , for they must all have the same nature , or they cannot be one , and therefore this was the first thing to be considered in the unity of the godhead . secondly , to this homo-ousiotes the fathers added a numerical unity of the divine essence . this petavius has proved at large by numerous testimonies , even from those very fathers , whom he before accused for making god only collectively one , as three men are one man ; such as gregory nyssen , st. cyril , maximus , damascen ; which is a demonstration , that however he might mistake their explication of it , from the unity of human nature , they were far enough from tritheism , or one collective god. for we must observe , though all the fathers assert , the singularity of the godhead , or the numerical unity of the divine essence , yet they do not assert such a numerical unity , as there is , where there is but one person as well as one essence ; but such a numerical unity , as there is between three , who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the very same nature , but are not meerly united by a specifick unity , but by an essential union , and therefore are three and one. this as maximus truly says , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , both a wonderful distinction and union , but though several fathers attempt several ways of explaining it , they all agree in the thing ; that father , son , and holy ghost , three distinct divine persons , are united in one numerical nature and essence . and i cannot but observe , that petavius greatly commends boethius's explication of this mystery , which is the very same he had before condemned in gregory nyssen , and those other fathers . that father , son , and holy ghost are one god , not three gods : cujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia : the reason or manner of which union and conjunction is their indifference ; that is , such a sameness of nature , as admits of no difference or variety , or an exact homo-ousiotes , as he explains it : eos enim differentia comitatur , qui vel augent vel minuunt , ut ariani qui gradibus meritorum trinitatem variantes distrahunt , atque in pluralitatem deducunt : those make a difference , who augment and diminish , as the arians do , who distinguish the trinity into different natures , as well as persons , of different worth and excellency , and thus divide and multiply the trinity into a plurality of gods. principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est : proeter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit intelligi potest : for the beginning of plurality is alterity ; for we know not what plurality is but alterity : that is , there must be some difference in the nature of things to make them two or three , but when the nature is exactly the same , they are but one : which is exactly the same account , which gregory gave of it , as i have already shewn ; and why this should be little better than heresie in him , and very good divinity in boethius , is a little mysterious ; for after all , this numerical unity of essence is nothing else , but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as maximus speaks , such an invariable sameness of nature , as has no differences to distinguish it , and therefore must be one : for these fathers apprehended , that where there was such an exact sameness of nature , they did mutually exist in each other , and were but one power and energie , will and counsel , and therefore but one godhead and monarchy : this gregory nyssen insists on , as i shewed before ; and petavius has quoted a remarkable testimony from damascen to this purpose ; which shews also , that though they asserted but one humanity , yet they were far enough from thinking , that the three divine persons are one god , only as peter , iames , and iohn , are one man ; where he tells us , that the distinction and separation between peter and paul is real and visible , their union and community of nature only notional : for we conceive in our minds , that peter and paul are of the same kind , and have but one common nature : thus common nature is discerned by reason , but yet it subsists by parts , and separately by itself , and is distinguished from itself as it subsists in individuals by many things , some peculiar marks and properties : but especially that they do not subsist in each other , but separately , and therefore may be called two or three or many men ; ( and gregory nyssen says the same , as petavius himself owns ) but in the most sacred trinity it is otherwise ; for there the community of nature is not a logical notion , but is real ; from the same eternity , identity of substance , action , will , agreement of counsels , identity of authority , power , goodness ; i do not say likeness , but identity . the numerical unity then of the divine essence resolves itself into those two principles , the unity and identity , of power and energie , and that which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or circumincession , or in-being of the three divine persons in each other , which preserves the distinction of persons , but makes the divine essence numerically one ; and indeed these two are but one , and both of them nothing more than what i have explained , i think , a little more intelligibly by a mutual consciousness , whereby all three divine persons are mutually in each other , and have but one energy and operation . that the fathers universally acknowledged , that the operation of the whole trinity , ad extra , is but one , petavius has proved beyond all contradiction ; and hence they conclude the unity of the divine nature and essence ; for every nature has a vertue and energy of its own ; for nature is a principle of action , and if the energy and operation be but one , there can be but one nature ; and if there be two distinct and divided operations , if either of them can act alone without the other , there must be two divided natures . this is certainly true , but yet it gives no account , how three distinct persons come to have but one will , one energy , power , and operation ; and there is no account to be given of it , that i know of , but what i have now given , viz. mutual consciousness ; and that is a very plain account of it : for if all three persons be conscious to each other , as every man is to himself , there can be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as gregory nazianzen speaks , but one and the same motion and will of the deity ; they must move and act all together , according to the order and subordination of the divine persons ; and it is impossible they should do so without this mutual consciousness , as it is , that three men , who are not conscious to each other , should have but one single motion of will , in one single and undivided act : the fathers then and i agree in this , that the unity of the divine nature and essence consists in the singularity of operation ; i only add , how this energy and operation is , and must be one , by a mutual consciousness ; and if this be a reasonable and intelligible account , i hope it is no fault . and there is no other account to be given of that mutual in-being of the divine persons in each other , which they call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as christ tells us , i am in the father , and the father in me : the necessity of this they saw , from what our saviour says , and because it is impossible they should be one without such an inseparable and intimate union and presence and inhabitation in each other : and therefore damascen tells us , that they cannot go out of each other , nor be separated ; but are united and mutually penetrate each other without confusion . such an union as this they all agreed in , as petavius largely shews , but how to explain it they know not ; sometimes they are thus intimately united by the sameness of nature , but this might be the cause of this union , but does not explain , what this intimate union is ; sometimes they represent it by corporeal similitudes , which raise gross and material images in the mind , unworthy of the pure and simple essence of god : as the mixture and union of the light of several candles in the same room , and of the colours of the rainbow , &c. which is owing to a material conception of the divine substance , and the union of substances , which we know nothing of ; but had they contemplated god as a pure mind , it had been easie to explain this perichoresis , or in-dwelling of the divine persons in each other : for there is , and can be no other union of minds but consciousness , and by a mutual consciousness they are as intimate to each other , as they are to themselves ; and are whatever each other is ; as i have explained it at large ; and i hope , this is no fault neither , to give an intelligible explication of that , which all the fathers taught , but were not always equally happy in their explications of it . but to do st. austin right , though he do not name this consciousness , yet he explains this trinity in unity by examples of mutual consciousness : i named one of his similitudes before , of the unity of our understanding , memory , and will , which are all conscious to each other ; that we remember what we understand and will ; we understand what we remember and will ; and what we will , we remember and understand ; and therefore all these three faculties do penetrate and comprehend each other . but his ninth book , de trinitate , is spent wholly upon this argument . it is very familiar with the ancient fathers to represent the father as the infinite original mind ; the son the wisdom of the father , his image , or reflex knowledge of himself ; and the holy spirit that divine love , wherewith father and son love each other ; st. austin takes this similitude of a mind , its knowledge of itsself , and love of itsself , and shews how these are three and one , which he makes a faint image of , and resemblance of a trinity in unity . now the mind , when it knows its whole self , its knowledge comprehends its whole self ; and when it perfectly loves itself , it loves its whole self , and its love comprehends its whole self ; and this proves them to be of the same substance ; for the mind knows itself , and loves itself , and these are so three , that the mind is known and loved by nothing else , and therefore it is necessary that these three have one nature and essence . he proceeds to shew , that this unity is without all manner of confusion and mixture , as it is in the sacred trinity , where the persons are united , but distinct ; for mixture of persons destroys the trinity : and shews , how each of them are distinct , and then how they are alternately in each other ; for the mind that loves is in the love , and love in the knowledge of the lover , and knowledge in the knowing mind ; and how each of them is in the other two ; for the mind , which knows and loves itself , is in its own knowledge and love ; and the love of the mind , which knows and loves itself , is in its own knowledge ; and the knowledge of the mind which knows and loves itself is in the mind , and in its love , because it loves itself knowing , and knows itself loving ; and thus also two are in each , for the mind which knows and loves itself , with its knowledge is in love , and with its love is in knowledge ; for love and knowledge are together in the mind , which loves and knows itself : and the whole is in the whole ; for the whole mind loves itself , and knows its whole self , and knows its whole love , and loves its whole knowledge . i need not tell any man , that this is the mutual consciousness which i have described , and by this st. austin represents the trinity in unity ; and i hope his authority will defend me from the charge of innovation ; and i am sure the reason of the thing will defend itself . but for the better understanding of this , we must further observe , that the fathers resolve the unity of the godhead into the unity of principle : that is , though there be three divine persons in the godhead , father , son , and holy ghost , yet the father is the original fountain of the deity , who begets the son of his own substance , and from whom , and the son , the holy ghost eternally proceeds , of the same substance with father and son : so that there is but one principle and fountain of the deity , and therefore but one god. but this , as petavius well observes , does not of itself prove the unity of the godhead , but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or sameness of nature ; and therefore the fathers add , that god begets a son not without , but within himself , for the wisdom of god is within him , and inseparable from him : this they illustrated by the sun , its light and splendour , which are coaeval and inseparable ; by the fountain , and its streams ; by a tree , and its branches , which are united in one ; which comparisons must not be strained farther than they were intended , as if father , son , and holy ghost were one in the same manner , as the sun and its light , or the tree and its branches , or the fountain , river , and streams , but only that there is such a natural and essential union between the divine persons , as makes them one numerical god. but there is something still to be added to this to compleat this notion , that as the father is the fountain of the deity , and the son and holy ghost inseparably united to him , so father , son , and holy ghost are essential to one god , as st. austin calls the trinity , vnam quandam summam rem , one supreme thing : and as all acknowledge , that the three persons are one god , and since god is the most necessary being , all three persons are necessary and essential to one god : that there must necessarily be three divine persons in the unity of the godhead , and there can be no more . for the explication of this , i shall proceed by these steps , which are all plain , and universally acknowledged . 1. that there are no accidents , nor qualities , nor faculties in god , as there are in created spirits ; but whatever is in god is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , essence and substance , a pure and simple act. this is universally acknowledged by all christians : st. austin affirms , that there are no accidents in god : athanasius , that there is no composition in god , as between substance and accident , ( and it is much alike , as to mind and its different faculties and powers , which is a composition ) but that god is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a pure simple act : but there is no need of testimonies to prove that , which natural reason proves ; for nothing can be eternal and self-orginated , but a pure and simple act , for what is compounded is made ; for it wants a maker . 2. that it is essential to an eternal mind to know itself , and to love itself ; for this is essential to a mind ; no human mind can be without it , much less the most perfect and excellent mind ; and therefore god does know himself , and love himself and his own image . 3. that original mind and wisdom , and the knowledge of it self , and love of it self , and its own image , are distinct acts , and never can be one simple , individual act. they are distinct powers and faculties in men , knowledge , self-reflexion , and love , and are so distinct , that they can never be the same : knowledge is not self-reflection , nor love either knowledge or self-reflection , though they are inseparably united , they are distinct . 4. therefore these three acts , which are so distinct , that they can never be the same , must be three substantial acts in god , that is , three divine subsisting persons ; for there is nothing but essence and substance in god ; no accident , or faculties , as there are in creatures . 5. that these are the true and proper characters of the distinct persons in the ever blessed trinity . the father is original mind and wisdom ; the son the word and wisdom of the father ; that is , the reflex knowledge of himself , which is the perfect image of his own wisdom ; the holy ghost , that divine love which father and son have for each other : it would be very impertinent to confirm this by the authority of the ancient fathers , because all men , who know any thing of them , know that this is their constant language . i am sure this is very agreeable to the language of scripture , and answers all those characters we find there of the son and holy ghost . the son is expresly called the word and the wisdom of god. that word which was in the beginning , which was with god , and was god , 1 iohn 1. for god did certainly always know himself , and therefore this word was always with god , intimately present with him , not as our transient and vanishing reflections are , but as a permanent and substantial word , the subsisting and living image of his fathers wisdom : as he is called the brightness of his fathers glory , and the express image of his person , 1 heb. 2. his fathers glory and person is eternal and original wisdom ; he is his fathers begotten wisdom , or the bright reflexion of his wisdom ; which is as perfect and exact , as the fathers knowledge of himself . and therefore st. iohn might well say , no man hath seen god at any time , the only begotten son , who is in the bosom of the father , he hath declared him , 1 iohn 18. and our saviour might well tell us , as the father knoweth me , even so know i the father , 10 iohn 15. that he seeth all that the father doth : that he receiveth all his commands from the father , that he that seeth him , seeth the father ; and many such like expressions he uses to signifie his perfect knowledge of his father ; for he is that wisdom and knowledge wherewith his father knows himself ; and if the father perfectly knows himself , he is the perfect image and wisdom of the father . for this reason he is called the son , because he is the perfect image of the father , begotten of his own eternal wisdom , by a reflex act upon himself : for he begets his own son in his own likeness by knowing himself ; and therefore the son must be of the same nature , the very wisdom of the father , unless the father knows himself otherwise than he really is . this is the eternal son and word of god , whereby he made the worlds ; for it is this reflex knowledge and wisdom , which makes all things : the eternal ideas of truth and wisdom in the divine mind effect nothing no more than meer speculation does in us , till it is brought into act by reflexion ; for it was this reflex knowledge , which took the patterns of things for the new world , and gave being to them ; and therefore god made the world by his son and begotten wisdom ; who doth all things by seeing what the father doth , as the father doth all things by seeing himself in his reflex and begotten wisdom ; for the father and the son are one single energie and operation . this is that eternal word and reason , that true light , which lighteth every man that cometh into the world , which communicates the light of reason , and the eternal idea's of truth to mankind : this is that son , who reveals the father to us , and acquaints us with his secret counsels for the salvation of sinners . this is that word which became flesh , and dwelt among us , who hath undertaken the work of our redemption , and is become the wisdom of god , and the power of god to salvation to them that believe : for all the natural communications of wisdom and reason ; all the new discoveries of the divine wisdom ; whatever the divine wisdom immediately does , must be done by this begotten wisdom ; that is , by a reflex wisdom , which is the principle of action and execution : and therefore as god made the world by his word , so also he redeems the world by his incarnate word ; this being as immediate an effect of the divine wisdom and counsel , as his creation of the world : as for the holy ghost , whose nature is represented to be love , i do not indeed find in scripture , that it is any where said , that the holy ghost is that mutual love , wherewith father and son love each other : but this we know , that there is a mutual love between father and son : the father loveth the son , and hath given all things into his hands . and the father loveth the son , and sheweth him all things , that himself doth . and our saviour himself tells us , i love the father . and i shewed before , that love is a distinct act , and therefore in god must be a person ; for there are no accidents nor faculties in god. and that the holy spirit is a divine person is sufficiently evident in scripture : for he is the spirit of god , who knows what is in god , as the spirit of man knows what is in man , and he is the spirit of christ , who receiveth of the things of christ : and his peculiar character in scripture is love ; which shews us , what he is in his own nature , as well as what he is in his effects and operations , for nature and energy is the same in god. it is by the holy spirit , that the love of god is shed abroad in our hearts , 5 rom. 5. the love of god is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost which is given unto us . for this spirit is the essential love of god , and therefore both inspires us with the love of god , and gives us a feeling sense of god's love to us . he is the spirit of the son , the spirit of adoption , whereby we cry abba father , and which cries in our hearts abba father . the spirit of the son ; that is , of the eternal and only begotten son ; that very spirit , whereby the eternal son calls god father , whereby the father owns the son , and the son the father ; that is , that essential love , which is between father and son ; and therefore wherever this spirit of the son is , it will call god father , will cry abba father ; that is , is a spirit of adoption in us ; for the eternal spirit of the son , dwells only in sons ; by our union to christ , who is the eternal son of god , we become his adopted sons , and as such the spirit of the son dwells in us . and therefore the fruits and operations of the spirit answer this character . for the fruit of the spirit is love , joy , peace , long-suffering , gentleness , goodness , meekness , which are the communications of the spirit of love. this shews the difference between generation and procession , between being a son , and the spirit of god. generation , as i observed before , is a reflex act , whereby god begets his own image and likeness ; it is god's knowledge of himself , which to be sure is his own perfect image ; and the living essential image of god is his son : for to be a son , is to be begotten of his father's substance , in his own likeness and image : but the divine spirit , or this eternal love proceeds from god , is not a reflex but a direct act , as all thoughts and passions are said to proceed out of the heart : a reflex act turns upon it self , and begets its own likeness ; but love is a direct act , and comes out of the heart ; and thus does this eternal love proceed from god : besides , this eternal love is not the image of god , but his eternal complacency in himself and his own image , and therefore is not a son begotten of him , but the eternal spirit which proceeds from him . it is true , this eternal subsisting love , which is the third person of the trinity , has all the perfections of father and son in himself ; for love must have the perfect idea of what it loves , and therefore this subsisting love must have all those perfections in himself , which are the eternal object and cause of this eternal love ; but his essential character is love , and though love has the whole divine perfections in it self , yet it has them not as a son , not as the image of god. this gives a plain account also , how he is the spirit of the father , and the spirit of the son , and according to the profession of the latin church , proceeds both from father and son ; for this divine love eternally proceeds from god's reflex knowledge of himself , or seeing himself in his own image : he loves himself in his image , and therefore the spirit proceeds from father and son ; that is , from the original and the image , by one undivided act : as every man loves himself in that idea and image he has formed of himself in his own mind . and no man will wonder , that the creation of the world is ascribed to the holy spirit , as well as to the father and son ; for it is eternal love which gives being to all things , which is the author and giver of life , without which infinite wisdom and power produces no one effect : original wisdom contains the ideas of all things , and begotten wisdom can frame the natures of things according to the original ideas of the divine mind , but it is love which gives being to them . 6. from hence it is clear , that these three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , are one god , as these three powers , of understanding , self-reflexion , and self-love are one mind : for what are meer faculties and powers in created spirits , are persons in the godhead , really distinct from each other , but as inseparably united into one , as three different powers are essentially united in one mind : there is a vast difference indeed between them , as there is between god and creatures ; the mind is but one , the faculties and powers more , but these being only faculties and powers , neither of them is a whole entire mind : the understanding alone is not the whole entire mind , nor reflexion , nor love , but the mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in one : but these being persons in the godhead , each person has the whole divine nature : the son has all that the father has , being his perfect and natural image ; and the holy spirit , is all that father and son is , comprehending all their infinite perfections in eternal love : and they are all the same , and all united into one god , as the several faculties and powers are in one mind . 7. for this proves , that these divine persons are intimately conscious to each other , which , as i before showed , makes them one numerical god : for as the same mind is conscious to all its own faculties and powers , and by that unites them into one ; so where there are divine and infinite persons instead of faculties and powers , they must be mutually conscious to each other , to make them all one god. 8. this proves also , that though there are three distinct persons , there can be but one energie and operation ; father , son , and holy ghost is the maker and governour of the world by one inseparable and undivided energie : neither of them do nor can act apart : as the several powers of the mind all concur to the same individual action ; knowledge , self-reflection , and will , do the same thing , which is the effect of knowledge brought into act by reflection and will : and yet the effect may be ascribed to knowledge , and ascribed to will , as the making of the world is to the father , and to the son , and to the holy ghost , not separately to either , but as they act in conjunction , and produce the same effect by one individual energie and power . 9. this proves also , that father , son , and holy ghost , must be co-eternal , as the several powers and faculties must be co-temporary , and co-exist in the same mind . understanding cannot be without a power of reflection , nor that without will and love. and i suppose , no man will say , that there could be any imaginable instant , wherein god did not know and love himself . this account is very agreeable to what st. austin has given us ; who represents the father to be original mind , the son his knowledge of himself , and the holy-spirit divine love , as i have done ; and gives the very same account of their union . cùm itaque se mens novit & amat , jungitur ei amore verbum ejus , & quoniam amat notitiam , & novit amorem , & verbum in amore est , & amor in verbo , & utrumque in amante & dicente . when the mind knows and loves it self , its word is united to it by love , and because it loves its knowledge , and knows its love ; its word is in love , and love in its word , and both in the loving , and speaking or knowing mind . this is the eternal generation of the son : itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit , sola parens est notitioe suoe , & cognitum enim & cognitor ipsa est ▪ when the mind knows it self , it is the sole parent of its own knowledge ; for its self is both the knower and the thing known ; that is , the son is begotten of the father by a reflex knowledge of himself ; and he gives us the same account of the difference between generation and procession ; that one is a new production ( if i may so express it ) inventum , partum , & repertum , that is the production of its own image , of its own wisdom and knowledge by self-reflexion ; the other comes out of the mind , as love does , and therefore the mind is the principle of it , but not its parent . cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum , sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam : in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur , hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit : ab ipsa quidem mente procedit , quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet : atque ita principium est amoris sui , quo se amat ; sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea , sicut notitia sui , quâ se novit ; quia notitia jam inventum est , quod partum vel repertum dicitur , quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura . this i hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this doctrine ( which is the great fundamental of the christian religion ) of a trinity in unity , and unity in trinity , and that account i have given of it . it must be confessed , that the ancient fathers did not express their sense in the same terms , that i have done , but i will leave any indifferent and impartial reader to judge , whether they do not seem to have intended the very same explication , which i have now given of this venerable mystery . as for the schoolmen , they generally pretend to follow the fathers , and have no authority , where they leave them : sometimes they seem to mistake their sense , or to clog it with some peculiar niceties and distinctions of their own . the truth is , that which has confounded this mystery , has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of art : such as nature , essence , substance , subsistence , hypostasis , person , and the like , which some of the fathers used in a very different sense from each other ; which sometimes occasioned great disputes among them , not because they differed in the faith , but because they used words so differently , as not to understand each others meaning , as petavius has shewn at large . the more pure and simple age of the church contented themselves to profess the divinity of father , son , and holy ghost ; that there was but one god , and three , who were this one god ; which is all the scripture teaches of it . but when sabellius had turned this mystery only into a trinity of names , they thought themselves concerned to say , what these three are , who are one god : and then they nicely distinguished between person and hypostasis , and nature and essence , and substance , that they were three persons , but one nature , essence , and substance ; but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words , they found , that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this mystery : for what is the substance and nature of god ? how can three distinct persons have but one numerical substance ? what is the distinction between essence , and personality and subsistence ? the deity is above nature , and above terms of art ; there is nothing like this mysterious distinction and unity , and therefore no wonder , if we want proper words to express it by , at least that such names as signifie the distinction and unity of creatures , should not reach it . i do not think it impossible to give a tolerable account of the school-terms and distinctions , but that is a work of greater difficulty than use , especially to ordinary christians , and i have drawn this section to too great a length already to enter upon that now . sect . vi. concerning expounding scripture by reason . for like as we are compelled by the christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be god and lord. so are we forbidden by the catholick religion , to say , there be three gods and three lords . by the christian verity i suppose is meant , the sacred books which contain the christian religion , that is , the books of the old and new testament . but do these books , and does this verity compel us to the acknowledgment of three persons , each of which , is by himself supreme god , and lord , and yet all of them together but one god ? doth , i say , the holy scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment ? is there any text alleadged from scripture , which all the vnitarians , and some or other of the most learned trinitarians , do not easily interpret in such sense , that the vnity of god is preserved , and no more than one person ( even the god and father of our lord iesus christ ) acknowledged to be god ? see the history of the vnitarians . but if there is no text of scripture , but what is in the opinion of some or other of their own learned men , fairly capable of a sense contrary to the faith delivered in this creed , then we are not compelled to acknowledge this faith. and the truth is , the contest between the vnitarians and trinitarians is not , as is commonly thought , a clash of reason with scripture ; but it layeth here , whether , when the holy scripture may be understood as teaching only one god , or but one who is god , which agrees with the rest of scripture , and with natural reason , we must notwithstanding prefer an interpretation of it that is absurd , and contrary to it self , to reason , and to the rest of scripture , such as the trinitarians interpretation ( exprest in this creed ) appears to be ! in a word , the question only is , whether we ought to interpret holy scripture , when it speaks of god , according to reason , or not , that is , like fools , or like wise men . there is nothing in this long paragraph to trouble an answerers thoughts , but a great deal to exercise his patience , if he be apt to be provoked by arrogance and folly. his first argument to prove , that the holy scriptures do not compel us to confess each person in the ever blessed trinity to be god and lord , and yet that there is but one god , is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment : so he says , and has endeavoured to prove it , and how vainly and impertinently , i leave the reader to judge ; but if a trinity in unity imply no contradiction , as i am perswaded , i have evidently proved ; then i hope the scripture may teach this doctrine , and require the belief of it : but this is an impudent argument , which brings revelation down in such sublime mysteries to the level of our understandings , to say , such a doctrine cannot be contained in scripture , because it implies a contradiction ; whereas a modest man would first inquire , whether it be in scripture or not , and if it be plainly contained there , he would conclude , how unintelligible soever it appeared to him , that yet there is no contradiction in it , because it is taught by scripture : we must not indeed expound scripture contrary to common sense , and to the common reason of mankind , in such matters as every man knows , and every man can judge of ; but in matters of pure revelation , which we have no natural idea of , and know nothing of but what is revealed , we must not pretend some imaginary contradictions to reject the plain and express authority of a revelation ; for it is impossible to know , what is a contradiction to the natures of things , whose natures we do not understand ; as i shewed before . his next proof , that the scripture does not compel us to this acknowledgment , is , that the unitarians , and some of the most learned trinitarians expound these texts of scripture , which are alledged for a trinity in unity to another sense , and easily reconcile them with the belief and acknowledgment of one only , who is god , as well as of one god ; and for this he refers us to that learned piece , the history of the unitarians . as for examining particular texts , which are alledged on both sides in this controversie , it is too voluminous a work at present , and besides my present undertaking , which is only to vindicate the athanasian creed , and the true christian doctrine of a trinity in unity , from the pretended absurdities and contradictions charged on it in these notes , and when that is done , ( and i hope , i have done it ) i dare trust any man of competent understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the scope and language of scripture . but as for what he says , that the unitarians or socinians can easily reconcile all the texts of scripture alledged for the proof of a trinity , to their notion of one god in opposition to three divine persons in the godhead , we must let him say so , because he will say it , as all other hereticks pretend scripture to be on their side ; but to say , that they can easily do this , is a little impudent , when all men , who understand this controversie , see what art they use , and what forced and arbitrary interpretations they put on scripture to reconcile it to their opinions ; especially when some of the most learned socinians stick not to confess , that they will expound scripture to any sense , rather than acknowledge such doctrines , as they think so contradictory to the reason and understanding of mankind ; which no modest man would own , were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own expositions ; for things are come to a desperate pass , when they shall resolve upon any sense , or no sense , rather than that , which the words most aptly and properly signifie , but lies cross to their prejudices and pre-conceived opinions : but what thinks he of socinus's exposition of that text , where christ says , that he came down from heaven ; which he could not do , if he had no being , before he was born of the virgin mary ? did socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this text to his darling opinion ; when he was fain to fast and to pray for it , and to pretend revelation , because he wanted reason to support it ? viz. that christ before he entred on his prophetick office , was taken up into heaven to be instructed in the gospel , and then came down from heaven again to publish it to the world : whereas our saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the world , when he was born of the virgin , and the whole history of the gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into heaven before his resurrection from the dead ; i think this was no easie exposition ; but of this more presently . that there are no texts of scripture alledged for the proof of a trinity , but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned trinitarians , is as true as the other : there are many texts , which all hearty trinitarians do , and must agree in , and whoever rejects them , whatever name he goes by , can be no better than a socinian in disguise ; but however there are no texts alledged by learned trinitarians , but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned trinitarians , and thus it is as broad as long ; but it is not the authority of any modern expositors , which we rely on , but their reason ; and if a learned trinitarian should reject any text without reason or learning , it signifies no more to us , than the expositions of a learned socinian : when we seek for authority we go higher , to the primitive fathers of the catholick church , and there we find it . they not only delivered to us the traditionary doctrines of a trinity , which had always been taught in the catholick church , but the traditionary exposition of those scriptures too , whereon this doctrine is founded ; and they being so near the head and fountain of tradition , the apostolick age , their authority is venerable ; and a modest and prudent man will not reject any interpretation of scripture , which relates to articles of faith , and is unanimously delivered by the ancient fathers , if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense : for though a text should fairly bear two different interpretations , that is most likely to be true , which has been from the beginning taught by the catholick church : and i challenge this author to name any text , which is alledged for the proof of a trinity by learned trinitarians , which has not been used to the same purpose by many , or most , or all the ancient fathers , who have alleadged those texts . but his conclusion from hence , that therefore the scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a trinity in unity , because the unitarians , and some or other of the most learned trinitarians , expound these texts to another sense , is very pleasant , and shows what a great master of reason he is : for his argument is this ; the scripture does not compel us to believe any thing , while there are other men , who expound the scripture to a contrary sense ; and thus i am sure the scripture compels us to believe nothing ; for it will be hard to name any text , which concerns any article of faith , how plain and express soever it be , but what has been expounded to a contrary sense by one heretick or other . i would ask this author , whether the scripture compels him to believe but one god , in his sense of it , that is , but one who is god ? if it does not , why does he believe it , and insist so peremptorily on it , in defiance of the whole catholick church ? and yet how can the scripture compel him to this , when the catholick church , and the catholick doctors in all ages , have expounded scripture to a contrary sense , that there are three divine persons , who are this one god ? at this rate , when men differ in their expositions of scripture , the scripture does not compel us to believe either ; and thus notwithstanding the scripture , we may believe nothing . if the scripture have a determined sense , we are bound to believe that sense , and must answer it to god , and to our saviour , if we do not , whoever expounds it otherwise ; and therefore when it is said in the creed , that we are compelled ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity ) by the christian verity to acknowledge each person by himself to be god and lord ; the meaning is , not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it , or to expound scripture to this sense ; but that the true sense and exposition of scripture does make this acknowledgment necessary , if we will believe as the scripture teaches ; and this may be true , whatever the unitarians , or any learned trinitarians teach . he adds ; that the contest between the vnitarians and trinitarians , is not a clash of reason , with scripture ; but whether we ought to interpret holy scripture , when it speaks of god according to reason , or not , that is , like fools , or like wise men . now this is all sham , and falacy : for to expound scripture by reason , may signifie two very differeent things . 1. to use our own reason to find out the true sense and interpretation of scripture . 2. to expound scripture in conformity to the principles and maxims of natural reason . in the first sense he expounds scripture according to reason , who considers the use and propriety of words , the scope and design of the place , what goes before , and what follows , and how one place of scripture is consistent with another , just in the same way as we find out the sense of any humane writing ; and he who does not thus expound scripture by reason , expounds it like a fool ; that is , if he put such a sense upon it , as the words will not bear , or the scope and design of the text will not admit , and as no man would think of , who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious sense of the text , and whether they , or we , in this sense , expound scripture according , or contrary , to reason , like fools , or like wise men , shall be examined presently . as for the other sense of expounding scripture according to reason , that is , in conformity to the principles and maxims of natural reason ; we allow this too so far , that we must not expound scripture to such a sense , as contradicts the plain and express maxims of natural reason ; for though god reveals such things to us , as natural reason could not discover , and cannot comprehend , yet revelation cannot contradict plain reason ; for truth can never contradict it self ; what is true in revelation , can never be false in reason ; and what is true by natural reason , can never be false in revelation ; but then as i observed before , we must be sure that there is such a contradiction ; it must be evident and express , and not made out of uncertain consequences , which many times are not owing to the nature of things , but to the imperfection of our own knowledge : as to keep to the matter of our present dispute : natural reason tells us , that there is , and can be , but one supreme god , the soveraign lord of the world , and should any man pretend to prove from scripture , that there are three gods , this would be an express contradiction to the natural belief of one god , and therefore we must reject this sense of scripture , as contrary to reason : but to prove from scripture , that there is but one god , and that there are three , who are this one god , this is no contradiction to reason , which teaches but one god ; for scripture teaches the same , and all trinitarians acknowledge the same , and must do so , if they believe the athanasian creed ; and therefore the belief of the trinity does not contradict the natural belief of one god. yes , you 'l say , that there should be three persons , each of which is god , and yet but one god , is a contradiction : but what principle of natural reason does it contradict ? reason tells us , that three gods cannot be one god , but does reason tell us , that three divine persons cannot be one god ? if my reason be like other mens , i am sure , my reason says nothing at all about it , does neither affirm , nor deny it ; and therefore when the scripture assures us , that there is but one god , as natural reason teaches , and that this one god is three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , this contradicts nothing which reason teaches , but adds something , which natural reason could not discover , which is the proper use of revelation . scripture teaches , that there is but one god , and that there are three divine persons , who are this one god : reason teaches , that there is but one god , but does not teach that there are three divine persons in the unity of the godhead , nor does it teach that there are not ; and therefore though the scripture teaches more then natural reason does ( which i suppose may be allowed by these adorers of reason ) yet it teaches nothing contrary to what natural reason teaches ; nay , these men can not graft any contradiction upon it , without perverting the faith of the ever blessed trinity , as it is taught in scripture , and has always been taught in the catholick church : that is , to find a contradiction , their business is to prove , that these three divine persons , each of which is god , must be three distinct gods , and then three distinct gods cannot be one god : this i grant , and their argument is unanswerable to those , who own these three divine persons , to be three distinct gods , but what is that to us , who teach , that they are not three distinct gods , but one god , as the scripture teaches , and the catholick church always taught , and as of necessity we must teach , if we believe a trinity in unity ? so that there is no contradiction is not our faith , for that which they make a contradiction is not our faith , but a contradiction to our faith , as well as to common sense and reason . well! but if we believe three distinct divine persons , each of which is god , we must believe three distinct gods : i hope not , when we profess to believe but one god ; yes , whatever we profess to believe , three such distinct persons , must be three gods ; now this we deny , and challenge them to produce any plain principle of reason to prove , that it must be so ; natural reason teaches nothing about the personality of the godhead ; it teaches one god , but whether this one god , be one or three persons , it says not , and therefore it may be either , without contradicting the natural notions we have of one god ; and then here is free scope for revelation , and if revelation teaches , that there is but one god , and that there are three divine persons , each of which in scripture have not only the title , but the nature and attributes of god ascribed to them , then we must of necessity believe a trinity in unity ; three persons and one god ; for what the scripture affirms , and reason does not deny , is a proper object of our faith : and then their objection against this faith , that these three divine persons , must be three distinct gods , if each of them be god , is sensless and ridiculous ; for it is demonstrable , that if there be three persons and one god , each person must be god , and yet there cannot be three distinct gods , but one. for if each person be not god , all three cannot be god , unless the godhead have persons in it , which are not god ; and if all three are but one god , they cannot be three distinct gods : so that whoever believes the three divine persons to be three distinct gods , does not believe a trinity in unity ; and whoever believes a trinity in unity , cannot believe three distinct gods ▪ and if there be a trinity in unity , each person must be god , and yet there cannot be three gods , but one god ; and now let him go look for his contradiction in the belief of three persons , and one god , and when he has found it , let me hear from him again . so that all his absurdities and contradictions are vanished only into nicodemus his question , how can these things be ? and if i could give him no other answer , i should think it a very good one to say , god knows . must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend , though it be expresly taught by god himself ; must we deny what we read in the bible to be there , because reason does not teach it , and cannot frame an adequate idea of it ? but i have not done with our author thus , but must give him a little more about expounding scripture according to reason : for i affirm , that natural reason is not the rule and measure of expounding scripture , no more than it is of expounding any other writing . the true and only way to interpret any writing , even the scriptures themselves , is to examine the use and propriety of words and phrases , the connexion , scope , and design of the text , its allusion to ancient customs and usages , or disputes , &c. for there is no other good reason to be given for any exposition , but that the words signifie so , and the circumstances of the place , and the apparent scope of the writer requires it . but our author ( as many others do ) seems to confound the reasons of believing any doctrine , with the rules of expounding a writing . we must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express dictates of natural reason , which all mankind agree in , whatever pretence of revelation there be for it ; well , say they , then you must expound scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary principles and dictates of reason : no , say i , that does not follow ; i must expound scripture according to the use and signification of the words , and must not force my own sense on it , if it will not bear it . but suppose then , that the natural construction of the words import such a sense , as is contrary to some evident principle of reason ? then i won't believe it . how ? not believe scripture ? no , no , i will believe no pretended revelation , which contradicts the plain dictates of reason , which all mankind agree in , and were i perswaded , that those books , which we call the holy scriptures did so , i would not believe them ; and this is a fairer and honester way , than to force them to speak , what they never intended , and what every impartial man , who reads them , must think was never intended , that we may believe them : to put our own sense on scripture , without respect to the use of words , and to the reason and scope of the text , is not to believe scripture , but to make it ; is not to learn from scripture , but to teach it to speak our language ; is not to submit to the authority of scripture , but to make scripture submit to our reason , even in such matters as are confessedly above reason , as the infinite nature and essence of god is . though i am never so well assured of the divine authority of any book , yet i must expound it , as i do other writings ; for when god vouchsafes to speak to us in our own language , we must understand his words just as we do , when they are spoke by men : indeed when i am sure that it is an inspired writing , i lay it down for a principle , that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious , or repugnant to the received principles of natural reason ; but this does not give me authority to expound the words of scripture to any other sense , than what they will naturally bear , to reconcile them with such notions , as i call reason ; for if one man has this liberty , another may take it , and the scripture will be tuned to every mans private conceits ; and therefore in case the plain sense of scripture contradicts those notions i have of things , if it be possible to be true , i submit to the authority of scripture ; if it seems to include a contradiction and impossibility , if that contradiction be not plain and notorious , and in such matters , as i am sure , i perfectly understand , there i submit again , and conclude it is no contradiction , though i cannot comprehend how it is ; if i can by no means reconcile it , i will confess , i do not understand it , and will not pretend to give any sense of it , much less to give such a sense of it , as the words will not bear . this shows , that men may pretend to expound scripture according to reason , when the dispute is nothing else , but a clash of reason with scripture , as this author phrases it : for so it is , when the usual signification of the words , and the scope and circumstances of the place require one sense , and men force another sense on it , upon pretence of expounding scripture by reason , that is , to reconcile scripture to their pre-conceived notions and opinions of things : for what the words signifie , that is the sense of scripture ; and when they will not admit this sense , because they apprehend it contrary to reason , though most agreeable to the words and scope of the place , that is nothing else but a controversie between scripture and reason . my present undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the scriptures , which are alleadged by the socinians against the doctrine of the trinity , or by others for it ; this is a voluminous work , and has often been done by others , and if there were any just occasion of doing it again , it deserves a treatise by it self : but indeed it is the doctrine it self , which the socinians dislike , more then our expositions , which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough , were the doctrine so ; but they must not expound scripture contrary to reason , and therefore must never allow , that the scripture teaches such a doctrine , which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident reason of mankind ; reconcile men to the doctrine , and the scripture is plain without any farther comment ; this i have now endeavoured , and i believe our adversaries will talk more sparingly of absurdities and contradictions for the future , and then they will loose the best argument they have against the orthodox expositions of scripture : but yet i am unwilling to dismiss this argument , without some few observations about the sense of scripture . this author refers us to the history of the vnitarians , which though it be but a little book in all senses , is too large to be particularly examined now ; but however i shall give some taste of it in the first letter the author marshals those texts , which he thinks overthrow the doctrine of the trinity , and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful readers , i shall more particularly examine that . he reduces the scriptures under several topicks , or heads of arguments . 1. if our lord christ were himself god , there could be no person greater than he , none that might be called his head or god , none that could in any respect command him . now this argument is fallacious , for though christ be god himself , yet if there be three persons in the godhead , the equality and sameness of nature does not destroy the subordination of persons : a son is equal to his father by nature , but inferiour to him as his son : if the father , as i have explained it , be original mind and wisdom , the son a personal , subsisting , but reflex image of his fathers wisdom , though their eternal wisdom be equal and the same , yet the original is superior to the image , the father to the son : and therefore though i know such texts as he alleadges , my father is greater than i. the head of christ is god. i ascend to my father and your father , to my god and your god ; are both by ancient and modern expositors applied to christ's human nature ; yet i see no inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his divine person , and his relation to his father : for the father is the head and fountain of the deity , and the son is god of god , and therefore the father may be called his god. as for christ's receiving commands from the father , though this relates to the execution of his mediatory office , and so concerns him as god incarnate , as by the dispensation of the gospel , he is the minister of god's will and pleasure , yet i grant even as god , he receives commands from his father , but it is no otherwise than as he receives his nature from him : by nature he is the word ▪ the wisdom , the command of the father ; his reflex image , whereby he produces all the designs of his own wisdom , and counsel into act . thus st. austin answered the arrian objection , that christ was but god's instrument , and made the world by god's command . let them consider with what other words the father commanded his only word . but they frame to themselves an imagination of two , near one another , but separated by their distinct places , one commanding , another obeying . nor do they understand , that the fathers command it self , that all things should be made , is no other word of the father , but that by which all things are made ; that is , the substantial word and wisdom , and command of the father , his only begotten son. 2. if our lord christ were indeed god , it could not , without blasphemy , be ( absolutely and without restriction ) affirmed of him , that he is the creature , the possession , the servant , and subject of god. it is well he added , absolutely and without restriction , but he had done better , if he had remembred it in his proofs : that christ is called a creature , he proves , because he is the first-born of every creature , but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction , for he is so to the first-born of every creature , that he is the image of the invisible god , and therefore no creature ; so born before all creatures , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies , that by him were all things created , that are in heaven , and that are in earth visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities , or powers ; all things were created by him and for him , and he is before all things , ( which is the explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , begotten before the whole creation , and therefore no part of the creation himself ) and by him all things consist , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all things were not only made by him , but have their subsistence in him ; as the apostle tells us , in god we live and move and have our being , that this does not relate to the new creation , as the socinians would have it , is very plain : for 1. in this sense christ ( if he were meer man ) was not the first-born of every new creature ; for i hope there were a great many new creatures , that is , truly good and pious men , before christ was born of his virgin mother . 2. nor in this sense were all things in heaven and earth visible and invisible , thrones , dominions ; principalities , and powers , that is , all the orders of angels created by him : for the greatest part of visible things , ( especially in the apostles days , when so little part of the world was converted to the christian faith ) were not new made by him ; and none of the invisible things were new made by him : good angels did not need it , and he came not to convert fallen angels , but to destroy the visible kingdom of the devil in this world , and to judge them in the next . 3. nor in this sense were all things made for him ; for he is a mediator for god , to reduce mankind to their obedience and subjection to him ; and therefore when he has accomplished his work of mediation , and destroyed all enemies , in the final judgment of the world ; he shall deliver up his kingdom to his father , that god may be all in all ; of which more presently . 4. and therefore the apostle proceeds from his creation of the natural world , to his mediatory kingdom , which proves , that he did not speak of that before : and he is the head of the body the church , who is the beginning , the first-born from the dead , that in all things he might have the preheminence : as the maker of all things visible and invisible , he is said to be before all things , begotten of his father before the creation of the world ; as head of the church , he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also , the beginning , the first who rose from the dead , that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the first upon all accounts ; before the worlds , and the first-born from the dead . that he was god's minister and servant , he proves by several texts : as that he was appointed or made ( which has the same sense ) by god , the apostle and high-priest of our profession : but here is a restriction to his being high-priest , and therefore no danger of blasphemy , though he be god : for we may observe , that though the jewish high-priest were but a man , yet he was a type of a high-priest , who is more than man , even the eternal son and word of god , as some of the learned jews acknowledge ; for the son of god is the only proper mediator and advocate with the father , as philo iudoeus often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or high-priest ; and shows that the garments of the high-priest were figures of heaven and earth , which seems to signifie , that the eternal word , which made the world , is the true high-priest . and the story iosephus tells of alexander looks this way ; that when iaddus the high-priest went out to meet him , dressed in all his pontifical attire , he approached him with great reverence and veneration , and his captains wondering at it , he told them , that that god , who appeared to him , and sent him upon that expedition , and promised him victory and success , appeared to him in that very habit. i am sure the apostle distinguishes christ from high-priests taken from among men ; and makes his sonship the foundation of his priesthood . christ glorified not himself to be made an high-priest ( which shows that it is no servile ministry ) but he that said unto him , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee . as he saith also in another place , thou art a priest for ever after the order of melchizedec . and what the mystery of this melchizedecian priesthood was , he explains 7 hebrews , that melchizedec was first by interpretation king of righteousness , and after that also , king of salem , which is king of peace . without father , without mother , without descent , having neither beginning of days , nor end of life , but made like unto the son of god , which is a priest continually . as for his next quotation , that christ is gods , i know not what he means by it ; for there is no doubt but christ is god's son , god's christ , god's high-priest , serves the ends and designs of god's glory ; and what then ? therefore he is not god ? by no means ! he may conclude , that therefore he is not god the father , because he acts subordinately , not that therefore he is not god the son. his next proof is , that god calls him his servant by the prophet isaiah ; but it is his servant in whom his soul is well-pleased , which is the peculiar character of his son ; and is that very testimony which god gave to christ at his baptism by a voice from heaven ; this is my beloved son , in whom i am well pleased . his next proof is , that he humbled himself , and became obedient , which is all he cites ; but what does he prove from this ? that obedience is part of his humiliation ? and what then ? therefore he is not god ? because he voluntarily condescends below the dignity of his nature , does he forfeit the dignity of his nature ? and yet this is the plain case , as the apostle tells us in that place : that he being in the form of god , thought it not robbery to be equal with god , but made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant , and was made in the likeness of men , and being found in fashion as a man , he humbled himself , and became obedient unto death , even the death of the cross. and this is a wonderful proof , that he is not god , because being in the form of god , that is , being god , he voluntarily condescended to the meanest and most servile state of human nature for the salvation of sinners . but the sting of all is behind , that for this submission and obedience he was rewarded and exalted by god , and a god is not capable of a reward or exaltation , being supreme himself , and yet as it follows , for this god hath highly exalted him , and given him a name above every name . now it seems very strange to me , that christ's advancement to the supreme government of the world , should be made an argument against his being god , or the eternal son of god : for is it fitting and congruous for god to make a meer creature the universal lord and soveraign of the world ? to advance a meer man above the most glorious angels , to be the head of all principalities and powers , which would be an indignity to the angelical nature ? is a meer creature a fit lieutenant or representative of god in personal or prerogative acts of government and power ? must not every being be represented by one of his own kind , a man by a man , an angel by an angel , in such acts as are proper to their natures ? and must not god then be represented by one , who is god ? is any creature capable of the government of the world ? does not this require infinite wisdom and infinite power ? and can god communicate infinite wisdom and infinite power to a creature , or a finite nature ? that is , can a creature be made a true and essential god ? if our adorers of reason can digest such contradictions as these , i hope they will never complain of absurdities and contradictions more . a god without infinite perfections , is only a titular and nominal god , and to say , that creatures may have all the perfections of god , is to say , that god can make an infinite creature , which has a thousand times greater contradictions , than the most absurd explication of the trinity can be charged with ; for then a true and real god may be a creature ; then the divine nature is not eternal , but may be created ; then the divine nature is not numerically one , but if the first god so pleased , he could make a world of gods , as well as of angels , or men. if then this kingdom to which christ is advanced , cannot be administred without infinite wisdom and power , then he is by nature a god ; for otherwise all power in heaven and earth could not have been committed to him , because he was not capable of it , could not administer it : and would god choose a king , who could not administer the government of the world , nor do any thing towards it ? and yet the difficulty remains ; if he be by nature the son of god , and the natural lord of the world , how is he said to be exalted by god , and to receive a kingdom from him as the reward of his sufferings ? when he was already possessed of it , ever since the foundations of the world , being the natural lord of all creatures ; and therefore had no need to receive that which was his own , or purchase what was his natural right , by such mean and vile condescensions , as suffering death upon the cross. and therefore rightly to understand this , we must consider the nature of christ's kingdom ; that it is not meerly the natural government of the world , but a mediatory kingdom . god is the supreme and natural lord of the world , king of kings , and lord of lords , and the only ruler of princes : and while god governed the world only as its natural lord , the son had no distinct kingdom of his own , but in conjunction with his father . for though there always were three divine persons in the godhead , yet the father being the fountain of the deity , the government of the world was administred in his name . but mankind quickly apostatized from god , forfeited immortal life , corrupted their manners , and defaced the image of god upon their souls , and the government of god considered only as our maker and soveraign lord could give no hope nor security to guilty sinners ; and this made a mediatory kingdom necessary , to reconcile god and men , and to restore man to the integrity of his nature : and this power and dignity god bestowed upon his own son , who had the most right to it , and was best qualified for it , being the begotten word and wisdom of the father : but he must first become man , and publish the will of god to the world , and make expiation for sin , and then he should rise again from the dead , and set down at the right hand of god. and therefore we may observe , that all this power christ is invested with , is as head of the church . god hath put all things under his feet , and given him to be head over all things to the church , which is his body , the fulness of him , which filleth all in all . that is , he has made him the governour of the whole world , as head of the church . for the salvation of mankind required the government of the world to be put into his hands , that he might restrain the power and malice of wicked spirits , and destroy the kingdom of darkness , and imploy good angels in the service and ministeries of his church , as the apostle tells us , they are ministring spirits , sent forth to minister for them , who shall be heirs of salvation . that the government of this lower world might be administred by him with a peculiar regard and subserviency to the great ends of his spiritual kingdom . for the church of rome is so far in the right , that the supreme head of the church must be supreme in temporals too in ordine ad spiritualia ; but their fault is , they give this power to a vicarious head , which is due only , and can be administred only by christ , who is the true supreme head of all things to his church . the government of israel was a type of this . the kingdom of israel was originally a pure theocracy ; god was their king , and governed them almost as visibly by his priest , his oracles , his judges , whom he extraordinarily raised up , as a temporal king governs his subjects . but in time they grew weary of the government of god , and desired a king like other nations : upon which god tells samuel , they have not rejected thee , but rejected me , that i should not reign over them . but yet he complies with their desires in giving them a king ; and their king was peculiarly god's anointed , and god's king , who ruled god's people and inheritance by god's peculiar and delegated authority : for the government of israel did not cease to be a theocracy , when they had a king ; for they were god's people and inheritance still ; but now the king was between god and the people , whereas god governed them more immediately before . and therefore as david was a type of christ , so his kingdom was typical of the kingdom of christ ; yet have i set my king upon my holy hill of sion ; which seems to have some aspect on david ; though it received its just acomplishment in christ : and hence the kingdom of the messias is called the throne of his father david ; not that temporal kingdom which david governed , for his kingdom was not of this world ; but that of which david's kingdom was a type and figure , the government of the church , who are god's people , of whom the carnal israel was a type , which he rules by a vicarious , but a soveraign authority , for god , and in his name and stead . this gives a plain account , how god may give this kingdom to his son , and that as the reward of his sufferings . it may be a gift , because it is not a natural right ; for it is not a natural kingdom , but erected by the wisdom and counsel of god , for the salvation of sinners ; and it must be the reward of his sufferings , because it is a sacerdotal kingdom , which is founded in the expiation of his blood. and though christ be the eternal son of god , and the natural lord and heir of all things , yet god hath in this highly exalted him , and given him a name which is above every name , that at ( or in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) the name of iesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven , and things in earth , and things under the earth , and that every tongue , ( some of all nations , languages , and tongues ) shall confess , that iesus christ is lord to the glory of god the father . for when god exalts and magnifies himself , or exalts his son , it does not , and cannot signifie any addition or increase of their essential greatness and glory , for neither the father nor the son can be greater than they are ; but yet god is exalted , when his greatness and power is more visible , and more universally acknowledged and adored : and thus god has highly exalted his son too , by conferring the mediatory power and kingdom on him ; as to shew this particularly , but briefly . this makes the son more universally known , acknowledged , and adored . the notion and belief of one god is natural to mankind ; that there are three divine persons , father , son , and holy ghost , in the unity of the godhead , is not known by nature , but by revelation : there are some obscure hints and intimations of this even in the history of the creation ; more plain in the types and prophesies of the jewish law , which relate to the messias ; and possibly this was more particularly explained in their cabala , which some learned men industriously prove contained this mystery of the trinity : but all this while , this mystery was very obscure , and the glory of the son little known in the world : for though now we certainly know from the exposition of christ and his apostles , that the prophets spake of christ under the name of lord , and god , and jehovah , yet all went in the name of god. but when christ appeared in the world , then god owned him for his son ; this is my beloved son , in whom i am well pleased ; christ owned himself for the son of god , his only begotten son : and upon all occasions calls god his father , and that in such a distinguishing manner , that the jews understood him to mean , that he was the son of god by nature , and charge him with blasphemy for making himself god. he appealed to those mighty works he did in his father's name , to prove the truth of what he taught them , that he was indeed the son of god. but then god visibly owned him for his son , when he raised him from the dead , and bestowed a kingdom on him , a name which is above every name , as st. paul tells us , that he was declared to be the son of god with power according to the spirit of holiness , by the resurrection from the dead . and for this reason , that of the psalmist , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee , is applied to the resurrection of christ from the dead . we deliver unto you glad tydings , how that the promise that was made to the fathers , god hath fulfilled the same to us their children , in that he hath raised up iesus again , as it is also written in the second psalm , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee . which it is plain does not signifie , that god then first begot him ; for he owned him for his beloved son long before , at his baptism ; and christ calls himself his only begotten son long before ; and the socinians themselves attribute his sonship to his miraculous conception in the womb of the virgin ; and st. paul , we see , expounds god's begetting him at his resurrection , by his being declared the son of god by the resurrection from the dead , which supposes he was his son before , and that not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the flesh , for so he was the seed of david , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the spirit of holiness , or his divine nature , for so its opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves it must signifie . he was the only begotten son of god from eternal ages , but the world did not fully know him to be so , till god declared this by his resurrection from the dead , and by bestowing a kingdom on him ; and then he visibly appeared in the glory and majesty of the son of god , as if he had been begotten by him that day : and this seems to be the meaning of our saviour's prayer ; and now , o father glorifie thou me with thine own self , with that glory which i had with thee , before the world was ; that is , now publickly own me to be thy son , which i always was , but was never yet sufficiently declared so to the world. and therefore when he was raised from the dead , and advanced into his kingdom , which he was to administer , not by human force and power , but by the power of the divine spirit , it was time to let the world know this great mystery of a trinity in unity , because each divine person has his distinct and proper part in this mysterious oeconomy : and therefore he commands his disciples to baptize in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost , that is , into the belief and worship of one god , father , son , and holy ghost : of which more presently . but this is not all ; the son is not only now made known and manifest to the world , and publickly owned by his father , but he has a peculiar authority invested in him , distinct both from the father and the holy spirit , as he is a mediatory king. there being but one supreme and soveraign god , father , son , and holy ghost , who are but one energy and power , but one monarchy , but one maker , and one lord of the world ; in the natural government of the world there is no distinction of the divine persons , no peculiar offices and administrations to distinguish them ; not one thing done by the father , another by the son , and a third by the holy ghost , but the whole trinity made and governs the world by one individual operation : and therefore the creation and government of the world is the work of one god , and therefore peculiarly attributed to the father , who is the fountain of the deity , who is that original mind and wisdom , who made , and who governs the world by his son and holy spirit ; so that in the natural government of the world , the son has no kingdom of his own , but reigns as one supreme god with the father and the holy spirit , and all attributed to the father as the beginning of energy and power . but in the oeconomy of man's salvation , the son has a kingdom of his own , which is peculiarly his , administred in his name , and by his soveraign authority . the father is atoned by him , and has committed to him all power both in heaven and in earth : he is made the head of all principalities and powers , which are now immediately subjected to him , and must receive their commands and orders from him ; as the apostle to the hebrews tells us , when god bringeth in the first begotten into the world , that is , when god raised him from the dead , and received him into heaven , to sit at his right hand ; he saith , and let all the angels of god worship him : obey his commands , and be his ministers and servants . the holy spirit is given by him , he sends the spirit to dwell in his church , which is his body , and to animate all the true and sincere members of it ; he governs this lower world , disposes of kingdoms and empires in subserviency to the ends of his spiritual kingdom : he has the power of pardoning sins , of judging the world , of raising the dead ; whom he pardons , god pardons ; whom he condemns , god condemns ; for the father judgeth no man , but hath committed all judgment to the son. should the father judge the world , he must judge as the maker and soveraign lord of the world , by the strict rules of righteousness and justice , and then how could any sinner be saved ? but he has committed judgment to the son , as a mediatory king , who judges by the equity and chancery of the gospel . the power indeed whereby he administers his kingdom , is the power of the whole trinity , of father , son , and holy ghost ; for they being essentially one god , have but one energy and power , and therefore can never act separately : and therefore the resurrection of christ from the dead is ascribed to god the father , god raised him from the dead : to christ himself , as he tells the jews , destroy this temple , and in three days i will raise it up . and , i lay down my life , that i may take it again . i have power to lay it down , and i have power to take it again . and to the holy spirit , if the spirit of him that raised up christ from the dead dwell in you ; he that raised up christ from the dead , shall also quicken your mortal bodies by the spirit that dwelleth in you . where god indeed is said to raise up christ from the dead , but it was by his spirit , and by the same spirit he will raise us . but yet this is the kingdom of christ , because now the administration and exercise of this power is committed to him , and is as it were under his direction and influence . the natural kingdom and government of the world is peculiarly attributed to god the father , though the son and holy ghost reign with him as one god : because the father is original mind and wisdom , and therefore the beginning of all power and energy . as the father begets the son , not the son the father , and the holy ghost proceeds from father and son , not father and son from the holy ghost ; so the son and holy ghost will and act with the father , not the father with the son and the holy ghost ; that is , if we may so speak where there is but one individual act and energy , the father is the first mover in the sacred trinity : for reflex wisdom , that is the son , who is begotten wisdom , moves and acts , at it is begotten , by original mind and wisdom , who is the eternal father , as christ himself tells us ; the son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the father do ; for whatsoever things he doth , these also doth the son likewise . and my father worketh hitherto , and i work : but the father is the principle and beginning of action ; and therefore the government and monarchy must receive its denomination from him ; that it is the kingdom of the father . but now in the mediatory kingdom , the exercise of the divine power is committed into the hands of the mediator , and is administred by the measures and terms of his mediation . the power is not taken out of god's hands , for that is impossible ; father , son , and holy ghost govern the world still by one individual act and power , but as in the natural government of the world the exercise of this power begins with the father , so in this mediatory kingdom it begins with the son , and is directed by his mediation : that is , god governs the world now , not meerly as a natural lord , by the rules of natural justice , but with respect to the mediatory power and authority of his son , and to serve the ends of his mediatory kingdom . now the father judgeth no man , but hath committed all iudgment to the son ; he hath power to save and to destroy ; whom he pardons , god pardons ; whom he condemns , god condemns ; all petitions are put up to god in his name ; all blessings , both temporal and spiritual , are obtained from god in his name : that is , it is the name and authority of christ by which god now governs the world. this is the name god has given him , which is above every name , that at the name of iesus every knee should bow , both of things in heaven , and things on earth , and things under the earth : and that every tongue should confess , that iesus christ is lord , to the glory of god the father . that angels in heaven move at his command , and obey his power ; that men on earth worship god , and expect all from him in his name ; that evil spirits tremble at his name , and yield to his power ; and that all the world confess the supreme and soveraign authority of the son , to the glory of the father , who hath thus highly exalted him . there can be no other meaning but this , in what christ tells his disciples after his resurrection from the dead ; all power is given unto me both in heaven and earth . for unless it be some power , which he had not before as the eternal son of god , how can it be said to be now given unto him : and yet before , in conjunction with , and subordination to his father , he had all power both in heaven and earth ; but then this power was not in his own name , nor seated immediately in himself , as his own personal authority ; but now the son is immediately invested with this power and authority as a mediatory king. and this is the meaning of what he tells us ; as the father hath life in himself , so hath he given to the son to have life in himself . to have life in himself , is to have the power and authority of bestowing life , as appears both from what goes before , and from what follows : as the father raiseth up the dead and quickneth them , so the son quickneth whom he will. verily , verily , i say unto you , the hour is coming , and now is , when the dead shall hear the voice of the son of god , and they that hear shall live . marvel not at this , for the hour is coming , in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice , and shall come forth ; they-that have done good to the resurrection of life , and they that have done evil , unto the resurrection of damnation . this power the son always had as begotten of his father , from all eternity , and one god with him ; but he here speaks of a personal authority , which is given him as the son of man , as an incarnate and mediatory king , and hath given him authority to execute iudgment also , because he is the son of man. and therefore now it is given him to have life in himself , as the father hath life in himself : the father hath life in himself , as the original fountain of all life , by whom the son himself lives ; all life is derived from god , either by eternal generation , or procession , or creation ; and thus christ hath life in himself also , in the new creation he is the fountain of life ; he quickeneth whom he will ; he is the bread of life ; that came down from heaven ; if any man eat of this bread , he shall live for ever . as the living father hath sent me , and i live by the father , so , he that eateth me , even he shall live by me . i am the resurrection and the life ; he that believeth in me , though he were dead , yet shall he live ; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me , shall never dye . this is the authority of his mediatory kingdom , which he hath received from his father , that he hath life in himself , and hath authority and power to give life to the world. this is a kingdom in a kingdom , the mediatory kingdom of the son in the natural kingdom of the father , which restrains the father's justice , dispenses his grace , and directs the exercise of his power in the government of the world , which though it be upon these accounts a superiour authority , and therefore a high exaltation of the son , yet it is no diminution to the father : the confessing iesus christ to be lord , is to the glory of god the father . 1. because this mediatory kingdom is erected by the father , and by the father given to the son ; it is he , who gave him this authority , because he is the son of man. and therefore christ every where owns , that he was sent by god. i am not come of my self ; i am come in my fathers name . i proceeded forth , and came from god , neither came i of my self , but he sent me , i seek not my own will. i seek not my own glory . i came not to do my own will , but the will of him that sent me . which scriptures make up the fourth argument in the history of the vnitarians against christ's being god ; because almighty god doth all things in his own name , and by his own authority ; but christ comes in the father's name , and does his will , and seeks his glory . which proves indeed , that he receives this power from the father , that he fulfils his will , and serves his glory in it ; but if he receive this kingdom , he has it , and a very glorious kingdom it is , in some respects superiour to the natural government of god , as it sets bounds to it . but this only proves , that he is not the father , but the son , and the king of god ; and this authority being given him of the father , to reduce mankind to their obedience , it is no lessening of the fathers authority , from whom he receives this mediatory power . 2. this can be no diminution to the father , because he is his only begotten son ; one god with himself , the brightness of his glory , and the express image of his person , the natural heir of his power and greatness , and the natural lord of the world. as a son , he is by nature equal to his father , but yet subordinate , and therefore cannot be his rival ; as a son , his advancement is the glory of the father , that all men should honour the son , as they honour the father ; and therefore it is no derogation to the father , though he commit to the son a more glorious authority , then he exercises himself ; the authority of a mediatory kingdom , or soveraign grace , which is a more glorious authority to sinners , then natural justice and dominion : for all men know , a son must receive all from his father , and if the father , for wise reasons , of which more presently , give the son the more glorious power , it is the father , who is glorified in it : as he is god , the eternal son of god , and one with the father , he is the proper object of religious worship ; and therefore all those divine honours and adorations , which are paid him upon account of his mediatory kingdom and power , are no injury to the divine nature , as they would have been , had god conferred this power on a creature ; which had been to give his glory to another , which god detests , and declares his abhorrence of , and which all arians and socinians do , who worship christ , believing him to be only a creature , or a meer man. the command in scripture to worship him , and pay divine honours to him , is a much better argument to prove that he is god , then to justifie the worship of any creature ; which god universally prohibits , and is a much greater contradiction to the principles of natural religion , than a trinity in unity is to natural reason . 3. to this we must add , that his kingdom is the reward of his obedience and sufferings , that is , it is founded in the expiation of his blood : is an authority to dispence that grace and mercy which he has purchased with his blood : so that his kingdom and power is founded in the most perfect submission to his father , is the reward of his obedience , whereby he glorified his father on earth ; and therefore let his power be never so great and glorious , his receiving it from god , as the reward of his obedience , secures the prerogative and glory of the father . 4. especially when we add , that the exercise and administration of this kingdom , is not by way of any direct authority and power over god ( which would necessarily eclipse the glory of the father , and make him subject to the son ) but by way of mediation and intercession , as an advocate and high-priest . he first makes atonement to god , and reconciles him to sinners , does not command or over-rule , but propitiate the divine justice , and then exercises a soveraign authority in forgiving sins , in destroying his enemies , in governing kingdoms and empires , in subserviency to his spiritual kingdom , and at the last day in judging the world. 5. and therefore the time shall come , when christ shall deliver up this kingdom again to the father : for it is not a natural kingdom , and therefore must not last always ; no longer then till it has attained the ends for which it was erected ; when mankind are reduced into obedience to god ; when the kingdom of the devil is destroyed , and the devil and his angels , and all bad men cast into the lake of fire , which is the second death , and good men raised out of their graves , and rewarded with eternal life ; that is , when christ has accomplished the work of his mediation , that there is no longer any need of a mediator , then the mediatory kingdom ceases . then cometh the end , when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to god even the father , when he shall have put down all rule , and all authority and power . — and when all things shall be subdued unto him , then shall the son also be subject unto him , that put all things under him , that god may be all in all . that is , the son shall no longer have a distinct kingdom of his own , but shall return to his natural subordination to his father , and reign with father and the holy spirit one god blessed for evermore : there shall no longer be any distinction between god and a mediator , but god shall be all in all . this is the best account i can give of that kingdom which the son receives from the father , and which he delivers up to the father again ; and these socinians must think themselves very great wits , or the rest of mankind very great fools , who hope to prove that christ is not god , because he received a kingdom , when it is such a kingdom , as none but a god can receive or administer . but to proceed : 3. his next argument is , that christ it not god , because he is a mediator between god and men : a priest that appeareth in the presence of god , and intercedeth with him for men . this he needed not have proved , because all christians own it ; only the socinians make him a metaphorical priest , which indeed is no priest. but this i have answered already . he is a priest after the order of melchizedec king of salem and priest of god ; that is , he is a sacerdotal king , and this sacerdotal or mediatory kingdom proves him to be god , not a meer creature advocate or intercessor . 4. his next argument is , that he receives authority from god , is sent by god , came to do the will of god : and this i have also already answered . 5. his next argument consists in applying such things to the divinity of our saviour , as belong to his humanity : that he increased in wisdom — ( he should have added stature too , but that had been ridiculous , because it had discovered the fallacy , for to be sure stature does not belong to a god ) and in favour with god and men : and why did he not add , that he was born , and was an infant and child , and by degrees grew up to be a man ? that he knows not the day of iudgment , which he evidently speaks of himself as man ; as all the ancient fathers confess . in st. mark it is said , but of that day , and that hour , knoweth no man , no not the angels that are in heaven , neither the son , but the father . st. matthew does not mention the son : of that day and hour knoweth no man , not the angels of heaven , but my father only . which shews that the son in st. matthew is included in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none , or no man , and therefore concerns him only as a man : for the father includes the whole trinity , and therefore includes the son , who seeth , whatever his father doth . but of this more hereafter . that he knew not where lazarus was laid , because he asks , where have ye laid him ? and yet this very jesus knew without asking , at a distance , and some days before , that lazarus was dead ; which would tempt one to guess , that he might know where they laid him too , though it was decent to ask . what his next text refers to i know not . for how the father , being always present with him to confirm that testimony he gave of himself by miraculous powers , proves that he is not god , i cannot tell : that he was tempted by the devil , proves that he was a man , but does not prove that he was not god : and that he would not be called good by those , who thought him no more than a man ; or that he took this occasion to instruct them , what an infinite distance there is between the essential goodness of the divine nature , and the goodness of creatures , i think does not prove that he is not god. 6. his sixth argument is to the same purpose ; that god giveth what and to whom he pleaseth ; he needs not the aid of any other ; he entreateth not for himself and his people ; he cannot die ; and deriveth his power from none but himself . but 't is certain that the lord christ could not himself , without the praevious ordination of the father , confer the prime dignities of heaven or of the church ( or any thing else , if he pleases , for he does nothing but what he sees his father do ) he placed his safety in his fathers presence and help : he prayed often and fervently to the father , both for himself , and for his disciples . he died , and was raised from the dead by the father . after his resurrection he had received of another that great power , which he now enjoyeth . now all this we grant , and have answered already , which partly refers to the oeconomy of the incarnation , and partly to his natural subordination to his father . but to give a more full and plain answer , and to prevent all such objections for the future , it will be necessary briefly to state this matter also . now this author is certainly so far in the right , that the one supreme god has all authority and power , can need no help from any other , can receive no commands , no power from another , has no need to pray to any other , to intercede for himself or others ; can dispose of all things , as he pleases , and to whom he pleases : accordingly this one supreme god , father , son , and holy ghost , receives no power or authority from any other being , intercedes with no other being , stands not in need of the help of any other , neither prays for himself or others to any other being . well! but the son prays to the father , interceeds with the father , receives authority from the father , disposes of all things by his father's will. what then ? then the son is not the one supreme god. why so ? he interceeds with no creature , receives authority from no creature , &c. nor from any god neither separated from himself , for he is one god with the father and the holy ghost : that he interceeds with the father , proves indeed that he is a distinct person from the father , not that he is not one god with him . if each divine person be god , none of them can interceed with , or receive authority from any separate being , for then there must be some separate god above them ; and then they are not the supreme god ; but if there be three distinct divine persons in the godhead , and an order and subordination between these divine persons ; i see nothing to hinder , why one person may not interceed with another , and receive from another . to show the fallacy of this , i will frame another argument exactly like it , which may do our socinians a kindness in helping them to a new argument , and who knows but that such great wits as they are , may make it a good one : and it is this . the one supreme god is not , and cannot be begotten of any other , nor proceed from any other , and therefore the son , who is begotten of the father , is not the one supreme god , and the holy ghost , who proceeds from father and son , is not the one supreme god. the major is as self-evident as any proposition in euclide ; whoever understands the terms , must confess it to be true , that the one supreme god cannot be begotten , nor proceed from any other ; the minor is confessed by trinitarians , that the son is begotten of the father , and the holy ghost proceeds from father and son ; how then shall we avoid the conclusion , that the son is not the one supreme god , nor the holy ghost the one supreme god ? indeed no way , that i know of , for the thing is true : the son is not the one supreme god , nor the holy ghost the one supreme god , nay nor the father the one supreme god , considered separately from each other , but father , son , and holy ghost , or a trinity in unity is the one supreme god : now of this one supreme god , it is certainly true , that he is not begotten , nor proceeds from any other ; for then there must be a god above this one supreme god : but if there be three persons in this one supreme god , this does not hinder , but the father may beget the son , and the holy spirit proceed from father and son , and yet the one supreme god neither be begotten nor proceed ; for it is not the one supreme god , that is begotten , but the divine person of the son , who is god , and with the father and holy spirit , one supreme god ; nor is it the one supreme god that proceeds , but the divine person of the holy ghost , who also is god , and together with father and son one supreme god. this is plain , and what every one may understand at first sight ; and the fallacy of the argument consists in this , that whatever may be affirmed of the one supreme god , is applied to each divine person in their personal capacities , as if each person considered separate from the other divine persons , were the one supreme god : now this is false , for the one supreme god is not any one person distinct and separate from the rest , but all three persons essentially united into one god ; and therefore the application must be false too ; when what is true of the one supreme god , is applied to every distinct person in the godhead . it is certain , the one supreme god can neither be father , son , nor holy ghost : if he be a father , he must beget a son , who is not one with him , and yet is god : for the son of god , who is begotten of his father's substance , and has the same nature with him ( which is the proper notion of a begotten son ) must be god ; as the son of a man is a man : and if the father himself in his own proper person , as begetting the son , be the one supreme god , the whole entire deity , then he must beget a son without , not within himself , who is not , and cannot be that one supreme god , that the father is . the one supreme god is one in himself , and separate from all other beings : and therefore if the one supreme god be a father , he must beget a son separate from himself ; if he be a son , he must have a father separate from himself ; and so of the holy ghost . in the one supreme god , there may and must be a trinity of divine persons ; within the unity of the godhead there is a father , a son , and a holy ghost , but the one supreme god is neither ; neither begets , nor is begotten , nor proceeds ; for all three persons are the one supreme god , and what belongs to the godhead , belongs to them all as considered in the unity of the same godhead , but not as considered in their distinct personal capacities , as one is the father , the other the son , and the third the holy spirit . and thus it is in the present case : the one supreme god can no more be sent , then he can be begotten , can receive no commands from any other , cannot be given by any other ; cannot be subject to any other will but his own , &c. but the divine persons may send and be sent , and interceed with each other ; for though in the unity of the godhead they are all the one supreme god , yet there is a mutual relation and subordination between the divine persons , as i have already explained it . as to instance in intercession or prayer for himself or others , which is a contradiction to the notion of a supreme god , as it is to the notion of an absolute and soveraign prince : but yet a soveraign prince may interceed with himself ; his own wisdom , his own mercy , clemency , and compassion , may interceed with him , and prevail too , without any diminution to his own soveraign power . thus though the supreme god can interceed with no other being , yet the son may interceed with the father ; his own eternal and begotten wisdom may interceed with him , and make atonement and expiation for sinners : and thus god interceeds with no body but himself ; for it is his own wisdom which interceeds with him , and makes the atonement . and if we will consider things aright , we shall find that there can be no other advocate with the father but the son , but his own eternal and begotten wisdom . when a man interceeds with himself , it is done by reflecting on his own mind , and examining the reasons and motives he finds there to pity and spare , and to do good ; that is , by his reflex wisdom and knowledge of himself , which in the godhead is the son , god's reflex knowledge of himself , or his begotten wisdom , that divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word , which philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or high priest : for let us consider , what it is to interceed with god , and what kind of intercession is consistent both with the soveraign authority , and soveraign goodness of god. an infinitely wise and just and good being cannot be moved by meer entreaties , nor by the bare interest and favour of the advocate , for this is weakness in men , and therefore cannot be incident to the divine nature : now if you set aside entreaties and importunities and favour , there can be no other advocate with the father , but his own eternal wisdom . it is his own wisdom that must atone him , that must reconcile him to sinners , that must obtain pardon and all other blessings for them ; for if this cannot be done wisely , god cannot do it ; and therefore his own wisdom must do all this ; for no created wisdom can . but god loves his own wisdom , his only begotten son , and therefore wisdom is a powerful advocate , and must prevail with the father . so that the son's intercession with the father is so far from being incongruous , or inconsistent with his being god , that the divine nature can admit of no other advocate or intercessor , properly so called . to intercede with a never-failing effect and success , is an act of power and authority , and for god to make a creature-advocate and mediator , is to give a creature authority over himself , which cannot be ; for it is a debasement of the divine nature , and a reproach to the divine wisdom , as if god did not better know , how to dispose of his grace and mercy , than any creature does . for creatures to pray to god for themselves or others , as humble supplicants , is part of the worship which creatures owe to god ; but to intercede with the authority of a mediator , is above the nature and order of creatures ; and god can no more give this to any creature , than he can commit his own soveraign power and authority to them : but his own eternal wisdom can intercede with authority ; for original mind and wisdom must yield to the intercessions of his own eternal wisdom : which is not to submit to any foreign authority , but to his own . to proceed ; 7. his next argument to prove that christ is not god , is this ; that iesus christ is in holy scripture always spoken of , as a distinct and different person from god ; and described to be the son of god , and the image of god. this we own , and he has no need to prove it : and this is a wonderful argument to convince those who acknowledge three distinct persons in the godhead , to prove that christ is not god , because he is a distinct person from the father ; for so according to the language of scripture , god signifies god the father , when he is distinguished from the son and the holy spirit , as all men grant : and to say , 't is as impossible that the son or image of the one true god should himself be that one true god , as that the son should be the father , and the image that very thing whose image it is , is meer sophistry ; for if the father and the son and the holy ghost be the one true god , they are the same one true god , and yet the father is not the son , nor the son the father . 8. his next argument is , from many texts , which expresly declare that only the father is god. now this , i confess , would be a demonstration , could he produce any one text , which asserts the father only to be god , in opposition to the son , and to the holy ghost ; for then the father must signifie the person of the father , in opposition to the person of the son , and to the person of the holy ghost ; but when the father is called the only true god , only in opposition to all the false gods , which the world then worshipped , there father does not signifie personally , but that one godhead or divinity , of which the father is the source and fountain and original ; he being that eternal and original mind , which begets his own image or eternal son , and from whom and the son the holy spirit proceeds in the unity of the same godhead . when the father is said to be the only true god , and the one god , that the son and holy ghost are not hereby excluded from the unity of the same godhead , is evident from those other texts of scripture , which plainly teach the divinity of the son and holy ghost ; for if the scripture teaches , that the son is god , and the holy ghost god , it can never separate the father from his only begotten son and eternal spirit ; and therefore the dispute will issue here , whether the scripture does teach the divinity of the son and the holy spirit . when the father is called the only true god , it must be in opposition to all those who were at that time worshipped for gods in the world , but were not true gods , and therefore when christ calls his father the only true god , it could not be in contradistinction to himself and the holy spirit , for they were not then distinctly worshipped . and when st. paul calls the father the one god , he expresly opposes it to the many gods of the heathens . for though there be that are called gods , whether in heaven ( the sun and moon and planets , and deified men ) or in the earth ( the several elements , birds , beasts , &c. ) ( as there be gods many and lords many ) but to us , there is but one god the father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one lord iesus christ , by whom are all things , and we by him ; where the one god and one lord and mediator is opposed to the many gods and many lords or mediators , which were worshipped by the heathens . these texts indeed do plainly distinguish between the father , and christ : this is life eternal to know thee the only true god , and iesus christ whom thou hast sent . and to us there is but one god the father , and one lord iesus christ ; which is no more than what st. paul teaches ; there is one god , and one mediator between god and men , the man christ iesus . the one god and the one mediator ought to be distinguished ; for the whole christian religion , and the salvation of sinners , depends upon this distinction ; but this does not exclude christ from being one god with the father , though he have a distinct additional glory of a mediatory kingdom . i consider farther , when the father is called the one god , and the only true god , it can be understood only of those , who are distinct and separated gods from the father , and are not one god with him ; but it cannot exclude those , who are united in the unity of the same godhead ; for they are but one god with the father . and this is plainly signified in the title of the father , and the father of our lord jesus , which is god's peculiar name under the gospel , as the maker of heaven and earth was before : for the title of the father does not exclude , but includes the son ; and therefore if it appears from scripture , that this son is true and real god , begotten of his father from eternity , the son at least must be included in this character of the only true god. his other texts , which he cites under this head , prove no more but that the father of christ is god , not that christ is not one god with the father . 9. he adds ; if christ were indeed god , as well as man , or ( as trinitarians speak ) god the son incarnate in an human nature , it had been altogether superfluous to give the holy spirit to his said human nature as a director and guide ; for what other help could that nature need , which was one person with ( as they speak ) god the son , and in which god the son did personally dwell . now the account of this is plain and short ; for the whole trinity is but one energy and power , and the divine persons cannot act separately ad extra ; what the father does , that the son does , and that the holy ghost does by one individual act , as i have shown at large ; but the sanctification of all creatures ( and such the human nature of christ is ) is peculiarly attributed to the holy spirit ; and he might as well have asked , why the sanctification of the church is ascribed to the holy spirit ; for the church is the body of christ , and christ the head from . whence all influences of grace are derived into the body ; and though this be not a personal union , it is next degree to it ; for we are flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone : and a personal union makes no difference in the manner of operation , though it does in the measures and degrees : the divine word acts by and in conjunction with the holy spirit , and therefore sanctifies his own human nature , as he does his mystical body the church by the operations and influenences of the holy ghost . 10. and this answers his next argument , that the miracles of christ are attributed to the holy ghost , or to the father dwelling in him : for father , son , and holy ghost act together , as christ tells us , my father worketh hitherto , and i work . 11. his next argument is ; had our lord been more than a man , the prophesies of the old testament in which he is promised , would not describe him barely as the seed of the woman ; the seed of abraham ; a prophet like unto moses , the servant and missionary of god , on whom god's spirit should rest . that our saviour ought to have been thus described , though he had been more than a man , is plain enough , because he was to be all this : the seed of the woman , the seed of abraham , a prophet like unto moses , but a much greater prophet : for moses was faithful in all his house as a servant , but christ as a son over his own house . but what he insinuates , that he is barely thus described , shews , that this author will never loose a cause by over-much modesty ; for we with all the christian church , and we have the authority of christ and his apostles for it too , say , that he is described in the old testament also , not only as the seed of abraham , but as the son of god. of which more presently . his next attempt is against the divinity of the holy ghost , but here is little that requires a distinct answer , it being only the repetion of his old fallacies . 1. that the holy ghost or spirit , and the power of god , are spoken of as one and the same thing . and what then ? his intended conclusion , i suppose , is that the holy ghost is not a person , which is the intention of his second argument ; but this is so novel and ridiculous a conceit , ( too sensless for any of the ancient hereticks ) that it ought not to be seriously confuted , but despised : for it is as easie to prove the father and the son to be no persons , as the holy spirit . he is the spirit of god , which searcheth the deep things of god , and he who knows all that is in god , is a knowing mind : but to dream of power and inspiration in god , distinct as he confesses from god , and no person ; is to attribute such powers and faculties to an infinite mind , as there are in created minds ; to compound god of mind and intellectual powers and faculties , which all men of sense have scorned the thoughts of : what are faculties in us , are persons in god , or else god is not a pure and simple act , as i showed above . which shows the vanity of his pretence , that the holy spirit is spoken of as a person , by the same figure of speech that charity is described as a person , 1 cor. 13.4 , 5. and wisdom , 9 prov. 11. for these natural or acquired powers and habits are said to do that which the person who has them , and acts by them , does : as charity suffereth long , and is kind , because a charitable man does so , &c. and if we will allow such habits and powers in god , the case may be somewhat parallel ; for when we have compounded god of substance or essence , or faculties or powers , we may then find figurative persons in god , as there are in men. this is certain , all personal acts belong to a person , and therefore whatever has any personal acts ascribed to it , we must conclude is a person , unless we know by some other means , that it is no person , and then that proves the expression to be figurative . thus we know charity is no person , but a grace or vertue , and therefore when personal acts are attributed to charity , as to suffer long , and be kind , &c. we know this is a figure ; but it is ridiculous hence to conclude , that the holy ghost , who has personal acts ascribed to him , to work miracles , to raise the dead , to comfort , to convince , to sanctifie the church , to dwell in the church , as in his temple , &c. is yet no person , because charity , which we know to be no person , has personal acts ascribed to it : which is as much as to say , that because personal acts are sometimes used figuratively , therefore they must never be properly expounded ; whereas on the other hand , we must never expound any thing figuratively , but where the subject will not admit of a proper sense . if it were as known and certain , that the holy ghost is no person , as that charity is none , then there would be reason to allow a figure ; but to prove that the holy ghost is no person , only because personal acts are sometimes figuratively attributed to that which is no person , is a maxim only in the socinian logick , which is nothing else but a system of absurd and ridiculous fallacies . 2. his second argument against the spirit 's being god , is this ; a manifest distinction is made , as between god and christ , so also between god and the holy spirit , or power and inspiration of god ; so that 't is impossible the spirit should be god himself . this has been answered already , as to the distinction between god and christ , and the same answer will serve for the holy spirit . but this confession of the socinian confutes his whole hypothesis , and proves the holy spirit to be a person , and a god. he says the holy spirit is distinct from god , so distinct that 't is impossible he should be god himself ; then say i , this holy spirit is either a divine subsisting person , or nothing but a name . if this spirit were a divine vertue and power , as he would have it , then it is not distinct from god , but is god himself , as the powers and faculties of the mind , though they may be distinguished from each other , yet they can't be any thing distinct from the mind , but are the mind it self ; and therefore if the spirit , as he says , be represented in scripture , as so distinct from god , that 't is impossible he should be god himself , then he must be a distinct divine person , and not the meer power of god , which is not distinct from god himself . if the spirit be distinct from god , and not god himself , and yet have personal acts ascribed to him , then he must be a distinct person ; for faculties , vertues , and powers , have personal acts and offices ascribed to them , only upon account of their unity and sameness with the mind in which they are , which is a person , and acts by these powers ; but a power which is distinct from god , and is not god himself , ( as he says the holy spirit is ) if it have any personal acts , must be a distinct person ; and if these personal acts are such , as are proper only to god , it must be a distinct divine person . he says , this holy spirit is the inspiration of god ; be it so : this inspiration then is either within god himself , or without him , in creatures , who have this inspiration . if it be within god himself , it must be a person , or else it cannot be distinct from god ; and a divine person unless any thing be in god , which is not god. if this inspiration be without god , in creatures , who are inspired by him ; how is it the spirit of god ? for the spirit of god must be in god , as the spirit of man is in man : how does this inspiration in creatures search all things , yea the deep things of god ? and knoweth the things of god , as the spirit of a man knoweth the things of a man ? for the inspiration in creatures searcheth nothing of god , and knoweth nothing of god , but what god is pleased to reveal . the inspiration knows nothing of god , but the inspired mind knows as much , as it is inspired with the knowledge of . so that according to this account , the spirit of god is nothing but the inspired knowledge in creatures ; and therefore no personal acts can be attributed to it , but what creatures can do by such inspiration ; and let any man consider , whether this answers those characters we have of the spirit of god in scripture . if this be so , i desire to know , how the spirit of god differs from his gifts and graces ? for if the spirit be nothing but god's inspiration in creatures , the spirit is either a gift or a grace , and is not one in all , but as many as those creatures are , that are inspired ; and as different as the gifts and graces are , with which they are inspired : whereas st. paul tells us , there are diversities of gifts , but the same spirit ; and there are differences of administrations , but the same lord , and there are diversities of operations , but it is the same god , which worketh all in all . so that the spirit is distinguished from his gifts , as the lord is from his administrations , and god from his operations ; and is the same spirit in all , as it is the same lord , and the same god. 3. his next argument is , the spirit is obtained for us of god by our prayers ; therefore itself is not god. but this has been answered already ; for though the one supreme god cannot be sent , nor given ( which i suppose is the force of his argument ) yet in the ever blessed trinity , one divine person may send and give another ; the father may send the son , and give the holy spirit . and yet since they like that better , we will allow , that the holy spirit does give himself , and is asked of himself ; for the divine persons in the trinity , as i have often observed and proved , do not act separately , but as the father and the son give the holy spirit , so the holy spirit gives himself in the same individual act. and when we pray to god for his holy spirit , we pray to father , son , and holy ghost , who are this one god , and one entire object of worship : it is the ever blessed trinity we invoke , when we pray our father , which art in heaven . for as they are inseparably one god , so they are the inseparable object of our worship ; since this great mystery of a trinity in unity is so plainly revealed to us , we cannot worship this one supreme god , but we must direct our worship to all three divine persons in the unity of the same godhead ; for we do not worship this one supreme god , unless we worship , father , son , and holy ghost : and therefore whether we invoke each person distinctly , as our church does in the beginning of the litany ; or pray only to god by the name of the most high god , or by the name of father ; or the father of our lord jesus christ , it is all one , for father , son , and holy ghost is the one supreme god , and the entire object of our worship : and whoever worships one god , but not father , son , and holy ghost , does not worship the true god , not the god of the christians . before this was so plainly revealed , it was sufficient to worship one supreme god , without any conception of the distinct persons in the godhead ; but when it is plainly revealed to us , that this one supreme god is father , son , and holy ghost , whoever does not worship father , son , and holy ghost , does not worship the true god ; for the true god is father , son , and holy ghost , and there is no god besides him : which i would desire our vnitarians ( as they falsly call themselves ) and our deists carefully to consider : if any thing be fundamental in religion , it is the worship of the one true god , and if father , son , and holy ghost be this one true god , those who worship a god , who is not father , son , and holy ghost , do not worship the true god , and that i think is the true notion of idolatry . so that these men are so far from being christians , that i cannot see , how they are worshippers of the true god : which should at least make them concerned to examine this matter with more care and less prejudice than they have yet done . so that when we worship one god , we worship father , son , and holy ghost , and when the glory of these divine persons was made known to the world , there was no need of any new command to worship these three divine persons ; for when it is revealed , that they are the one eternal god , the command of worshipping this one god must include them all . which gives a sufficient answer to what he adds , that there is neither precept nor example in all holy scripture , of prayer made to the spirit , on this or any other occasion : which on the trinitarian supposition , that the holy spirit is a person and god , no less than the father , is very surprizing , nay utterly unaccountable . but i hope this will satisfie any man , that it is not unaccountable ; for though the spirit be god , he is but one god , with father and son , and therefore not a distinct and separate object of worship , but is worshipped with the father and the son , in the unity of the same godhead , and this required no new command , nor any separate worship of the holy spirit . there is indeed a distinct worship paid to christ : all men must honour the son , as they honour the father . when god brought his first begotten into the world , that is , when he raised him from the dead , and exalted him to his own right hand , he said , and let all the angels of god worship him : god hath highly exalted him , and given him a name , which is above every name , that at the name of iesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven , and things in earth , and things under the earth . but this is not meerly as he is the son of god , the second person in the trinity , for so he is worshipped as one god with the father and the holy ghost ; but as he is a mediator or a mediatory king ; as he has a kingdom distinct from the natural kingdom of the father , as i have already shown , so there is a worship proper to him as mediator ; but the holy spirit has no distinct kingdom , and therefore no distinct worship , but is worshipped in the unity of the godhead , and this required no new command ; for he who knows , that father , son , and holy ghost are one supreme god , must worship father , son , and holy ghost as one supreme god. 4. his next argument is against a trinity of persons in the godhead , which , he says , is contrary to the whole scripture , which speaks of god but as one person , and speaks of him , and to him , by singular pronouns , such as i , thou , me , him. his proofs that the scripture speaks of god as but one person , are very wonderful . his first is , that of iob ; will ye speak wickedly for god ? and talk deceitfully for him ? will ye accept his person ? will ye contend for god ? but surely to accept god's person , no more signifies the personality of the godhead , than to accept the person of a man , signifies his human person : the hebrew is his face , which is far from signifying a person in the sense we say , there are three persons in the godhead . to respect the person of a man is to do something for him , which neither law , nor justice , nor equity required , not because he is a person , which every man is , but from some partial respect we have to his particular person ; and therefore to accept the person of god here signifies to speak wickedly for god ; which is an absurd and sensless thing , as iob represents it , whether the supreme god be one person , or three ; for in this sense of person , one god can be but one person . the other text that christ is the express image of god's person , is as little to the purpose ; for it is plain , the person of whom the son is the express image , is the person of god the father ; and the father indeed is but one person . as for his singular pronouns , they prove indeed that there is but one god , as we all own , not that there are not three persons in the godhead . for when the scripture speaks of god without any particular respect to the distinction of the persons , it must speak but of one god , because god is but one , and singular pronouns are most properly applied to one god. as for what he objects , that no instance can be given in any language of three persons whoever spoke of themselves , or were spoken to , by the singular pronouns , i , thou , me , him , thee ; it were sufficient to answer , that there is no other example in nature neither , of three persons who are essentially one ; and if the manner of speaking must be conformed to the nature of things , there can be no other instance of this way of speaking , because there is no other example of this unity ; but all languages speak of one in the singular number , and so the scripture uses singular pronouns of one god. but this is not the case ; for when god speaks of himself , he does not speak of himself , as three persons , but as one god , and therefore may say i and me : and when the prophets speak of god , or pray to him , they pray to him as one god , and therefore may say , thou , and him , and thee . when three persons are one god , god may speak of himself , or we may speak of , or to god ; either considered as three persons , or as one god ; and though three persons require the plural number , yet one god may speak of himself , or be spoken to , by singular pronouns . 5. he says , had the son or holy ghost been god , this would not have been omitted in the apostles creed . and i say , had not the son been god , and the holy ghost god , they would not have been put into the apostles creed , no more than into the form of baptism , which is the original of the apostles creed . that the primitive christians did believe the divinity of the son , and of the holy ghost , we are sufficiently , assured from all the ancient records of their faith ; but there was no reason to express this in so short a creed , before the arian and socinian heresies had disturbed the church ; and indeed there was no need of it , for the only son of god must be by nature god , and the spirit of god is as essentially god , as the spirit of a man is essential to a man. he concludes ; that theirs ( the socinians ) is an accountable and reasonable faith ; but that of the trinitarians is absurd , and contrary both to reason and to it self , and therefore not only false , but impossible . the faith of a trinity in unity , i hope , i have sufficiently vindicated already from absurdity and contradiction . but it will be worth the while briefly to consider , how accountable and reasonable the socinian faith is . the socinian doctrine is , that christ , who is called the son , the only begotten son of god , the brightness of his glory , and the express image of his person , is no more than a meer man , who had no being , till he was conceived in the womb of the virgin mary , and is called the son of god , because god formed him by an immediate power in the virgins womb , and raised him from the dead , and exalted him to his own right hand in heaven ; and that the holy spirit is only the power and inspiration of god , that is , is either god himself , or the operation of his power in creatures . this is their accountable and reasonable doctrine , and to show how very accountable and reasonable it is , i come now to draw up my charge against it . 1. that it ridicules the scriptures . 2. that it ridicules the whole jewish oeconomy . 3. that it ridicules the christian religion . 4. that it justifies , or at least excuses both pagan and popish idolatries . the charge is full enough , and i am contented it should pass only for big huffing words , till i have proved it ; and then i hope , it may pass for a just return to the ridiculous blasphemies of the brief notes , and brief history . 1. that it ridicules the scripture , by putting either an absurd , or a very mean trifling sense on it , unworthy of the wisdom of god , by whom it was inspired ; and this i shall give some instances of , in their expositions of scripture , which i find in the brief history of the vnitarians . in the second letter he takes notice of some texts in the old testament , which speak of god , and in the new testament are applied to christ , which we think a very good argument to prove , that christ is that god , to whom those texts belong in the old testament ; for though possibly without such an application we could not certainly have known , that these texts were spoken of christ , yet the authority of christ and his apostles who have made this application , is as good a reason to believe , that they were meant of christ , as to believe any other part of the gospel : let us then consider , how he answers such texts . what the psalmist says , thy throne , o god , is for ever and ever , a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom . thou hast loved righteousness , and hated iniquity , therefore god , even thy god hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows ; the apostle to the hebrews applies to christ ; but unto the son he saith , thy throne , o god , &c. to this he answers , in the hebrew , and in the greek , 't is god is thy throne ( i. e. thy seat , resting place , establishment ) for ever ; if he had only said , it may be so , he had said right ; but it is false , to say , it is so . for the hebrew elohim may be either the nominative or the vocative case , and so the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is an attick vocative , and so is used by the septuagint , 22 psalm 1. ' o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , my god , my god , why hast thou forsaken me . and it is evident , the septuagint , the vulgar latine , the chaldee paraphrase , the syriack and arabick versions , took it for the vocative case , and thus the christian church has always understood it ; and this is the most natural construction , when it immediately follows a pronoun , which has no other immediate relative ; thy throne , o god , that is , o god , thy throne is for ever and ever . and thus the apostle must understand it ; to the son he saith , thy throne , o god ; where , o god , must be referred to the son , and thy to god : and the sense he gives of it , is absurd , and what we have no example of in scripture , that god is a throne : god indeed is called a rock , a fortress , a high tower , which is expounded by a deliverer ; but a throne here signifies a kingdom , as is evident from the following words ; and to say , that god is the throne , and the kingdom of christ , is to subject the father to the son ; for a king sits upon his throne , and governs his kingdom . the apostle in the next verse cites another glorious testimony which god hath given to his son ; and , thou lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth , and the heavens are the work of thine hands ; they shall perish , but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment , and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up , and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same , and thy years shall not fail . this is so plain a testimony to the divinity of our saviour , if these words be allowed to be applied by the apostle to christ , that our author is forced to deny it . he says , the context has this sense , and thou lord , ( that is , and in another text of the psalms , it is said , thou lord ) which is certainly true , if he had added but one word more , viz. to the son. and in another text of the psalms , it is said to the son , and thou lord hast laid the foundations of the earth ; for so the context requires us to supply it , if we will make sense of it ; for the apostle observes in what different language god speaks of the angels , and to the son : of the angels he saith , who maketh his angels spirits , and his ministers a flaming fire ; but to the son , he saith , thy throne , o god , is for ever and ever — and to the son he saith , thou lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth . — but to which of the angels said he at any time , sit on my right hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool . this is easie and natural ; but to apply those words to the father , thou lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth , &c. is to break the whole context , is contrary to the apostles design , and no good sense can be made of it ; and this i think is to ridicule scripture , to make it nonsense , or very bad , disturbed , and incoherent sense , when there is no need of it , but to serve an hypothesis which the text was designed to confute . he says , tho. aquinas rightly acknowledged , that the words of both these texts may be understood of god only , not of christ ; but this is false ( as indeed he seldom cites any author , but he corrupts him ) for thomas says , this text may be understood of either ; but if you understand it of the father , then by in the beginning you must understand the son , who , he says , is called the beginning : thou lord in the beginning , that is , in or by the son , hast laid the foundations of the earth ; for he saw the context required , that these words should be applied to christ , but he thought it indifferent , whether they were applied to him in whole or in part , since both ways he is made the creator of the world , which answers the apostles design ; and though i think thomas was mistaken , yet this makes nothing to our authors purpose . thus what the psalmist says of god , thou hast ascended on high , thou hast led captivity captive , thou hast received gifts for men ; st. paul attributes to christ. here our historian spends a great many words to no purpose , about christ's discent into the grave and into hell , and his ascending into heaven to fill all things ; or , as he says , it might be better rendred to fulfil all things , that is , all the prophesies of himself , and others concerning his death , and ascension into the highest heavens : but how does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie all prophesies , or how does his ascension into heaven fulfil all prophesies ? as for the gifts given to men , he says , in the psalms , they are literally meant of god , and of christ , only by way of prophesie , or rather of emblem , or accommodation ; which he learnedly proves , because the gifts the apostle speaks of , were not given or received till about one thousand years after david 's time . now what of all this ? we readily grant , that ascending on high , the leading captivity captive , the receiving gifts for men , which the psalmist speaks of , were not the same , with the ascension of christ into heaven , his leading captivity captive , and giving gifts to men , but were types and figures of it ; but the single question is , whether christ be that god , of whom the psalmist says , that he ascended on high , &c. if he be not , st. paul has abus'd us , for he applies that to christ , which was not said of him ; if he be , we have what we desire , that christ is god : but this , which was the only question , he says not one word to . men may be types and figures , as david and others were of christ ; and in this case , what was said of david , as a typical person , may be applied to the person of christ : but god himself can be no type , for the type is always less perfect than the antitype ; and therefore whatever is said of god , must belong to his person , and cannot belong to any other . what god did under the typical state of the law , may be a type and figure of those more glorious things , which we would do in human nature ; and thus his triumphs and victories over the enemies of his church , which is by a metaphor called his ascending on high , ( since god , who fills all places , neither locally ascends nor descends ) was a type and figure of his real ascension into heaven , after he had first descended into the lowermost parts of the earth , as the apostle argues ; but if what the psalmist says , that god ascended on high , &c. received its accomplishment in the ascension of christ into heaven , christ must be the god of whom the psalmist speaks . thus what the psalmist says of god , worship him all ye gods , or angels , the apostle attributes to christ ; when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world , he saith , and let all the angels of god worship him . to this our author answers , 't is uncertain whether st. paul had any respect to the words in the psalm . what ? when he cites the very words , as a prophesie of christ ? how shall we then know , when the apostle has respect to the words he quotes ? but if he had , he doth not quote the words of the psalmist as if they were spoken of christ , but only declareth the decree of god ( known to him by the spirit ) for subjecting the angels to christ , in the same words that the psalmist had used upon another occasion . but he proves this decree of god by no other revelation , but the words of the psalmist , nor pretends any other ; and if that do'nt prove it , we have no other . but his reason for this is admirable , because they are words most proper to express that decree , for the writers of the new testament generally affect to speak in scripture language : which is an effectual answer to all the texts of scripture quoted out of the old testament ; that the apostles did not intend to prove any thing by them , but only affected to speak in scripture language ; but when the apostle says this was spoken of christ , if it were not spoken of him , i doubt he affected something worse than speaking in scripture language ; this is either to ridicule scripture , or give the lie to it , let him choose which he likes best . st. paul applies that of the prophet isaiah , i have sworn by my self , ( which all acknowledge to be spoken by god ) unto me every knee shall bow , to christ. this our historian says , is , because christ then and there ( at the last iudgment ) holdeth the place of god , representeth him , and acteth by his commission . so men are said to appear before our soveraign lord the king , when they appear at the bar of his iudges , because the iudges act in the king's stead , and by his commission . but why does he confine this bowing the knee to the last iudgment ? st. paul indeed gives this as one instance of it , but does not confine it to this , but in the epistle to the philippians makes it as large as the exaltation of our saviour ; wherefore god hath highly exalted him , and given him a name , which is above every name , that at the name of iesus every knee should bow , — and that every tongue should confess that iesus christ is lord , to the glory of god the father . this is what god says by the prophet , every tongue shall swear to me ; and st. paul to the romans , every tongue shall confess to god. and this shows , that it is the person of christ to whom we must bow the knee : it is the name of iesus at which every knee must bow ; and every tongue must confess , that iesus christ is the lord. now i suppose he will not say , that we must confess the judges to be the king , or that we must bow to their persons , but to their commission ; or that they represent the king , wherever they are , but only in the king 's court. if then we must bow to the person of christ , and confess him to be the lord , and this be an accomplishment of god's oath , unto me every knee shall bow , and every tongue shall swear ; then christ is that god , who in the prophet isaiah swore , that every knee should bow to him : and the prophet plainly describes , who this god is to whom every knee shall bow ; surely shall one say , in the lord have i righteousness and strength ; even to him shall men come , and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed ; in the lord shall the seed of israel be justified , and shall glory ; and i suppose all christians know , who that lord is , who is made unto us wisdom , and righteousness , sanctification and redemption ; by whom we are justified through faith in his blood : and this is that god , to whom every knee must bow . but he is a little mistaken also in his law ; we are not said to appear before our soveraign lord the king , because we appear before the judges , who act by the king's commission ; for this is true only of the court of king's bench , which is peculiarly the king's court ; though other judges act by the king's commission also : in the kings court we are said to appear before the king. but now though christ receive his kingdom and power from god , and god is said to judge the world by him , yet it is properly christ's iudgment seat : so st. paul here calls it ; we shall all stand before the iudgment-seat of christ ; and we must all appear before the iudgment-seat of christ ; for the father judgeth no man , but hath committed all iudgment to the son , that all men should honour the son even as they honour the father ; which i explained before . and therefore this being christ's court , of which he is the supream and soveraign judge , to him we must bow our knee ; that is , he is that lord , of whom the prophet isaiah speaks . the same prophet tells us , sanctifie the lord of hosts himself , and let him be your fear , and let him be your dread . and he shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling , and for a rock of offence to both the houses of israel , for a gin , and for a snare to the inhabitants of jerusalem . this is evidently spoken of the lord of hosts , the god of israel . and this st. paul applies to christ , that the jews did stumble and fall , and were broken , as the prophet foretold at this stumbling stone : israel , which followed after the law of righteousness , hath not attained to the law of righteousness . wherefore ? because they sought it , not by faith ( the faith of christ ) but as it were by the works of the law , for they stumbled at the stumbling-stone ; as it is written , behold i lay in sion a stumbling-stone , and rock of offence ; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed . where the apostle joyns two prophesies together ; the first , that which i have already quoted , where the lord of hosts is said to be a stumbling-stone , and rock of offence : and another of the same prophet ; behold , i lay in zion for a foundation a stone , a tried stone , a precious corner-stone , a sure foundation : he that believeth shall not make haste ; which both st. paul and st. peter render with the septuagint shall not be ashamed . now from hence we learn , that the prophet speaks of the same stone , that the stumbling-stone and rock of offence , is the foundation stone , the precious corner-stone : and therefore the lord of hosts , who is the stumbling-stone , is the precious corner-stone also : and st. paul and st. peter tells us , that christ is the stumbling-stone , and that precious corner-stone , of which the prophets speaks , that is , that christ is the lord of hosts . to whom ( to christ ) coming as unto a living stone , disallowed indeed of men , but chosen of god and precious , ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house — wherefore also it is contained in scripture , behold , i lay in sion a chief corner-stone , elect , precious , and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded , or ashamed . all that our historian says to this , is , that neither st. paul , nor st. peter cite the words of the prophet as spoken of christ , but only as in some sense applicable to him , namely as christ was to many a stone of stumbling ; which is nothing else but to out-face the world with down-right impudence ; and to charge the apostles with abusing scripture , and producing proofs , which are no proofs . st. paul alleadges this prophesie to prove , that the infidelity of the jews , and that offence they should take at christ , was foretold in scripture ; which answers that objection against his being the messias , that the great body of israel , to whom the messias was peculiarly promised , should reject him when he came ; which had it not been foretold , had been a very unanswerable prejudice ; and yet if christ be not the prophets stumbling stone , this prophesie does not foretel it . st. peter urges this prophesie to prove , that christ is the foundation , corner stone , elect , and precious , on which the church was to be built ; but he abuses us also with a sham proof , if this prophesie were not meant of christ. and thus these men , rather than they will allow the scripture proofs , that christ is god , destroy all the old testament proofs of the truth of christianity ; and i am afraid they are able to give us no good proofs of christianity without them ; and yet if such texts as these must pass only for accommodations and allusions , i know not where they will find any proofs . st. iohn curiously observes the several circumstances of our saviour's death , and shows that they were the accomplishment of ancient prophesies ; and among others , that of piercing his side with the souldier's spear , which was foretold by the prophet zechary , they shall look on me , whom they have pierced , which is confessed to be spoken of god ; and here he tells us again , that the words in the prophet are not by st. john interpreted of christ , but accommodated to christ and his sufferings . and thus , as fast as he can , one after another , he accommodates away all the proofs of christianity : for we may as well prove the gospel out of homer , by accommodating homer's words and phrases to it , and turning it into an homerical poem , as we know has been done , as prove it by accommodating the phrases and language of the old testament to it , which were never intended to signifie any such thing ; this i think is to ridicule and profane both the old and new testament , and to overthrow the authority of both . but i am quite tired with this work , and therefore shall pass over his other old testament proofs ; for what can we say to convince these men , that such old testament texts speak of christ , who will not believe the apostles themselves ? and to conclude this , i shall only give you a specimen , how they deal with the new testament also , in two or three instances . i shall begin with the form of baptism ; go ye therefore and teach all nations , baptizing them in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost . all the fathers have made this an argument , that father , son , and holy ghost are one god , because we are baptized in their name , and we must not be baptized in the name of any creature ; for to be baptized in their name , signifies to be devoted and consecrated by a sacred and religious rite to the faith , worship , and obedience of father , son , and holy ghost ; and it is idolatry to joyn creatures with god in so solemn an act of religion ; in the same act whereby we give up our selves to god , to give up our selves to creatures , in the same form of words , without making any other difference between them , but the order of persons . and it is to no purpose to dispute , what is meant by baptizing in the name , for whatever that be , it signifies the very same to be baptized in the name of the father , and to be baptized in the name of the son , and in the name of the holy ghost ; our saviour makes no distinction , and we must make none ; and if father , son , and holy ghost be not one god , this form of baptism destroys the distinction between god and creatures , and devotes us as intirely to creatures as to god. we must consider baptism , as the sacrament of our initiation into the christian religion , and our admission into the gospel-covenant , and therefore the persons in whose name we are baptized is that god , who receives us into covenant , and to whose worship and obedience we consecrate our selves . our historian says , that to be baptized in the name of a person or persons , is a rite by which one delivers himself to the institution , instruction , and obedience of such person or persons : so that to be baptized in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost , is to profess to be led or guided by them , or ( as grotius expresses this matter ) 't is to declare we will admit of no other thing , as a part of our religion , but what proceeds from these , that is , nothing but what is commanded by god or the father , and has been delivered by his son , the lord christ , and confirmed externally by miracles , and internally with the witness and testimony of the spirit , that is by the power and inspiration of god. this is a very false account of grotius , and therefore i shall consider it , as his own . now i readily grant , that baptism does include our profession of believing the gospel , and making that the sole rule of our faith and worship ; those who are baptized do own , as grotius speaks , tres dogmatis sui auctores , three authors of their doctrine or religion , father , son , and holy ghost ; but then baptism being a religious rite , it is a religious profession of this , a religious devoting our selves to them , and therefore we give up our selves to their institution and guidance , not as to creatures , but as to god , who is both the author , and the object of our faith and worship . no man must religiously consecrate himself to a creature , for that is idolatry : even among the pagans , their mysteries terminated on their gods , and they were initiated by them into the worship of that god , whose mysteries they were ; and it was never known yet , that men devoted themselves to the institution and guidance of any human doctors or masters by religious ceremonies . now if baptism be a religious rite , god and creatures can never be made the joynt object of religion , and therefore the son and the holy ghost , must be one god with the father . i desire to know what is meant by being baptized in the name of the father ? is it only to take him for our instructor and guide ? or is it to worship and obey him for our god ? and why then do not the same words in the same religious act signifie the same thing , when applied to the son and holy ghost , as they do , when applied to the father ? let them shew me any one instance in scripture , where a creature is joyned with god in any act of worship , much less in the fundamental contract of worship ( if i may so speak ) wherein we devote and consecrate our selves to god. our author with his usual assurance adds ; 't is in vain , not to say ridiculously pretended , that a person or thing is god , because we are baptized into it , or in the name of it ; for then moses and john baptist also would be gods : our fathers were — all baptized unto moses : unto what then were you baptized ? and they said unto john 's baptism . that is ( saith the generality of interpreters ) unto john , and the doctrine by him delivered . but in the first place he mis-represents the argument , which is , that the son , and holy ghost are god , because we are baptized in their name , as we are in the name of the father ; and together with him ; in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost ; and i confess , he had answered this argument , could he have shewn us , that the jews were baptized in the name of god , and in the name of moses , for that had joyned moses with god , as our saviour joyns the son and the holy ghost with the father in the form of baptism . but he is so far from doing this , that in the next place i observe , that the jews never were literally baptized in the name of moses , or in the name of iohn , as christians are by our saviour's institution in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost . moses did not baptize the jews at all , much less in his own name , though st. paul observes , that they had a kind of mystical baptism under moses in the cloud , and in the sea. and therefore it is plain , that to baptize into moses is a figurative and allusive expression , and does not , and cannot signifie , that they were baptized in the name of moses , because it is not true ; for though we should grant , as he argues , that to be baptized into christ , and baptized in the name of christ , signifies the same thing , when men are literally baptized in the name of christ , yet it is a demonstration , that to be baptized into moses , and baptized in the name of moses , cannot signifie the same thing ; because those who were mystically baptized into moses , never were baptized in the name of moses ; and it is burlesquing scripture to make any phrase and expression signifie that which never was . i will only ask this author , whether the jews were baptized in the name of moses ? if they were not , let him tell me , how their being baptized into moses comes to signifie their being baptized in the name of moses ? could the apostle mean by this phrase , that they were baptized in the name of moses ? that is , could the apostle mean , what he knew was not true ? and yet i deny , that to be baptized into christ , and baptized in the name of christ , signifie the same thing ; for to be baptized into iesus christ , does not relate to the form of administring baptism in the name of christ , but to the effect of it , in uniting us to christ , and incorporating us with him , as members of his body , which induces an obligation of a spiritual conformity to his death , in dying to sin , and living to god. and thus the israelites were baptized into moses , or into the mosaical covenant , not by being baptized in the name of moses , but by mystical sacraments ; the cloud , which over-shadowed and guided them , and the red-sea , which divided and gave them safe passage , but drowned the aegyptians , being types and figures of the christian baptism ; but i shall not spend time in explaining this now ; it is enough to shew , that it is nothing to our present argument . thus it is evident , that to be baptized into john 's baptism , does not signifie to be baptized in the name of iohn , for iohn did not baptize in his own name , but made proselytes to the messias , as the apostle adds ; iohn verily baptized with the baptism of repentance , saying unto the people , that they should believe on him , who should come after him , that is , on christ iesus . are not these now admirable proofs , that we may be baptized in the name of creatures , because the israelites were mystically baptized into moses , who never literally baptized any , much less in his own name ; and that the disciples of iohn were baptized into iohn's baptism , that is into iohn , and that is , in the name of iohn , which we know he never did . and yet the socinians , who deny the personality of the holy ghost , make this form of baptism infinitely more absurd still : the holy ghost , they say , is not a person , but the power and inspiration of god. now is it not very absurd , that the power and inspiration of god , which is not a person , should be joyned in the same form with father and son , who are persons ? is not this like swearing allegiance to the king , and to his son , and to his power , or to his wisdom ? the holy spirit is plainly distinguished from the father , and from the son ; and it seems , has a distinct name of its own , into which we are baptized ; now if the holy spirit be not a person , i desire to know , how the power and inspiration of god is so distinct from the father , as to justifie our being distinctly baptized in the name of the father , and in the name of the holy spirit , or of his power or inspiration : to be baptized into the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost , is sufficient to convince any man , who is not resolved against being convinct , that the holy ghost is a person , as father and son are persons ; otherwise it were very absurd to joyn the holy ghost with father and son , in such a religious dedication as baptism is . in the next place let us consider the first chapter of st. iohn's gospel , which gives a glorious testimony to the divinity of christ ; and a plain demonstration of the incurable perverseness of hereticks . in the beginning was the word , and the word was with god , and the word was god , the same was in the beginning with god. our historian tells us , the trinitarian exposition of this chapter is absurd and contradictory . 't is this ; in the beginning ; i. e. from all eternity . answ. from all eternity , is before the beginning , or without beginning , not in the beginning . reply . this is false . no man expounds in the beginning of eternity : but when st. iohn tells us , in the beginning was the word , we say this proves the eternity of the word : for that which was , when all things began , which had a beginning , was it self before the beginning , and without beginning : especially when it was so in the beginning , that it gave beginning to every thing else ; that all things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made . was the word ; i. e. was god the son. answ. but where in scripture is the word called god the son ? reply . this word indeed is god the son , but we do not paraphrase it so in this place , in the beginning was god the son ; but in the beginning was that divine person ; who is called the word . the word was with god ; i. e. the son was with the father . answ. it seems then that god in this clause is the father . but was not the son also with the holy ghost , and is not he too ( according to the trinitarians ) god , or a god ? if he is , why doth st. john only say , the son was with the father ; and how comes the father to engross here the title of god to the exclusion of the holy ghost ? rep. this is true also ; the god with whom the word was , is the father , but that is not his character here neither , no more than the character of the word is the son. but by god , the apostle here means that original mind and wisdom , that supreme and soveraign being , whom all men called god , without making a distinction of persons in the god-head . and therefore , whereas he thinks , that he has got the trinitarians at an advantage , when the apostle adds , and the word was god , his triumph is vain . what ( says he ) shall we do here ? was the word the father ? for so they interpreted god in the foregoing clause . no! no! neither so , nor so . the word was god , signifies the word was a divine person in the godhead : and the verse is very plain ; in the beginning was the word , and the word was with god , intimately and inseparably united to him , and that not as a faculty or power , as reason is in human minds , but as a divine subsisting person , for the word was god. god is the name of a being absolutely perfect , and the light of nature teaches us , that there is but one such supreme being , or but one god ; but nature does not teach us , that there are three divine persons , who are this one god ; though when revelation has discovered this mystery , natural reason is able in some measure to understand it , and see the necessity of it , as i have already shewn ; and if there be three divine persons in the godhead , reason will tell us , that each person is god , though all three persons are but one god : this is the trinitarian hypothesis , and if the words of the evangelist do easily and naturally agree with this hypothesis , and cannot reasonably signifie any thing else ; that is a sufficient argument to me , that this is the true interpretation of the text : in the beginning was the word , and the word was with god , and the word was god. that is , in the beginning of all things was the divine person , whose name and character is the word , this word was inseparably united to that supreme being , whom we call god , and was himself god , a divine person subsisting in the vnity of the godhead ; not a power and faculty , as reason is in man. can any thing be more easie and obvious , and more agreeable to the doctrine of the trinity ? or if you change the subject and the praedicate , as others will have it , and read , god was the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it makes no difference at all ; for this supreme being , whom we call god , was , and is the word , though not only the word : for god is the father , and god is the son , and god is the holy ghost , though god is not only the father , nor only the son , nor only the holy ghost ; but the supreme god is father , son , and holy ghost . now when the evangelist had said , that the word was god , or god was the word , there was great reason to repeat , the same was in the beginning with god , which our historian thinks a meer tautology : for the intention of it is plain , to inculcate more expresly on us , that though the word be god , yet the word is not all that god is , as grotius well observes ; for the word was with god , and therefore a distinct person from some other person , who is call●d god , that is , that eternal and original mind and wisdom , who is the father of the word : and why the name of god should peculiarly be appropriated to the father , as the fountain of the deity , i have often observed . but yet the evangelist does in this verse say something more than he said before , and therefore this is no tautology : he had said , that the word was in the beginning , that it was with god , that it was god : now he adds , the same word was in the beginning with god ; that is , was always with him , never separated from him : and this is added for the sake of what follows , that the word was so with god in the beginning , that god made the world by his word : for all things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , which was made ; which is another very mysterious repetition , which nothing can give so plain an account of as our hypothesis . all things were made by him ; this is full enough , without the following addition , nay indeed signifies more , than what follows , in strictness and propriety of speech , seems to do : for that nothing was made without him , of it self does not signifie , that he made all things , but that he had something to do in it ; as he may have , who is not the principal actor . but our doctrine gives a plain account of this addition : when the evangelist had said , that this word , who was with god in the beginning , made all things , there was an obvious objection : viz. then it seems , that god with whom the word was , did not make the world ; if all things were made by the word : to have attributed the creation of the world to the word , so as to have excluded god from making the world , had been very absurd , and contrary to the sense of mankind ; god made the world by his word ; the word made all things , not so as to exclude god from making the world ; and god made all things , but not so as to exclude the word ; for without him was not any thing made , that was made : which is exactly what we teach , that father , son , and holy ghost , as they are one god , so they are one creator , who made the world by one individual act and operation . god the father made the world , and the creation of all things may eminently be attributed to him , as the fountain of the deity , and of all energy and power ; but he did not make the world without his word and spirit : all things were made by the word , and without him was not any thing made , that was made . this account is very far from containing any thing absurd or contradictious ; but to have as little dispute as may be with this author , let us take it in that sense he would have us take it in ; instead of word put the son , and instead of god put god the father , and i can find none of the contradictions he talks of : for then the words run thus ; in the beginning of all things was the word the son of god , and this son of god was inseparably united to god the father , and the son was one god with the father ; this same son was in the beginning with the father ; for the father made all things by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made . but let us consider what account our socinian historian gives of this chapter : he appeals to grotius's interpretation of it , but has misrepresented grotius ; that did an action of forgery lie in these cases , many men have lost their ears for less matters . the account he gives of it in short is this : briefly , the word ( according to grotius ) is not an eternal son of god , but is here the power and wisdom of god ; which word abiding without measure on the lord christ , — 't is therefore spoken of as a person , and as one person with christ , and he with that . whoever will be at the pains to consult grotius , will soon see , what credit is to be given to this socinian ; but it is no wonder , that those men pervert human writings , who having nothing else to value themselves upon but perverting the scriptures . but what agreement there is between this socinian and grotius , i shall show in some few particulars , by comparing their expositions with each other ; by comparing grotius , as he is represented by this historian , with grotius himself . brief history : in the beginning ] that is , when god created the heavens and the earth . was the word ] the hebrews call , that power and wisdom of god , by which he made the world , and does all other his extraordinary works , the word , 33 psal. 6. 11 hebr. 2. 2 pet. 3.5 . they borrowed this expression from moses ; god said let their be light , 1 gen. 3. — undoubtedly moses is not to be understood of a word orally spoken ; for god is a spirit ; but his meaning is , god put forth his power & wisdom , and thereby created light and the firmament , &c. this is a direct opposition to grotius , whom he pretends to follow , and his reason is as silly , as his authority is counterfeit : for why could not an infinite mind , beget a substantial word , the substantial image of his own power and wisdom ; and by this word make the world ? and why may not this be represented by his saying , let there be light ? for since he confesses , this was not an oral word , why should it be represented by speaking , or saying , if god have not an eternal , substantial word , by which he made the world ? there must be some foundation for such forms of speech , and since it is evident , god did not create all things by an oral word or command , there is no pretence for this expression , god said , let there be light , unless there be a divine person , who is the word and wisdom of god , by whom he made the world ; especially since this phrase of moses is thus expounded both in the old and new testament , that god made the world by his word , which is every where represented as a divine subsisting person . the word was with god ] i. e. it was not yet in the world , or not yet made flesh ; but with god. so that to be with god signifies nothing but not to be in the world . the word was god ] i. e. the word ( or divine wisdom and power , ) ( that is , not a substantial personal wisdom and power , but such a faculty , as reason and wisdom is in man ) is not something different from god , but being his wisdom and power is god ( as the wisdom of man is man ) 't is the common maxim of divines , that the attributes and properties of god are god : which is in some sense true . the meaning of that maxim is , that there are no powers or faculties in god , as there are in created minds , but god is a pure and simple act , and therefore what are and must be distinct powers and faculties in created minds , must be distinct persons in the godhead . and thus whatever is in god is god , as each divine person is . but if there be distinct powers and faculties in god , as there are in men , then the wisdom of god is not god , nor the power of god , god ; no more than the understanding is the man , or the will the man , or the memory the man. he adds , that those persons ( whether angels or men ) to whom the divine word hath been in an extraordinary degreecommunicated , have also had the names of iehovah and god communicated to them . vers. 2. the same was in the beginning with god ] this is here repeated by the evangelist to teach us that the word is so god , that it is not all , that god is ; there being other properties and attributes communicable , as well as the word . so that the word is but an attribute of god , and a communicable attribute , and but one of god's communicable attributes . so that there may be many words , for the word , as he just now said , may be communicated to angels and men , in such a degree that the name iehovah may belong to them ; and then why does st. iohn call the word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the only begotten of the father . grotius . so also grotius . but adds was ; jam tum erat , was when all things began ; and shows , that among the hebrews , this was a popular description of eternity to be before the world , 17 iohn 5. and to this purpose applies the words of iustin martyr concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he was before the worlds . the word ] he owns , it is called the word in allusion to what moses says , that god said let there be light. but he calls this word , vim , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , power , efflux , emanation , in the same sense as the ancient christians used them , to signifie a substantial word , power , emanation . in this sense he shows , that it is used in the ancient books of the chaldoeans , and by the writer of the orphicks ; by heraclitus and zeno , as tertullian and lactantius affirm . nay , that the stoicks , and platonists , and especially philo iudaeus uses it in the same sense ; who attributes the making of the world to the word , which he calls the name , the image , the son of god. to which purpose he before cited rabbi eliezel , that god , and his name , were before the world was made : and explains this by the sayings of some fathers , as all meaning the same thing , and we know , they meant by it a divine person . the wor d was with god ] grotius does say , that this is opposed to the words being made flesh , and appearing in the world : but he was far enough from thinking , that these words have only a negative sense , that to be with god , signifies only not to be in the world : for he tells us , what the positive sense is , that with god is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with the father ( the very sense which our historian before rejected as absurd ) and explains it by what wisdom says , 8 prov. 30. then i was by him , as one brought up with him , and i was daily his delight , rejoycing alway before him ; which he does not think a prosopopoea , but spoken of a subsisting person . the word was god ] here grotius produces numerous testimonies to prove that that divine person , who is called the word , not the faculty of wisdom and power in god , is god. he says indeed , that the ancient hebrews , and primitive christians teach , that when an angel is in scripture called iehovah , it is not a meer angel , sed cui adfuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , such an angel , to whom the word is joyned or united , ( not as the historian says to whom the divine wisdom has been in an extraordinary degree communicated ; that is an extraordinary wise angel , for there is no other sense in it ) but i know not what grotius meant by the union or presence of the word with the angel ; but i know the primitive christians asserted , that the angel called iehovah , was the word . grotius assigns this reason of the repetition , that because the evangelist had called the word god , he would have us understand , that he is so god , that he is also with god ; that is , that the word is not all that god is , but only one person in the godhead : which he observes that origen , and others after him , called the distinction of hipostasis , tho' the primitive christians , and athanasius himself , used that word hipostases in a different sense ; and the christians seemed to take up this sense of it from the platonists : but whatever becomes of the phrase , this is plainly what grotius meant by the word 's not being all , that is god , that is , that he is but one person in the godhead , not that he is but one communicable attribute in god. this is sufficient to show how our historian has abus'd this great man , when he represents him , as making the word only the divine wisdom and power , not a divine person ; and all his other mis-representations depend on this , and need not be particularly examined . but i perceive our socinian historian is ashamed of that exposition which socinus , and his genuine disciples , give of this chapter , which had been a sign of some understanding and modesty , had he not invented as foolish and sensless an interpretation himself , for it is not grotius's , but his own . socinus was sensible that the word must signifie a person , but would allow it to be no more than a man , called the word , not with respect to his nature , but office , as the greatest and most excellent prophet , who reveals god's will to the world . our historian was convinced , that the word must be something divine , which was with god from the beginning of the world , and was not different from god , but is god , and did create all things at first , and was in a sense incarnate ; was made flesh , did abide on , and inhabit an human person , the person of iesus : so far is very well . but then he will not allow the word to be a person , but a divine quality or accident , the wisdom or power of god ; and the fault of this is , that it is unintelligible nonsense , to describe the word so pompously , as distinct from god , but with god in the beginning , and himself god , and to ascribe the making of the world to him , and tell us , that he was made flesh ; and all this while the world is only a communicable attribute in god , what we call the faculty of reason in men : this is a new way of making a god of a prosopopoea , and incarnating a prosopopoea , which must be a very figurative god , and incarnation . but i observed before , that when any vertue or power or faculty is spoken of as a person , what is said of the vertue or power belongs to the person in whom that vertue and power is : and what that is said to do , is done by the person , or else it is not a figurative but a false and absurd form of speech : as when charity is said to suffer long , and is kind ; the meaning is , a charitable man is so ; a prosopopoea is easily understood , and conveys its sense clearly and elegantly to our minds ; but where there is nothing but nonsense at the bottom , it must not be made a figure , for a figurative speech is good sense : let us then examine his prosopopoea by this rule . in the beginning was the word , that is , the wisdom and power of god ; and this wisdom and power of god was with god , that is , god was with himself ; and this wisdom and power of god , was god , that is , god was god : what sense i beseech you is there in this ? that the wisdom and power of god made the world , i grant is sense , because god did make the world ; but if there be any sense in the words being made flesh , it is certain , that god is incarnate . for the wisdom and power of god , which is with god , and is god , cannot be incarnate , unless god be incarnate . unless we can divide god from his wisdom , and separate the wisdom of god , [ which was with him from the beginning , ] from god , to be incarnate in man. the wisdom of god can no more be incarnate , unless god can be incarnate , then the wisdom of an angel can be incarnate , without the incarnation of the angel : and thus this socinian is turned sabellian , and patropassian . however , i confess , we are beholden to this historian , for he has given up this place to us , which is one of the most express places for the divinity of our saviour . he allows , that the beginning is the beginning of all things ; that word signifies something divine ; even the wisdom and power of god ; that to be with god , is to be intimately present with him ; that to be god , is to be god himself : that all things were made by him , is meant of the first creation of the world ; that this divine word was made flesh , and did abide on the human person of christ jesus ; the only difference between us is , whether this word , of whom all these things are said , be a divine person , or only the communicable attribute of wisdom and power in god ; and this after what i have said , i leave to any man of common understanding to determine . but what becomes of his beloved socinus all this while ? when the very master-piece of his wit and invention is rejected by his own disciples ; for if this socinian be in the right , his master was greatly in the wrong . by the word he understands a person , but one who is the word , not by nature , but office : by the beginning he understands the beginning of iohn the baptist's preaching ; in this beginning the word was ; that is , christ was in being , was in the world , when iohn the baptist began to preach ; a great discovery ! but he was with god , known to god only at that time ; which is very hardly true ; and was god , by dignity and office , not by nature . all things were made by him , not created ; the world was not made by him ; but all things are new made by him ; that is , all who believe in him , are made new creatures ; and after a great many great things said of this word , at last the evangelist discovers this great mystery , the word was made flesh , that is , the word was a man. if this be not ridiculing scripture nothing is ; i am sure it represents the evangelist very ridiculously , to tell the world , that christ , who was half a year younger than iohn , was in the world when iohn began to preach ; but how great a person he was , and what his office was , was then known only to god. which if it were true , is no great mystery ; and to say this in such a mysterious pomp of words , as there is nothing like it in all the scripture , is such a vain affectation , as no school master , but an arrant fop , would endure in a school-boy . i shall not go about industriously to confute that , which they themselves begin to be ashamed of , but shall only lay down one rule of expounding scripture , and all other writings , which is a very reasonable one , and will easily answer all the art and fallacy which is used in this cause ; and that is this , to expound all words and phrases to a proper and literal sense , and to the utmost extent of their signification , where the circumstances of the place do not require a figurative and limited sense ; if we do not allow this , there is no certain rule of expounding , but men may interpret , according to their own fancies and imaginations , to any sense that the word was ever used in ; and then we may make any thing of any thing , even a good catholick of socinus himself . now according to this rule , in the beginning must signifie the first beginning of all things ; for that is beginning in its utmost latitude , and that is the proper signification of beginning , when there is nothing to limit it , and there is nothing here . was the word must signifie the word did subsist , and therefore is a person ; god must signifie god by nature , which is the first and proper signification of the word , not a metaphorical god by dignity and office , for there is nothing to incline it to that sense : all things were made by him , and without him was nothing made that was made , must signifie the first creation of all things , when god made the world by his word ; for that is the proper notion of making all things , to give being to them , and as there is nothing in the text to require any other sense , so its relation to in the beginning , when god made all things by his word , determines it to this sense : this is all true and certain , if it be a good rule to expound words in a proper sense , when there is nothing that requires an improper and metaphorical sense : and then it is nothing to the purpose to show , that in the beginning sometimes signifies the beginning of the gospel , that god sometimes signifies a metaphorical god , that making all things , sometimes signifies new making all things , for all this i allow , when the circumstances of the place require it , when there is any thing added to determine these words to this sense , but will never allow it , where there is not , and therefore cannot allow it here ; and if we must expound these words properly in this place , there is an end of this controversie . but i must hasten to a conclusion , and therefore this shall serve at present as a specimen , how these men pervert scripture , and impose forced and ridiculous senses on it ; and by the help of what i have now discoursed , it will be easie to detect all their other fallacies , and rescue the scriptures from their perverse comments ; as i shall be ready at any time to shew , when i find a just occasion for it . secondly , socinianism , as reasonable and accountable a doctrine as our historian says it is , makes the jewish oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable . the jewish worship was external and ritual , but very pompous and mysterious , and had there not been something very divine and mysterious praefigured by it , it had been no better than a childish piece of pageantry , unworthy of the wisdom of god , unworthy of the nature of man. but the new testament assures us , that all these mysterious ceremonies were types of christ , and were accomplished in him ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ; or in whom are all the hidden treasures ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of wisdom and knowledge ; that is , all those treasures of wisdom and knowledge , which were formerly hid and concealed under the types of the jewish law ; for they were but a shadow of things to come , but the body is of christ. and yet if christ were no more than a meer man , the antitype falls very short of the types ; i shall instance at present only in the temple , and its worship and ministers . the tabernacle and temple was god's house , where he chose to dwell by the visible symbols of his presence ; and was so contrived as to be a figure both of heaven and earth ; for so the apostle to the hebrews expresly tells us , that the holy of holies was a figure of heaven , into which the high priest only entred , and that but once a year , to make expiation ; and therefore the other courts of the temple , which were for their daily worship , did represent the earth , on which men worship god : for god being the maker and soveraign lord of the world , who has heaven for his throne , and earth for his footstool , it was fitting the house where he dwelt should be an emblem and figure of the whole world . but we must all confess , that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant ceremony , for god , who fills heaven and earth with his presence , to dwell in a house made with hands ; to appoint this the peculiar place of his worship , ordinarily to accept no sacrifices , but what were offered there , &c. had it not praefigured something more divine and mysterious , solomon in his prayer of dedication might well say , but will god indeed dwell on the earth ? behold the heaven , and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee , how much less this house that i have built . the temple then was a figure , and we must enquire what it was a figure of . now a typical presence can be a figure of nothing , but a real presence , and god's personal dwelling among men : for presence and habitation can signifie nothing but presence , and a figure must be a figure of something that is real : and nothing can answer to a figurative visible presence of god , but a personal visible presence . now our saviour calls his body the temple , destroy this temple , and in three days i will raise it up : which st. iohn tells us , he spake of the temple of his body . the temple then , which was god's house , where he dwelt , was but a figure of christ's body ; christ's body then was that in truth and reality , which the temple was but a figure of ; that is , god's visible presence on earth . but god was not visibly present on earth , unless he were personally united to human nature ; that the body of christ was the body of god , or of the divine word , by as true and real an union , as any man's body is his . thus god may be personally and visibly present among men , as a man , though his soul be as invisible as the deity , is yet visibly present by his union to a visible body : but if christ be not god incarnate , if the divine word be not personally united to human nature , the body of christ is but as figurative a temple , as the temple at ierusalem was , and then one figure is made a type of another , which is as great an absurdity in types , as a metaphor of a metaphor is in speech . god was as really present in the temple , as he was in christ without a personal union : for god fills all places , and is really present every where , but yet was peculiarly present in the temple to peculiar ends ▪ and purposes ; to hear prayers , to accept their sacrifices and oblations , to give forth his oracles and responses ; and if christ be but a meer man , he dwells no otherwise in him , but by inspiration ; and though christ was more perfectly inspired than the jewish oracle , this does not alter the nature of god's presence , does not make one a typical and figurative , the other a real presence ; for god is really present in both , but not personally united to either . the typical presence of god in the tabernacle and temple is not opposed to a real presence , by real and sensible effects , but to a visible presence . god is present every where , but he is invisibly present , but as he had chosen israel for his peculiar people and inheritance , so he would dwell visibly among them ; but this could be done no other way , but either by taking a visible body , or by some instituted signs of his visible presence ; the first he would not do yet , but intended to do in the fulness of time , which his own infinite wisdom had appointed for it ; and in the mean time did praefigure this visible appearance of god on earth in human nature by some visible symbols of his presence ; by a visible house , wherein he dwelt , by a visible throne , or mercy-seat ; and by placing a visible oracle among them : so that the temple , as a type , was a type and figure of god's visible appearance and dwelling upon earth ; and therefore if it was a type of christ's body , as christ himself tells us it was , god did visibly dwell in christ by a personal union ; for nothing else can make god visible , but a personal union to a visible nature . to this st. iohn plainly alludes , when he tells us , the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the father , full of grace and truth ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tabernacled among us , fulfilled that type of god's dwelling in the tabernacle , and temple at ierusalem , by his dwelling personally in human nature : and we beheld his glory ; that is , says our historian , the glory of the man , on whom the word did abide and inhabit in him : but st. iohn says , it is the glory of the word made flesh ; the glory of the word , as of the only begotten of the father , did shine in human nature ; there were visible signs of the glory of the incarnate word : this glory he says , was beheld in his miracles , and in his transfiguration , and on many other occasions : very many indeed ; in his life and doctrine especially ; for how would they have the glory of the incarnate word seen , but by the visible operations of it in human nature ? how does a human soul discover its glory but by visible actions ? thus our saviour tells us , that he is greater than the temple ; i say unto you , in this place is one greater than the temple : now the temple was god's house and figurative presence , and if he were greater than the temple , god dwelt in a more perfect manner in him : that is , he was not a symbolical visible presence of god , which was all he could be , had he been no more than a man , but a visible god ; even the lord of the temple , as the prophet malachi assures us : behold i will send my messenger , and he shall prepare the way before me ; and the lord whom ye seek , shall suddenly come into his temple : even the messenger of the covenant , whom ye delight in , behold he shall come , saith the lord of hosts . this messenger , all men own , was iohn the baptist , the voice of one crying in the wilderness , prepare ye the way of the lord , make his paths straight . now our historian confesses , he prepared the way for christ : and god says , he shall prepare the way before me , which proves that christ is this lord of hosts for whom iohn was to prepare the way ; but that i at present intend is , that he for whom iohn was to prepare the way , is the lord of the temple , for it is called his temple . now we know , the lord jehovah was the lord of the temple : for the temple was god's house , dedicated to his name and worship ; he dwelt in his temple before by types and figures , but now he was to come visibly and personally into his temple , and therefore he might well say , he was greater than the temple , since he was the lord of it ; that incarnate god , of whom god's dwelling in the temple was a figure : and which had been a very empty and insignificant figure , unworthy of the wisdom and majesty of god , had it not praefigured the mysterious incarnation of the son of god. thus as god had a typical house , so he had a typical high priest , and typical sacrifices . that the high priest , who once a year entred into the typical holy of holies , was a type of christ , who entred into heaven . the apostle teaches us , 9 hebr. that the jewish sacrifices were typical of the sacrifice of christ's death ; and the several kinds of them typical of the various effects and vertues of christ's death , we learn every where in the new testament ; which , i believe , is the true meaning , of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world : not meerly slain in god's decree , for what god has decreed , shall be done , is not therefore said to be done before it is done : but this lamb was slain in types and figures from the foundation of the world ; ever since the fall of adam , in those early sacrifices , which were offered after the fall , which were typical of the sacrifice of christ ; for god had then promised , that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head ; and for my part , i must profess , i know no principle of natural reason , that teaches us to offer the blood of beasts in sacrifice to god ; and therefore must think the sacrifices of beasts to be an institution . now that a human priesthood , and the sacrifices of beasts were not acceptable to god in themselves , the apostle to the hebrews sufficiently proves ; and i would desire some of our learned , reasoning socinians ( as they think themselves ) honestly to tell me , what account they can give of this jewish priesthood , and sacrifices , which is becoming god : why should god be propitiated by a man , subject to the same sins and infirmities , and very often guilty of them , that other men are ? why innocent beasts must die to expiate the sins of men ? when the apostle tells us , that it is not possible , that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin . and yet if there were no more in it , then god's meer appointment and institution , i do not see , but the jewish priesthood and sacrifices might have been as effectual as any other : i think , they are so far in the right , and consistent with their own principles , that as they own christ to be no more than a man , so they make him only a metaphorical priest , and his death a metaphorical sacrifice ; for a meer man can be no more than a metaphorical or typical priest and sacrifice : but then the difficulty is , how christ is the antitype to the typical priests , and sacrifices of the law , if he be but a metaphorical priest and sacrifice himself ; for the antitype ought to be that in truth and reality , which the type is a figure of : and though they were typical , yet they were true and proper priests and sacrifices , and made a true and proper expiation for sin , as far as they reached , and therefore one would think should typifie not a metaphorical , but a true priest and sacrifice , though of a more excellent and perfect nature . this is easily accounted for , if we allow the divine word to be incarnate , and to be our priest and sacrifice , but without this the jewish oeconomy is a most absurd and unaccountable institution . thirdly , socinianism ridicules the christian religion , that is , makes it a very mean and contemptible institution ; which i shall shew in a few words . the fundamental mystery of the christian religion is the stupendious love of god in giving his own son , his only begotten son , for the redemption of mankind . this our saviour lays great stress on ; god so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten son , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life . by this one would have thought , that christ had been the son , the only begotten son of god , before he gave him : as isaac , who was a type of christ , was abraham's son , before he offered him at god's command : for that it is the argument of love , when we part with what we have , and what is dear to us ; but this is not the case , if socinianism be true ; god did not give us any son he had before , but made an excellent man , whom he was pleased to call his only begotten son , ( though he might have made as many such only begotten sons as he pleased ) and him he gave for us ; that is , made a man on purpose to be our saviour . god's love indeed in redeeming sinners is very great , be the means what they will ; but his love in giving his only begotten son for our redemption , which our saviour fixes on as the great demonstration of god's love , is not so wonderful , if this giving his son signifies no more than making a man on purpose to be our saviour . in the next place , the apostles mightily insist on the great love of christ in dying for us , and his great humility in submitting to the condition of human nature , and suffering a shameful and accursed death , even the death of the cross. ye know the grace of our lord iesus christ , that for your sakes he became poor , that ye through his poverty might be rich : for the love of christ constraineth us , because we thus judge , that if one died for all , then were all dead . let this mind be in you , which was in christ iesus , who being in the form of god , thought it not robbery to be equal with god , but made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant , and was made in the likeness of men , and being found in fashion as a man , be humbled himself , and became obedient unto death , even the death of the cross. now supposing christ to be but a meer man , who had no being before he was born of the virgin , who knew nothing of his own coming into the world , nor for what end he came ; whose undertaking was not his own voluntary choice , but god's appointment ; where is the great love , where is the great humility of this ? how did he become poor for our sakes , who was never rich ? yes , says our historian , he could have lived in the greatest splendor , dignity , and plenty . he that could multiply the loaves and fishes , and the wine at the wedding of cana , need not have wanted any comforts of life . right ! if he can prove that god would have enabled him to work miracles , to have made himself rich and great , and to have ministred to secular pomp and luxury , if he had so minded ; but he being a meer creature , could work no miracles , nor to any other ends or purposes than god pleased ; and therefore if by god's decree he was to live a mean life here , and dye an accursed death , and he was made for this purpose , he neither ever was rich , nor ever could be rich , and therefore did not make himself poor for our sakes . he could not by the constitution of god have done otherwise than he did , if he would be the saviour of mankind , and therefore if he was not rich before he came into the world , and voluntarily chose his poverty for us , i do not understand the great grace of his becoming poor , for he never was rich , nor ever could be in this world. thus what is that humility our apostle so highly commends in our saviour : for suppose his being in the form of god , signifies no more than being made like to god , ( as our historian will have it ) by a communication of power over diseases , devils , the grave , the winds , the seas , &c. which dwindles the form of god into just nothing ; for according to them he had no inherent power to do this , but god did it at his word , as he did for other prophets ; and therefore this is no form , no likeness of god at all , for he did not work miracles , as god does , by an inherent power , but god wrought miracles for him ; yet suppose this , how is it an argument of his humility , that he committed not robbery by equalling himself to god , ( as he renders the words , which our translators render , and which the ancient fathers expound to the same sense , he thought it not robbery to be equal to god ) that is , says he , did not rob god of his honour , by arrogating to himself to be god , or equal to god ; though if this were robbery , both christ and his apostles were guilty of it , for christ declared , i and my father are one , which the jews understood ( and they did not mistake him in it ) was to make himself god ; and the apostles do this frequently in express terms , as i have already shown : but to allow his interpretation , i only ask , whether christ , if he would , could have committed this robbery ? whether upon their supposition of his being a meer man , if he had arrogated to himself to be god , god would have permitted this ? and suffered him to have wrought miracles , to cheat the world into this belief ? if he could not , it is ridiculous to talk of his humility in not doing it ; and i am sure it is ridiculous upon their hypothesis , to say , that he could . but he took upon him the form of a servant ; i. e. became like a servant , possessing nothing of his own , and suffering injuries and reproaches , &c. but how did he take this form upon him , [ which must signifie his own free and voluntary choice , ] when he did not take it , but was made so ? this was the condition , which he did not choose , but was made for : and what humility was this , for a meer man , to be a minister and servant of god , and so great a minister , as to be in the form of god , as he says , to be glorious for miracles , and admired as the great power of god , especially when he was to be exalted into heaven for it , and advanced above all principalites and powers ? this is such humility , as would have been pride and ambition in the most glorious angel. but he was made in the likeness of men , and being found in fashion as a man , humbled himself , &c. that is , says this historian , being made like other men , in the common similitude of man ( and i pray , how should a man be made , but like a man ) he humbled himself , and became obedient unto death ; i. e. notwithstanding that he could have delivered himself from them , yet was he obedient even to evil magistrates , and without resistance under-went that death , which their wickedness and malice prepared for him ; or rather , which god had decred for him ; which his hand and counsel determined before to be done : and therefore which he could not , which he ought not to avoid . the plain case is this : all the circumstances of our saviour's birth , and life , and death , were so punctually foretold by the prophets , and so peremtorily decreed by god , that after he was come into the world , there was no place for his choice and election ; he could not shew either his love or his humility in choosing poverty or death , and therefore if it were matter of his free choice , and a demonstration of his great humility and love , as the apostles says it was , he chose it before he came into the world : he was in the form of god , equal to god , rich , before , and chose to become man , a minister , a servant , and to submit to a mean life , and an infamous death for our sakes , and this indeed was a mighty love and stupendious humility in the son of god : this we can all understand ; it is a venerable mystery , and a powerful argument of our religion ; but socinianism makes nonsense of it . the faith and worship of christ is the distinguishing character of the christian religion , and if christ be no more than a man , as the socinians teach , it is a direct contradiction , both to natural and to the mosaical religion , which condemn the worship of any creature , and all religious trust and affiance in them . it is a religion without a priest , and without a sacrifice , or which is much the same , retains the name of a priest and a sacrifice , without any proper atonement or expiation ; which is a very unfit religion for sinners : but that which is most to my present purpose is , that it makes a god of a meer creature , and makes a mediator and king without any inherent power , to save sinners , to protect his church , to govern or to judge the world , which is a meer pageant and shadow of a king. to make a mediator or mediatory king , who shall be a fit object of religious hope and trust and worship ( as i have already explained it at large ) he must have a personal knowledge of all our particular wants , and an inherent power to help us ; and though his humane nature is confined to heaven , his knowledge and power must extend to all the world ; as he himself tells us after his resurrection , all power is given unto me , both in heaven and in earth : particularly , he must have power to protect his church on earth from all her enemies , to restrain and govern the malice of men and devils , to forgive sins , to give the fresh supplies of grace , to raise the dead , to judge the world , to condemn bad men to hell , and to bestow heaven upon his sincere disciples . let us then consider , what account our socinian historian gives of this matter , and what a kind of mediator and king he makes of christ. sometimes to abuse the world , he tells us , the socinians generally not only grant , but earnestly contend , that christ is to be worshipped and prayed to ; because god hath ( they say ) by his inhabiting word or power given to the lord christ , a faculty of knowing all things , and an ability to relieve all our wants . now if they mean honestly , that christ has an inherent personal knowledge and power , whereby he knows , and can do all things , this is to ascribe true divine perfections to him , for such are infinite knowledge , and infinite power ; and that is to make him a true and real god ; and i think , there is not greater nonsense in the world , than a made-god , than a creature-god , as i showed before : but it is plain our historian is none of these socinians , for all his expositions lean another way , and in the same place he disputes earnestly against praying to christ , and says , that those gentlemen ( he must mean the socinian gentlemen , who are for praying to christ , especially the polonian zealots ) say , that christ's mediation and intercession for us , is not to be understood of a verbal or personal mediation , proceeding from a particular knowledge of our wants and prayers ( and thus we have already lost this faculty in christ of knowing all things ) but he mediates by his merits ; that is ( not by his expiation and sacrifice , but ) by the perfect obedience and most acceptable services , that he has performed to god. so that these socinians are all of a mind as to this matter , that whatever they seem to talk of christ's faculty of knowing all things , and ability to relieve all our wants , his knowledge is only by inspiration , as the knowledge of other prophets is , not an abiding , inherent faculty ; and does not extend to all things , not to the present and particular wants and necessities of his church , much less of every particular christian , nay , not to the prayers that are made to him ; and then i confess , i see no reason to pray to him ; and his ability to help is not an inherent power to do those things for us , which we need , and which we pray for , but only to intercede for us with god , and that not particularly neither , but only in general , for he does not always know our particular wants . christian ears know not how to bear such talk as this , which makes a mediator and mediatory kingdom an empty insignificant name and title , without any other power but prayers : and that this is the mind and belief of our historian , i shall now briefly show , and will leave all men to judge , whether this be not to ridicule the scriptures and christianity together . 1. first then let us consider , what the knowledge of our saviour is : and two or three places will suffice for this purpose , for they are very full and express . st. iohn tells of christ , he knew what was in man. to which he answers , the knowledge which the lord christ had , or now in his state of exaltation hath , of the secrets of mens hearts , is the pure gift of god , and revelation from god , and the divine word abiding on him : that is , divine inspiration , for he means no more by the divine word abiding on him : this is a plain abuse of the text , and the reason of it , he knew what was in man , is the reason assigned , why he needed no external information or testimony of man , needed not that any one should testifie of man , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he himself knew what was in man , and knew all men ; which , according to the propriety of words , signifies an inherent personal knowledge , in opposition to any external manifestation , and therefore to revelation it self : for he always knew all men , which cannot be done by revelation , which is particular and occasional . but this is not our dispute at present , but only to show , what this socinian thinks of it . the same he tells us with reference to the last judgment , when christ shall judge the secrets of men , the knowledge christ hath , or at the last iudgment shall have of the secrets of hearts , is purely by revelation from god , and the divine word communicated to him . this he repeats again in answer to what christ saith in the revelations , i am he which searcheth the reins and heart . the knowledge which the lord christ had , or hath , of any ones secret thoughts , is a revelation made to him by god , as it was also sometimes to former prophets , — prophets search the heart , ( which was never said of any prophet , for to search the heart is to look into the heart , and see the secrets there , not to know them by revelation ) that is , know the thoughts and propensions of the heart , by the spirit or inspiration of god in them . but the lord christ hath a far greater measure of that spirit , than any of the former prophets ever had : that is , god reveals more to christ , than ever he did to any former prophets , but it is only revelation still , not an inherent knowledge . in all these places to prove that christ's knowing what is in man , judging the secrets of men , searching the reins and heart , can signifie no more , then that christ has this knowledge by inspiration , he proves from the first words of st. iohn's revelations ; the revelation of iesus christ , which god gave to him , to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass . which does not signifie , that this was a revelation made to christ , but that revelation which christ made ; for though god is said to give it to him , it is to shew unto his servants , that is , by the appointment of god christ shewed this revelation to iohn . thus when st. iohn saw a lamb , having seven horns , and seven eyes , which are the seven spirits of god , sent forth into all the earth : he says , this text confirms what has been often said , namely , that the knowledge which our lord christ now hath of affairs on earth , is ( partly ) by means of those ministring spirits which are sent forth into all the earth , as his eyes , to see and relate the state of things : for what other reason can they be here called his eyes . i shall ●ot now dispute , what the meaning of this is , it is enough that we know his opinion , that christ now in heaven knows nothing of the affairs on earth , but either by the revelation of god , or the ministry of angels ; and it seems , notwithstanding the divine word abiding on him , god does not reveal all things to him , but he is fain to use the ministry of angels to be more perfectly acquanted with the affairs of his church . and thus much for his knowledge ; and i confess , i desire a mediator who knows more , and in a more perfect manner . 2. let us now consider his power , which the scripture speaks so magnificently of , and which christ himself calls all power both in heaven and earth : and yet our socinian tells us , that this all power is no other power but intercession ; that christ has no inherent power in himself , can do nothing at all , but intercedes with god to do it . he expresly tells us , and lays it down as a principle , that christ's intercession is inconsistent with an inherent power in him , to hear and help us himself . for if he doth hear our prayers , and can and doth ( by a power constantly resident in him ) relieve our wants , to what purpose is he our mediator with god — what can be more evident then that here ( 7 hebr. 25. ) christ's saving us from the evils we either fear , or labour under , is ascribed not to his own inherent power , but to his intercession with the almighty . thus christ promises to be always with his church , and a very comfortable promise it is ; for we may expect a constant protection from him ; but our historian tells us , that christ is neither present with us , nor can help us himself ; b●t christ is in the midst of , and is with his people , not by an immediate presence , as god is , but by his most powerful aid and help , which he affords , partly by his continual and successful mediation with god for them all in general ; partly by the angels who are under his directions , and by him engaged in the defence of the faithful . so that christ's promise to be always with us , does not signifie , that he will be with us , but that he intercedes for us with god , not particularly for you and me , for he knows not what our particular condition is , but for all in general ; and directs the angels to take care of all the faithful , and leaves it to their discretion , how to do this , for he can only direct , as he intercedes , in general , being ignorant of our particular condition . christ promises , if you ask any thing in my name , i will do it ; and for my part i always believed our saviour could do it , as he promised ; but he tells us , the obvious meaning is , if you pray for any thing to god , using my name , i will cause it to be done for you , by my intercession . well! but will he particularly intercede for us ? no ; but the general intercession i will make for all good christians . nothing is a greater support to christians under all their temptations and sufferings , than to remember , that they have a merciful and compassionate high priest , who is touched with a feeling of our infirmities , being in all things tempted as we are , which the apostle urges as a great incouragement to us , to come boldly to the throne of grace , that we may obtain mercy , and find grace to help in time of need : but this argument is lost , if our high priest does not particularly know what our wants are , nor when we want help , and does not intercede in particular for us , but only generally for all : and they who are not sensible of this , do not consider the state of human nature ; for the hope of sinners is in their advocate and mediator , and in his compassion for them ; but if he know not their wants , his general intercession gives them less hope . and yet this great consolation of sinners is destroyed by this socinian , who resolves all only into a general intercession , that our high priest having been in our very circumstances , is touched with a true feeling of our infirmities , and therefore doth with great earnestness intercede for us all in general . but let us consider the particular exercise of this mediatory power . one glorious act of power is to forgive sins , but this is wholly taken away by our historian . our saviour challeng'd this power , while he was on earth ; the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins : and because our saviour challenges it , he dares not deny it in plain terms , but expounds it away . he says , god gave this authority to the lord christ , because he gave to him also to know what was in mens hearts : namely , whether their repentance and outward professions were sincere and lasting : that is , christ had not a direct authority to forgive sins , but a declarative authority , that their sins were forgiven upon a certain knowledge of the sincerity of their repentance . nay , christ is so far from forgiving sins , that our author will not allow that they are forgiven in his name , or for his sake , as appears from his paraphrase on what our saviour says ; that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name . the sense ( says he ) is , christ commanded the disciples to require men to repent , and on their so doing to assure them in his name ( or from him ) that god would forgive them . god deliver us from such expositors , who expound away the whole gospel of our saviour . another act of mediatory power , which is absolutely necessary to the christian church , is to give the fresh supplies of grace according to the needs and necessities of christians ; but though christ represents himself as a vine , and christians as branches in the vine , who derive their spiritual life and nourishment from him ; yet our historian will not allow that he can do any thing in this neither , but only intercede with god to give his grace to us . thus when the apostles said unto the lord , increase our faith ; his comment is , by thy prayers to god , which are always heard for us . when st. paul besought the lord thrice , that it ( the thorn in the flesh , the messenger of satan to buffet him ) might depart from him , and received an answer , my grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength is made perfect in weakness . his comment is , he besought the lord , that is , he besought god ; though we know in st. paul's epistles , the lord , without any other addition , is commonly used for the lord christ. and so it is here ; where my strength is immediately interpreted to be the power of christ , and therefore he adds , the power of christ here is the strength or power which christ procures by his general mediation ( for all his church , and every member of it ) with god. so afraid is he to own , that christ can bestow strength and power on us himself to conquer temptations . but still he was sensible , this was to offer force to the words , and therefore says , that the socinians , for the most part of them do grant , that the word or power of god abiding on christ , doth qualifie him to hear our prayers , and to succour us in all distresses . but of this above . nay , he will not allow that christ could direct or prosper st. paul's journey , but only by his general intercession : and that he causeth us to abound in love , and all other graces , partly by his gospel , partly by his intercession . he denies that christ raised himself from the dead by his own proper power ; and though he shall raise and change our bodies at the last day , yet it is by the divine word and power communicated to him , and abiding on him , by which he raised lazarus , which he says , christ himself intimates was not his own proper power , but god's , that is , the fathers . and left this should be thought too much that christ should raise the dead , though by his fathers power , not his own , he adds , almighty god can lodge even in dry bones , a power of restoring the dead , 2 kings 13.21 . which is a very honourable comparison for our saviour , and shows what a mighty opinion he has of his power ; which is only lodged in him , as it was in the prophets dry bones , and is no more his own power . but this lodging power in dry bones , is a new kind of philosophy , and in great request at rome . to conclude ; one would think , that he should leave christ the full power of judging the world , since god hath made him iudge both of the quick and of the dead . but this must be expounded away to nothing too . we heard before , that at the day of judgment , when he is to judge the secrets of hearts , he knows them only by revelation from god ; and therefore he has no personal qualifications to judge the world , but only bears the name , when god the father does the thing : but thus much he allows him ; that christ is said to judge the world , because he shall pronounce the decree and sentence of god , and order the angels to execute it . and now , has not this socinian made a glorious king and mediator of christ , without the least power to do any thing , but intercede by prayers and supplications with god , and that without knowing the particular condition of those , for whom he intercedes . if this be christianity , sit anima mea cum philosophis : if this be to expound scripture by reason , it is plain that scripture and reason spoil one another ; for no man would reason so foolishly , but to pervert scripture ; nor expound scripture so absurdly , but to comply with what he calls reason . 4. socinianism justifies , or at least excuses , both pagan and popish idolatries ; at least as it is taught by those men , who allow of the worship of christ , which it is certain , the christian religion teaches : now if christ be no more than a man , this is creature worship , and then creature worship is not idolatry ; and this goes a great way in justifying or excusing pagans and papists . if the worship of a creature be natural idolatry , god would not have permitted the worship of christ ; if it be not , then pagans and papists are no idolaters : though they worship creatures , whatever their fault be in it , ( if it be so much a fault , as a mistake ) yet it is a fault of a much less nature than idolatry , and more easily pardoned . especially when they do not worship these creatures as the supreme god , but as their mediators , and patrons , and advocates with the supreme god ; for there is a worship due to a mediator , distinct from the worship of the supreme god , as the worship of christ proves , who is not god , but a creature-mediator ; and thus the heathens worshipped their inferior deities , and thus the papists worship their saints : and if they do mistake , and worship those for mediators , who are none , and can do them no service ; the greatest hurt seems to be , that they loose their labour , but according to these principles , they do no injury to god. for as they tell us , when it is said , that all men should honour the son , even as they honour the father ; the meaning only is , as we honour god or the father , so we must not forget to honour also the son of god — an equality of honour is no more intended here , than an equality of perfection in those words , be ye therefore perfect , as your father , which is in heaven is perfect . so the heathens did not intend the same degree of worship to their mediators and inferior deities , as to the supreme god ; and we know the papists distinguish between the worship of latria and dulia , or that soveraign worship which is due to the supreme god , and that inferior honour to saints and angels ; and it is plain , this is not an arbitrary , but real distinction , as is evident in the worship of god , and the man christ jesus , who are worshipped with different degrees of honour , as these socinians assert . and whereas the papists are charged with making gods and goddesses of dead men and women , by paying religious worship to them , they no more make them gods , than the socinians make christ a god. and as for the worship of the virgin mary , they have in reason as much to say for it , as the socinians have for the worship of christ : they make christ the son of god , only because he was formed by a divine power in the womb of the virgin ; but papists , who believe christ to be god , own her for the mother of god ; and i cannot see , why it is not as great an honour to be the mother of god , as to be born of a virgin by the power of god , and it may be more . and in reason i cannot see ( allowing of the intercession of a creature ) why the virgin mother of god , should not intercede as powerfully for us , as a man born of a virgin by the power of god ; and i am apt to think , our saviour will account it a less fault to worship his mother , than to make himself a meer creature . and though the blessed virgin do not particularly know our condition , yet she may help us by her general intercession as christ does , and pray particularly for her peculiar devotoes , and therefore at least we may pray to god in the name of the virgin , and other saints , as socinians do in the name of christ , who knows as little of them . and yet the virgin , and other saints , may understand our condition and affairs the same way , that the socinians say christ does , viz. by revelation from god , and by the ministry of angels , who are sent into the world , and carry the news of this world to heaven , though we should not allow of their glass of the trinity , wherein they see and know all things . so that here is nothing wanting but the appointment and allowance of god , to make the blessed virgin and other saints as proper advocates for us , as the socinians make christ to be ; for they are as well qualified for it , or might be , if god so pleased , according to their principles ; and this the papists think they have too , that god has appointed , or at least allows the worship of such favourite saints ; and though they are mistaken in it , it is certainly a much more innocent and pardonable mistake , to make a mediator , whom god has not made , than to make the eternal son of god a creature . in a word , whatever evil there is in creature worship , that the socinians are guilty of in worshipping a meer man ; but this is not the worst of their case , for they overthrow the whole christian religion by it ; which popery does not overthrow , though it greatly and dangerously corrupts it . sect . vii . an answer to what remains in the brief notes . i am now hastening to a conclusion , and there is little behind to stop me ; for though half the sheet be yet untouched , it is answered before i come to it ; and therefore both to save paper and pains , i shall not transcribe his long impertinent harangues , as i have hitherto done , but only give the reader a view of those passages which he intends for argument or drollery , i know not whether . the son is of the father alone , not made , nor created , but begotten . our note-maker has discovered a contradiction between the beginning and the end of this article ; for either the son is not of the father alone , or he is not begotten ; for every novice in grammar , and proper speaking , knows , that begotten , when it is distinguished from made and created , always supposes two parents , a mother as well as a father . he will allow the son to be begotten , if you speak of the generation of the son by the divine power on the virgin mary ; for then it would have been true , that the son is neither made , nor created , but begotten ; for then he has both father and mother ; god is his father , and the virgin mary his mother ; and thus , though they will not allow the virgin to be the mother , they will allow her to be the wife of god , which is as honourable . these are very fit men to make addresses to a morocco ambassador , for they are so far of mahomet's mind , that god cannot have a son , unless he have a wife ; but mahomet was the better divine in this , that he never dreamt of god's having a woman for his wife . i am afraid this is blasphemy ; i 'm sure , we have always thought it so from the mouth of a scoffing atheist or infidel ; for this is not his own , but borrowed wit. for does our author in earnest think , that god cannot have a son , unless he begets him , as one man begets another ? this is to dispute against god's begetting a son , as the epicurean in tully did against god's making a world , that he wanted ministers and instruments for such a work , as if god made a world , as a carpenter builds a house . does a son necessarily signifie one who is begotten of two parents ? i thought the true notion of a son had been , one who is produced out of the substance of its parent , ( not out of nothing , which we call creation , nor formed of any other praeexistent matter which we call making ) and that the true notion of begetting , is to produce its own image and likeness out of its own substance , by what means soever this is done ; and if one parent can thus beget a son of his own substance , this argues greater perfection in the father , and is a more perfect manner of production than by two ; and methinks he might allow the most perfect being to beget a son in the most perfect manner . and that an infinite mind can and must beget his own likeness and image , that is , an eternal son , by a reflex knowledge of himself , i have already shewn . the holy ghost is of the father and the son , neither made , nor created , nor begotten , but proceeding . his first quarrel against this , is the procession of the holy ghost , from father and son : the next is about the distinction between being begotten and proceeding , which he says are the same thing , and are now confessed to be so , by the most learned trinitarians ; who these are , i know not , but be they who they will , it was no argument of their prudence or learning to reject a distinction , which both the reason of the thing requires , and the christian church has always owned : but this i have accounted for before , and plainly shewn the distinction between generation and procession , the first is a reflex act , whereby god knows himself , and begets his own likeness and image ; procession is a direct act , that eternal love , whereby god loves himself and his own image , which proceeds from god , as all thoughts and passions proceed out of the heart . and therefore there is but one father , not three fathers , one son , not three sons , one holy ghost , not three holy ghosts . the second person , is indeed the son of the first , but the third person , who proceeds from father and son , is not the son of either ; for to proceed is not to be begotten , and therefore there are not two sons , nor two fathers , as this author affirms ; much less are they three holy ghosts , though i grant , as he says , that they are three holy spirits . but this is a meer childish fallacy , and playing with words : as as there is but one god , so he is a holy being , and a pure mind and spirit , as spirit is opposed to matter ; and thus all three divine persons are holy minds and spirits , essentially united into one infinite mind and spirit ; but the holy ghost , who is the spirit of the father and the son , and a distinct person in the trinity , is but one. in this trinity none is before or after other , none is greater or less than another . yet the son himself saith the father is greater than i , 14 joh. 28. and the son himself saith , i and the father are one , 10 joh. 30. and therefore there can be no greater inequality between them , than what is consistent with an oneness and identity of essence : that is , not an inequality of nature , but order , as a father is greater than the son , who is naturally subordinate to him , though their nature be equal and the same . though we know , the ancient fathers understood this of christ as man , as it is also expressed in this creed , equal to the father , as touching his godhead , inferiour to the father , as touching his manhood . he proceeds . as for the other clause , none is afore or after other ; 't is just as true , as that there is no difference between afore and after . i ask , whether the son doth not , as he is a son , derive both life and godhead from the father ? all trinitarians grant he does ; grounding themselves on the nicene creed , which expresly calls the son , god of god , light of light , very god of very god , begotten , not made . but if the father gave to the son life and godhead , he must have both , before he could communicate , or give either of them to the son , and consequently was afore the son was . no effect is so early as its cause ; for if it were , it should not have needed , or had that for its cause . no proposition in euclid is more certain , or evident than this . i hope , he will abate a little of his mathematical certainty , before i have done with him ; and yet i shall quickly have done with him too . i will begin with his philosophy of causes and effects . no effect , he says , is so early as its cause . did he never then hear of what we call emanative effects , which coexist with their causes ? is not the sun the cause of light , and fire of heat ? and can he conceive a sun without light , or fire without heat ? and if he cannot so much as in thought , without absurdity and contradiction , separate these causes and effects , is it possible to separate them in time , that the cause should be before its effect ? that is , that the sun should be without light , and the fire without heat ? and yet , can light be without the sun , or heat without fire ? what becomes then of his reason , which is as certain and evident as any proposition in euclid ? that if the effect were as early as its cause , it should not have needed , or had that for its cause . for light needs the sun , and heat the fire , for their causes , and yet are as early as their causes . but i perceive he is but a young mathematician or philosopher , and therefore i would desire him to remember against the next time , that plain matter of fact is as certain and evident as any proposition in euclid . in all other causes and effects , which subsist distinctly and separately , his maxim is good , that the cause must be before the effect ; but when the effect is essential to the cause , and the cause cannot be without it , there the effect is as early as its cause , because the cause cannot subsist without its effect , as the sun cannot be a sun without light , and fire cannot be fire without heat . and this is the case here ; the son is begotten by the father , and is god of god , light of light , the holy ghost proceeds from father and son ; but father , son , and holy ghost , are essentially but one god , and therefore unless the same one god can be afore and after himself in the trinity , there can be no afore or after , but all three persons are coeternal , because they are essentially one eternal god : and it is in vain to confound our minds with conceiving an eternal generation , for that is as intelligible as an eternal being ; we can see the necessity of both , but cannot comprehend either , no more than we can eternity . it is demonstrable , something must be eternal , and it is as certain , that an eternal mind eternally knows it self , and loves it self ; for there can be no infinite mind without a reflex knowledge of himself , which is his eternal son , nor without the love of himself and his one image , which is the holy spirit : of which i have sufficiently discoursed already . and thus we are come to the last part of our task , what concerns the incarnation of christ , which after all that has been said to prove christ to be the eternal son of god incarnate , will take up no great time ; for what ever difficulties there may be in the philosophy of the incarnation , or how god and man is ; united into one person , it will not shake my faith , who see a thousand things every day which i can give no philosophical account of , and which a little philosophy would teach considering men not to pretend to give any account of ; and yet we believe our eyes without understanding the philosophy of things ; and why we should not believe a divine revelation to , without it , i know not . but let 's hear what he has to say . the right faith is , that we believe and confess , that our lord iesus christ , the son of god , is both god and man. then the lord christ is two persons , for as he is god , he is a person . very right ! and as he is a man , he is a person ; that we deny , that he is a distinct person from the godhead , when united to god. but a rational soul vitally united to a human body is a person . right ! when it is by it self ; and so a soul without a vital union to a human body is a person ; and a beast , which has no reasonable soul , but only an animal life , as a man has together with a human soul , is a person , or a suppositum , or what he will please to call it , but it is a distinct living subsisting being by it self , but when the rational and the animal life are united in man , he is not two persons , a rational , and an animal person , but one person : and therefore we neither need own christ to be two persons with nestorius , ( which yet is much more innocent than to deny his godhead ) nor deny him either to be god or man ; for he is god-man in one person ; as a man is a reasonable and animal creature united into one person ; though we may find the reasonable and animal life subsisting apart , and when they do so , they are two , and but one , when united . this is explained in the creed by the union of soul and body ; for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man , so god and man is one christ : which he says vainly enough , is the only offer at reason , that is to be found in the whole creed . well! we are glad any thing will pass with him , though it be but for an offer at reason , and let us hear how he confutes it . 1. he says , in the personal vnion of a soul with a body , the vnion is between two finite things : but in the ( pretended ) personal vnion of god to man , and man to god , the vnion is between finite and infinite , which ( on the principles of the trinitarians , i wish he had told us , what those principles are ) is impossible : for we must either suppose , that finite and infinite are commensurate , that is , equal , which every one knows is false ; or that the finite is united but to some part of the infinite , and is disjoyned from the rest , which all trinitarians deny and abhor . i beg your pardon sir ! they were never so silly , as to think of it ; but they abhor to see such sacred mysteries treated with so much ignorance and impudence . since he is for confuting the doctrine of the trinity by raising difficulties about the manner of this union , how god and man are united into one person ; i desire , he would first try his skill in inferior things , and tell me , how the parts of matter hang together ? which though every body thinks , he knows , i doubt no body does . then i would desire to know , how soul and body are united , how a spirit can be fastened to a body , that it can no way release it self , though never so desirous of it , till the vital union ( which no body knows , what it is ) is dissolved ? why the soul can leave the body , when the body is disabled to perform the offices of life , but cannot leave it before ? the soul , i say , which we trinitarians believe to be a spirit , which can pass through matter , which cannot be touched , or handled , or held , by matter , and yet feels the impressions of matter , is pleased , or afflicted with them , and sympathizes with the body , as if it could be cut by a knife , or burnt with a fever , or torn by wild beasts , as the body is . and since he apprehends , there can be no union without commensuration , and therefore a finite and infinite being cannot be united , because they are not commensurate ; i desire to know , whether he thinks the soul and body are commensurate ? whether the soul have parts , as the body has , which answer to every part of the body , and touch in every point ? these will be very new discoveries , if he can say any thing to them ; if he can't , it is his best way to deny the union of soul and body , because he cannot understand it ; to assert that man has no soul , but only a body , because it is impossible , that matter and spirit should ever be united into one person and life ; which is to the full as unreasonable , as to deny the personal union of god and man , because he cannot understand how finite and infinite ( which are not commensurate , nor can be , because neither a finite , nor infinite spirit , have any parts to be measured ) can be united . but in great good nature , he has found out a salvo for the trinitarians ; that god indeed is infinite , and every soul and body ( even that of christ ) finite , yet the whole god , and the whole man are united ; because , as the whole eternity of god doth coexist to a moment of time , so the whole immensity of god is in every mathematical point of place : and adds , the very truth is , they cannot otherwise defend the incarnation , or personal vnion of an infinite god to a finite man. this is gibberish which i do not understand ; but this i do understand , ( which i suppose is the meaning of it , if it have any meaning ) that an eternal being , who has no beginning , and no succession of being , may coexist with time ; and that an infinite mind , who has no parts , or extension , is present every where , without extension : this i have sufficiently discoursed already , and refer my reader to it . but he has a thundring argument against this : but withal it must be owned , that then the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation do infer , imply , and suppose all the contradictions that mr. johnson has objected to the doctrine of transubstantiation ? i hope not all , for that is a very good discourse , and i only wish for the author's sake , si sic omnia ; but pray , what is the matter ? his whole book , and all his demonstrations , are founded upon these two suppositions , that a longer time doth not all of it coexist in a shorter ; nor is a greater extension constipated , or contained in a less . suppose this , ( for i have forgot what his demonstrations are , and have not the book now by me ) what is this to the trinity and incarnation ? though a longer time cannot all of it coexist in a shorter , ( which i hope is not so loosly expressed by mr. iohnson , because it is not sense , for time is in a perpetual flux , and nothing of it exists but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) but what is this to an eternal being's coexisting with time without time or succession ? though a greater extension cannot be contained in a less , what is this to an infinite mind's being present every where without extension ? for here is no comparison between a longer and shorter time , but between time and eternity , which is not time nor succession ; nor between a greater and less extension , but between a finite and infinite mind , neither of which have any extension . but suppose the worst , how does this concern the doctrine of the incarnation ? if he could tell how to apply all the demonstrations of mr. iohnson , ( which he tells us in print , he forbears to do , because the press is not open to them ) these absurdities and contradictions would not fall upon the doctrine of the incarnation , but upon the notion of an omnipresent god , who has no parts , nor extension , which was not invented to salve the difficulties of the incarnation ; but is the true notion of god , and his omnipresence , who is not omnipresent by parts , but is every where a perfect and infinite mind ; and if he can ridicule god out of the world , we will quarrel no more about the incarnation : i do not at all wonder , that he boasts so much , what follies and contradictions he could discover in the athanasian creed ; for a man who cannot understand common sense , can never fail of finding follies and contradictions . 2. he proves , that the vnion between god and man cannot make one person , as the vnion of body and soul does , because the vnion of soul and body is not the vnion of two persons , but only of one person ( the soul ) to a thing otherways without life , reason , memory , or free-will . but in the ( pretended ) vnion of god with man , there are two distinct and very different lives , memories , reasons , and free-wills , which utterly destroys a personal vnion , for that supposes but one life , one reason , one memory , one free-will . now this is false as to matter of fact : for though we will allow the soul to be the person , yet by its union to the body , it has two sorts of different lives , wills , affections , appetites , reasons ; the animal and sensual , and the rational life , will , appetites , a carnal , and a spiritual reason , that is , two different principles of flesh and spirit , as much as if every man had two souls . so that there may be two lives , two wills , &c. in the same person , and it makes no difference in this case , whether these two wills be seated in two different subjects , or the same soul by its vital union to matter , have two distinct wills and reasons ; and therefore we must find out some other notion of a personal union than this , that one person can have but one will , one reason , &c. for it is plain , one person may have two wills and reasons , and if he may have two , he may have three , according to the number and diversity of natures , which are united into one person . now when i inquire what it is that unites different natures into one person , i do not mean , what it is that naturally unites them ; neither what the natural union is between soul and body in the person of man , nor of god and man in the person of christ , for this we know nothing of , and therefore no pretended contradictions and impossibilities in this , shall hinder my belief of it ; as i discoursed in the first section : but how two different natures may be so united , as to make but one agent ; for one agent is one person . now there are but two things necessary to this : 1. that these different natures be so united , that the superior nature have the government of the whole person ; unless there be one governing principle , there cannot be one agent , and therefore not one person , and the superior nature must be the governour and the person : as this author tells us , the soul is the person in man , as being the superior governing principle ; and in the soul , reason has the natural government of sense , as being the superior faculty , proper to a spirit , whereas sense results from its union to matter : and thus in christ , the divine word is the person , and in this personal union of god and man , has such a government of humane nature , as reason has over sense in man : and therefore st. iohn tells us , that the word was made flesh , or was incarnate : for the person of the word , took humane nature into a personal union with himself . and this is the reason , why all the actions and passions of humane nature are attributed to christ , as the son of god , because the word is the person , to whom humane nature is united , and who has the sole government of it ; as all the sufferings and actions of the body are attributed to the man , though the soul is the person , because it is the superior and governing power , and constitutes the person . 2. to compleat a personal union , it is necessary there be one consciousness in the whole : as a man has a conscious sensation of every thing , which is done or suffered either by body or soul ; feels its own reasonings and passions , and all the pains and pleasures of the body ; and in this sense there must be but one life in one person , and this own consciousness to the whole , is the one life . but then we must observe , that where different natures are united into one person , this universal consciousness to the whole person , is seated only in the superior and governing nature , as it ought to be ; because in that the natures are united into one person , and that must govern and take care of the whole . thus the mind in man is conscious to the whole man , and to all that is in man , to all the motions of reason and sense ; but sense is not conscious to all the actings of reason , which is the superior faculty , though it is conscious , as far as is necessary to receive the commands and directions of reason ; for the body moves at the command of the will , and it is so far conscious to its commands . thus in the person of christ , who is god-man , the divine word is conscious to his whole person ; not only to himself , as the divine word , but to his whole humane nature ; not by such knowledge as god knows all men , and all things , but by such a consciousness , as every person has of himself : but it does not hence follow , that the humane nature is conscious to all that is in the word ; for that destroys humane nature by making it omniscient , which humane nature cannot be ; and its being united to the person of the word , does not require it should be ; for an inferior nature is not conscious to all , that is in the superior nature , in the same person . this union of natures does require , that the inferior nature be conscious to the superior , as far as its nature is capable , and as far as the personal union requires ; for so sense is in some degree conscious to reason , and it cannot be one person without it . and therefore the human nature in christ is in some measure , [ in such a degree , as human nature can be , ] conscious to the word , feels its union to god , and knows the mind of the word , not by external revelations , as prophets do , but by an inward sensation , as every man feels his own thoughts and reason ; but yet the human nature of christ may be ignorant of some things , notwithstanding its personal union to the divine word , because it is an inferior , and subject nature . and this i take to be the true account of what our saviour speaks about the day of judgment ; of that day and hour knoweth no man , no not the angels in heaven , but my father only : where our saviour speaks of himself as a man ; and as a man he did not at that time know the day of judgment , though personally united to the divine word , who did know it ; for as he is the divine word , so our saviour tells us , that he seeth all that the father doth , and therefore what the father knows , the eternal word and wisdom of the father must know also . but yet the human nature of christ was conscious to all the actings of the divine word in it ; as we may see in the story of the woman , having an issue of blood twelve years , who in the midst of a great crowd of people , came behind him , and touched his garment , and was immediately healed ; our saviour presently asked who touched him , and when all denied it , and peter wondered he should ask that question , when the multitude thronged him , and pressed him ; iesus said , some body hath touched me , for i perceive that virtue is gone out of me ; he felt the miraculous power of the divine word working in him , as a man feels what is done in himself . this i think gives some account , how god and man may be united into one person , which though it be a great mystery , which we cannot fully comprehend , yet is not wholly unintelligible , much less so absurd and contradictious , as this author pretends . as for what he adds about believing and professing this faith , let him apply it to christ's being the messias , or any other article of the creed , and see what answer he will give to it ; for what if men can't believe it ? are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of salvation to believe it , whether we can or no ? doth god require of any man an impossible condition in order to salvation ? no! but if it be credible , and what a wise man may believe , and what he has sufficient evidence to believe , he shall be damned , not because he can't , but won't believe it . but what if it be against a mans conscience to profess it ? — if he profess against his conscience , he sins ; and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned , then god requires some men to sin in order to their salvation . god requires no man to profess against his conscience , but he shall be damned for not believing it , not for not professing what he does not believe : it looks like a judgment upon these men , that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest reason , they impose upon themselves , or hope to impose upon the world by the most childish sophistry and nonsense . and now i shall leave our note-maker to harangue by himself , and perswade fools , if he can , that the doctrine of the trinity and incarnation is nothing but popery , or must be parted with for the sake of iews , or be made a complement to the morocco ambassador , and his admired mahomet ; or must be sacrificed to peace and unity , and to secure men from damnation , who will not believe . i will not envy him the satisfaction of such harangues , it being all the comfort he has ; for i am pretty confident he will never be able to reason to any purpose in this cause again . glory be to the father , and to the son , and to the holy ghost . as it was in the beginning , is now , and ever shall be , world without end . amen . the end . advertisement . a preservative against popery , in two parts ; with a vindication , in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran a jesuit . 4 o. a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church . 4 o. a sermon preached before the lord mayor , novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. a practical discourse concerning death . the fifth edition . 8 o. the case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers , stated and resolved , according scripture and reason , and the principles of the church of england , with a more particular respect to the oath , lately enjoyned , of allegiance to their present majesties , k. william and q. mary . the fifth edition . 4 o. by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . printed for w. rogers . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59905-e3530 the creed . brief notes . answer . notes . answer . notes . answer . notes . answer . vossius de tribus symbel . dissert . 3 cap. 29 , 30. cap. 31. ibid. cap. 48. ibid. ibid. cap. 44. dissert . 2. c. 1. creed . notes . answer . notes . answer . answer . creed . notes . answer . notes . answer . aug. lib. contra serm. arrian , c. 16. creed . notes . answer . notes . answer . creed . notes . answer . creed . notes answer . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . athanas. cont. arium . disput. tom. 1. p. 116. paris 1627. quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit , ut dicamus deum patrem non esse sapientem , nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit , non existendo per se pater sapientia . deinde si ita est , filius quoque ipse sicut dicitur deus de deo , lumen de lumine , videndum est utrum possit sapientia de sapientia dici , si non est deus pater ipsa sapientia , sed tantum genitor sapientiae . quod si tenemus , cur non & magnitudinis suae , & bonitatis , & aeternitatis , & omnipotentiae suae generator sit ; ut non ipse sit sua magnitudo , & sua bonitas , & sua aeternitas , & sua omnipotentia , sed eâ magnitudine magnus sit , quaem genuit , & ea bonitate bonus , &c. s. aug. tom. 3. l. 6. de trinitate . si hoc est ibi esse quod sapere , non per illam sapientiam quam genuit , sapiens dicitur pater , alioquin non ipsa ab illo , sed ille ab ipsa est . si enim sapientia ; quam genuit , causa est illi ut sapiens sit , etiam ut sit , ipsa illi causa est , quod fieri non potest nisi gignendo eum , aut faciendo : sed nec genetricem nec couditricem patris ullo modo quisquam dixerit sapientiam ; quid enim est insanius lib. 1. dist. 32. cap. praeterea . petavius de trin. l. 4. c. 5. cudworth's intellectual system , p. 603. &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . maximi dial. 1. de trinit . inter opera athanasij vol. 2. p. 168. edit . paris . ambros. l. 3 de fide , c. 7. petav. de trin. l. 4. c. 9. ubi supra . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . greg. nyss. tom. 2. p. 448. quod non sint tres dij . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. p. 448. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. p. 458. athanasij vol. 1. dial. 1. de trin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . greg. nyss. vol. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — ibid. p. 453. ibid. p. 456 , 457. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . greg. nysl. ibid. p. 456. ibid. p. 459. petavii vol. 2. l. 4. c. 13 , 14. ibid. p. 430. ibid. p. 435. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . damasc. de fide orthod . l. 1. c. 11. de trinitate , l. 4. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dam. l. 3. c. 5. de trin. l. 4. c. 16. supra p. 50. st. aug. t. 2. de trin. l. 9. igitur ipsa mens , amor , & notitia ejus , tria quaedam sunt , & haec tria anum sunt , & cùm perfecta sunt aequalia sunt . mens autem cùm se totam novit , hoc est , perfectè novit , per totum ejus est notitia ejus ; & cùm se perfectè amat , totum se amat , & per totum est amor ejus . — quomodo autem ista tria non sint ejusdem substantiae non video , cùm mens ipsa se amet , & ipsa se noverit . atque ita sunt haec tria , ut non alteri alicui rerum mens vel amata vel nota sit . vnius ergò ejusdemque essentiae necesse est haec tria sint . in alternis autem ita sunt quia mens amans in amore est , & amor in amantis notitia , & notitia in mente noscente . singula in binis ita sunt , quia mens quae se novit & amat , in amore & notitia sua est : & amor amantis mentis , feseque scientis in mente notitiaque ejus est ; & notitia mentis se scientis & amantis in mente atque amore ejus est , quia scientem se amat , & amantem se novit . ac per hoc & bina in singulis , quia mens quae se novit & amat , cum sua notitia est in amore , & cum suo amore in notitia ; amor quippe ipse & notitia simul sunt in mente quae se amat & novit . tota verò in totis quemadmodum sint jam supra oftendimus , cùm se tota mens amat , & totam novit . & totum amorem suum novit , totamque amat notitiam suam . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . athan. syn. nic. decret . p. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 265. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 268. aug. l. 1. de doct. christ. c 5. aug. de trin. l. 5. c. 5. athan. syn. nicaenae decr. p. 271. 1 john 9. v. 18. v. 14. 1. cor. 1.24 . 3 john 35. 5 john 20. 14 john 31. 1 cor. 2.11 . 1 john 4.16 . 8 rom. 15. 4 gal. 6. 5 gal. 22. st. aug. tom. 3 de trin. l. 9. creed . notes . answer . history of vnitarians , p 4 , 5. 14 john 28. 1 cor. 11.3 . 20 john 17. 12 john 49.14.31 . cogitent quibus aliis verbis jusserit pater unico verbo : formant enim sibi in phantasmate cordis sui , quasi duos aliquos , etsi juxta invicem , in suis tamen locis constitutos , unum jubentem , alterum obtemperantem . nec intelligunt ipsam jussionem patris ut fierent omnia , non esse nisi verbum patris , per quod facta sunt omnia . aug. contr . serm. arrianorum , lib. 3. page 5. 1 col. 1. 1 col. 17. verse 14. page 6. 3 hebr. 1 , 2. 5 hebr. 1. 5 , 6. 7 hebr. 2.3 . 1 cor. 3.23 . 12 matth. 17 , 18. 3 matth. 17. 2 phil. 8.9 . 1 eph 22 , 23. 1 heb. 14. 1 sam. 8.7 . 2 psalm 6. 1 luke 32. 18 john 36. 3 matth. 16. 3 john 16 , 17. 10 joh. 29 , 30 , 32 , 37 , 38. 1 rom. 5. 2 psalm 7. 13 acts 32 , 33. 17 john 5. 28 matth. 19. 28 matth. 1 hebr. 6. 2 acts 24.13.30 . 2 john 19.10.17 , 18. 8 rom. 11. 5 john 19. 2 phil. 9 , 10 , 11. 28 matth. 18. 5 john 26. 6 john 57. 11 john 25 , 26 17 john 28.5.43 . 5 john 30.8.42.50.12.44.6.38 . page 8. 5 john 23. 1 cor. 15. 24. — 28. history vnit. p. 6 , 7. page 8. 2 luke 52. 13 mark 32. 34 matth. 36. 11 john 34. 8 john 16 , 18. 18 luke 19. page 10. page 12. page 13. 17 john 3. 1 cor. 8.6 . 1 cor. 15.24 . 3 james 9. 15 rom. 6. page 14. page 15. 3 hebr. 5 , 6. page . 16. page 18. 1 cor. 2.10 , 11. 1 cor. 12.4 , 5 , 6. 1 hebr. 6. 3 phil. 10 , 11. page 19. 13 job 7 , 8. 1 hebr. 1 , 2. page 20. page 22. page 24. page 4.5.45 psalm 6.7 . 1 hebr. 8.9 . 18 psalm 2. 102 psalm 25 , 26 , 27. page 50. 68 psalm 18. 4 eph. 8. page 49. 97 psalm 7. 1 hebr. 6. page 60. 45 isai. 23. 14 rom. 10 , 11. 2 phil. 9 , 10 , 11 45 isai. 24 , 25 1 cor. 1.30 . 2 cor. 5.21 . 14 rom. 10.2 cor. 5.10 . 8 isai. 13 , 14. 9 rom. 31 , 32 , 33. 28 isai. 16. 1 pet. 2.4 , 5 , 6. page 56. 12 zech. 10. 19 john 37. page 65. 28 matth. 19. page ●7 . 1 cor. 10.1 , 2. 19 acts 3. 6 rom. 3.3 gal. 27. 6 rom. 3 , 4. 19 acts 4. 1 john 1 , 2. page 80. page 82. page 88. 1 john 1. 2 col. 3. 17. 1 kings 8 , 27. 2 john 19.21 . 1 john 14. page 87. 12 matth. 6. 3 mal. 1. 3 matth. 3. 13 rev. 8. hebr. 8. & 10. ch . 10 hebr. 4. 3 john 16. 2 cor. 8.9 . 5.14 . 2 phil. 5.6 , 7 , 8. page 124. page 128. 4 acts 28. page 108. page 11.1 2 john 25. ● page 90. 2 rom. 16. 1 cor. 4.5 . page 119. 2 rev. 23. page 154. 1 rev. 1. 5 rev. 6. page 156. page 110 , 111. 18 matth. 20.28.20 . page 76. 14 john 14. page 98. 4 hebr. 15 , 16. page 145. 9 matth. 6. page 74. 24 luke 47. 15 john. 17 luke 5. page 80. 2 cor. 12. 8 , 9. page 124. 1 thess. 3 11 , 12. page 136. page 89. page 93. page 140. 5 john 23. page 92. creed . quae molitio , quae ferramenta , qui vectes , quae machinae , qui ministri , tanti muneris suerunt ? de nat. deor. l. 1. supra p. 130 creed . supra page 134 , 135. creed . creed . notes . answ. creed . notes . vide supra p. 76 , 80. 1 john 14. 24 matth. 36. 8 luke 43 , 46.